UNIVERSIDAD DE CASTILLA-LA MANCHA

Facultad de Letras

SOCIAL NETWORKS AND MIXED-LANGUAGE BUSINESS WRITING: LATIN/FRENCH/ENGLISH IN THE WARDENS’ ACCOUNTS OF THE MERCERS’ COMPANY OF LONDON, 1390-1464

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of International Philosophiæ Doctor to the Departamento de Filología Moderna

AUTHOR: José Miguel Alcolado Carnicero

SUPERVISOR: Dr Javier Enrique Díaz Vera

Ciudad Real, 2013

Item, ressu pur le readyng de la thesis en cest bok

i

Declaration

I hereby declare that this PhD dissertation is my own work and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously submitted by another person, except where due acknowledgement has been made in the text.

José Miguel Alcolado Carnicero

iii

Acknowledgements

This research has been co-funded by the European Social Fund and the Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha within the Regional Operational Programme ESF CLM 2007-13. I gratefully acknowledge (even more in these times of tribulation) both the European Commission and the now defunct Viceconsejería de Ciencia y Tecnología for their economic support through the following fellowships and grants: Ayuda para la Formación de Personal Investigador (no. 08/002; 2008-11), Ayudas para la financiación de los precios públicos de los estudios de Doctorado (2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11), and Ayudas complementarias “José Castillejo” para estancias de investigación en centros extranjeros (2009 and 2010).

I am also extremely thankful to all those people who have contributed to this PhD dissertation coming true. First and foremost, I am deeply indebted to my loose-knit network of academic supporters. In particular, I am very grateful to Dr Javier Díaz Vera (Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha), my supervisor and actual adopter of the research topic, for helping me in everything one can imagine: from acting almost like a psychologist when, let us say, things were not working to carrying out much more menial tasks like, for instance, reading fuzzy drafts and correcting spelling mistakes. I owe a debt of gratitude to Dr Laura Wright (University of Cambridge), the researcher pioneering the linguistic approach to mixed-language business writing, i.e. the innovator, for always showing me her enthusiastic interest, giving me wise counsel, and expressing warm words of encouragement in our recurrent discussions on my work. I also wish to thank Prof. Matthew Davies (Centre for Metropolitan History) for being the host researcher during my three-month stay (June to August 2010) as a Visiting Fellow in the Institute of Historical Research (University of London); his valuable comments also threw light on some hitherto doubtful issues in my research. Weakly linked colleagues I have met in the different international conferences attended and who have encouraged me to continue with my research deserve to be mentioned. I must recall here the kind words addressed to my work by Dr Fiona MacArthur Purdon (Universidad de Extremadura), Dr iv

Terttu Nevalainen (Helsingin yliopisto), Prof. Penelope Gardner-Chloros (Birkbeck College), and Dr Carita Paradis (Lunds universitet). My research has also been aided by the help given by Prof. Jonathan Hope (University of Strathclyde) and Dr Linda Clark (History of Parliament Trust), who kindly lent me some of their works, and by the advice offered by Prof. David Trotter (Prifysgol Aberystwyth/Aberystwyth University) and Dr Anne Sutton (former archivist and historian to the Mercers’ Company) for answering emails sent at unearthly hours. I wish to acknowledge my debt to the members of my MPhil dissertation jury as well. Of these, I must especially thank Dr Rosario Caballero Rodríguez (Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha); fortunately, she made me see (in all her frankness) that I had not made the right decisions and that radical changes were needed. In my case, today’s success is definitely the result of yesterday’s defeats.

I would not have come this far without the love and understanding shown by my close-knit network of emotional supporters. On this occasion, my first words should be to thank my family (on Earth and in Heaven) and my “in-laws”, for whom la bendita tesis had almost become a personal matter. Gracias de corazón. I address a special thought to my sister Ana Isabel, to my mother Isabel and, in particular, to my father José, who is engaged in a much more important project: the fight for his own life. Next, I express my deep appreciation to my friends, who have never complained (at least, face to face) about my last-minute cancellations and cloistered retreats during weekends. Last but not least at all, I give my heart-felt gratitude to my girlfriend. Isabelle, I thank you for being a shoulder to cry on and am sorry for often venting frustration on you. Je te dois tout.

Finally, I appreciate the work carried out by people who are peripheral to this research but without whom I could never have reached the target: the staff in the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha and in the Institute of Historical Research, and also my endocrinologists.

Needless to say, all shortcomings in this research are entirely my fault.

vii

Abstract

Language mixing between Latin, French, and English has been acknowledged to be a widespread phenomenon in a variety of texts composed in Britain during the late medieval period. Until very recently, however, mixed-language manuscripts have not received enough attention from academic research mainly due to its contempt for the “linguistic impurity” of the texts. This PhD dissertation presents one of the first pieces of historical sociolinguistic research into both the orderly combination of Latin, French, and English and the process of language shift from Latin and French to English in the financial accounts of the premier London livery company: the Mercers’ Company. More specifically, the primary objective of this study is to apply the social network theory, as promulgated by the Milroys (L. Milroy 1980/87; J. Milroy and L. Milroy 1985; L. Milroy and J. Milroy 1992), to the group of mercers responsible for keeping the multilingual wardens’ accounts from 1390- 91 to 1463-64. This thesis statement can be divided into two main research questions:

(i) How do Latin, French, and English coexist in the mercantile records of the Mercers of London during the late medieval period?

(ii) To what extent do the ego-centric and socio-centric networks of which the mercer-informant is part contribute to his mixing practices and to the re-emergence of English as the language sanctioned for business writing?

Dependent on the latter, there is a third research question:

(iii) Who are the authors of the mixed-language manuscripts under study?

In view of the need to “individuate” data in social network research expressed by Bergs (2006), authorship for the whole Mercers’ Wardens’ Accounts is proposed insofar as yearly accounts are kept jointly by four wardens viii

and, as a result, doubts about their precise shares arise. I draw upon textual evidence available in the business accounts and especially upon Hope’s (1994) socio-historical linguistic evidence in order to ascribe linguistic data to single account-keepers. Means of action in the main data analysis is conditioned by the goal of attributing a clear-cut authorship to the texts. Both kinds of evidence turn out to be very useful in this task. Results from the simultaneous authorship attribution and the empirical analysis of mixed-language variants in the Mercers’ Wardens’ Accounts provide interesting insights on the two main research questions:

(i) There is a close link between the process of Anglicisation in the Mercers’ Wardens’ Accounts, on the one hand, and the way Latin, French, and English are mixed during this process. Code switching is part of the process and constitutes an intermediate stage towards the eventual establishment of English as the official language of business record-keeping.

(ii) Master-apprentice ego-centric ties prove to be decisive in the use and/or the transmission of variants from successive mixed- language stages. Also in correlation with the independent variable of generation, socio-centric networks are able to explain why mercer-wardens tend to approximate more closely (or not) to the written norm.

xi

Table of Contents

Declaration ...... i Acknowledgements ...... iii Abstract ...... vii List of Tables, Figures, and Maps ...... xvii List of Abbreviations ...... xxi

GENERAL INTRODUCTION I.1. RESEARCH RATIONALE ...... 3 I.1.1. MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY . . . . 3 I.1.2. NEED FOR THE RESEARCH . . . . 6 I.2. THE CORPUS ...... 12 I.2.1. LINGUISTIC DATA AND THEIR SOURCES . . 12 I.2.2. SOCIAL DATA AND THEIR SOURCES . . . 13 I.3. AIMS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS . . . . 15 I.4. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER CONTENT . . . . 17

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK II.1. SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS . . . . . 23 II.1.1. AN INTERDISCIPLINARY DEVELOPMENT . . 23 II.1.2. SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPLICATIONS OF NETWORK ANALYSIS ...... 25 II.1.2.1. Labov: The socialisation and stratification of linguistic usages ...... 26 II.1.2.1.1. Labov in Martha’s Vineyard . . . 27 II.1.2.1.2. Labov in New York City . . . . 29 II.1.2.1.3. Labov and his conception of (socio)linguistics . 31 II.1.2.2. The Milroys: The networking of linguistic usages . 36 II.1.2.2.1. The Milroys in Belfast . . . . 38 II.1.2.2.2. The Milroys and the weakness of bonds . . 42 II.1.2.2.3. The Milroys and the integration of social models 46 II.1.3. RECONSTRUCTING SOCIAL NETWORKS . . 49 II.1.3.1. The Neogrammarian heritage: Both neglect and inspiration ...... 49 II.1.3.2. Historical sociolinguistics . . . . 55 II.1.3.2.1. The limitations of historical inquiry . . 58 II.1.3.2.1.1. Back-projection . . . . 58 II.1.3.2.1.2. Impoverished data . . . . 59 II.1.3.2.1.3. Register consciousness . . . 61 II.1.3.3. Social networks in the past . . . . 62 II.2. MIXED-LANGUAGE WRITING . . . . . 67 II.2.1. CONCEPTUAL SHAPING AND DELIMITATION . 67 II.2.1.1. Code switching ...... 67 xii

II.2.1.1.1. Types of code switching . . . . 69 II.2.1.1.2. Code switching or loanword: Quite a dilemma . 71 II.2.1.2. Language choice ...... 74 II.2.1.2.1. Language choice as an individualistic phenomenon 74 II.2.1.2.2. Language choice as a societal phenomenon . 76 II.2.1.2.2.1. Diglossia and domains . . . 76 II.2.1.2.3. Language choice and its interaction with both dimensions ...... 78 II.2.1.3. Language maintenance and language shift . . 81 II.2.2. SIMILARITY AND INTERDEPENDENCE . . 83 II.2.2.1. Common origin ...... 83 II.2.2.2. Negative attitudes . . . . . 85 II.2.2.2.1. Early code switching . . . . 87 II.2.2.2.1.1. Approaches to early code switching . 87 II.2.2.2.1.2. Advantages and limitations . . . 89 II.2.2.3. Code switching and language shift: Theoretical bonds 93 II.2.2.3.1. Myers-Scotton and her matrix language frame turnover hypothesis ...... 94 II.2.2.4. Language choice: The integration of bilingual dimensions ...... 97 II.2.3. SOCIAL NETWORK APPROACHES TO MIXED-LANGUAGE ENVIRONMENTS ...... 99 II.2.3.1. Gumperz in Austrian Carinthia . . . 100 II.2.3.2. Gal: The quantification of bilingual social networks 101 II.2.3.3. L. Milroy and co-workers: The network concept and bilingualism ...... 103

SOCIOLINGUISTIC BACKGROUND III.1. LANGUAGES IN LATE MEDIEVAL LONDON . . 111 III.1.1. MONOLINGUAL APPROACH: LANGUAGES IN ISOLATION ...... 111 III.1.1.1. Anglo-French: The verai franceis of England . 111 III.1.1.1.1. Its nature . . . . . 112 III.1.1.1.2. Its status and penetration . . . 113 III.1.1.1.3. A domain-based study of multilingual England: The process of Anglicisation . . . . . 117 III.1.1.1.3.1. Law ...... 117 III.1.1.1.3.2. Education . . . . . 119 III.1.1.1.3.3. Government and administration . . 120 III.1.1.1.4. Middle English and Standard English . . 122 III.1.1.1.4.1. London English . . . . 123 III.1.1.1.4.2. Chancery norm . . . . 124 III.1.1.1.4.3. Multiple ancestry . . . . 126 III.1.2. MULTILINGUAL APPROACH: LANGUAGES IN CONTACT 127 III.1.2.1. Cross-linguistic influence . . . . 127 III.1.2.1.1. British Latin . . . . . 128 III.1.2.1.2. Anglo-French and Middle English contact . 129 III.1.2.2. Code switching ...... 132 III.1.2.2.1. Business writing . . . . . 133 xiii

III.2. THE MERCERS’ COMPANY OF LONDON . . . 140 III.2.1. ORIGINS, EVOLUTION, AND CONSOLIDATION . 140 III.2.1.1. The three stages in the development of the Mercers’ Company ...... 141 III.2.1.2. The hierarchisation of the membership . . 144 III.2.2. THE MERCERS’ COMPANY AND THE CITY OF LONDON 149 III.2.2.1. The Mercers’ Company and the power relationships 152 III.2.3. THE MERCERS’ COMPANY OVERSEAS . . 158 III.2.3.1. The Merchant Adventurers’ Company . . 160 III.2.4. THE MERCERS’ COMPANY AND THE WRITTEN SPHERE 164 III.2.4.1. Clerical staff in the Mercers’ Company . . 168 III.2.4.1.1. The beadle and the clerk . . . . 168 III.2.4.1.2. The third warden . . . . . 169 III.2.4.1.3. Scribes and scriveners . . . . 170 III.2.4.2. The records of the Mercers’ Company . . 172 III.2.4.2.1. The Mercers’ Company and multilingualism . 176

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IV.1. STEPS IN THE RESEARCH PROCESS . . . . 183 IV.1.1. THE CHOICE OF THE TEXTS . . . . 183 IV.1.1.1. Corpus of analysis . . . . . 185 IV.1.2. THE COLLECTION OF THE DATA . . . 190 IV.1.3. THE HANDLING OF THE DATA . . . . 195 IV.1.3.1. A socio-centric network strength scale for the Mercers’ Company of London ...... 195 IV.1.3.2. The ego-centric networks of the mercer-wardens . 201 IV.1.3.3. Socio-historical linguistic evidence . . . 204 IV.1.3.4. Generation ...... 207 IV.1.3.5. Linguistic variables and variants and diachronic stages 208

DATA ANALYSIS V.1. MIXED-LANGUAGE WRITING IN THE MERCERS’ WARDENS’ ACCOUNTS ...... 217 V.1.1. FROM LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE TO LANGUAGE SHIFT VIA CODE SWITCHING ...... 217 V.1.2. VARIABLES AND VARIANTS . . . . 220 V.1.2.1. Absence-of-mixing stage . . . . 220 V.1.2.1.1. Variation across time . . . . 222 V.1.2.2. Code switching stage . . . . . 223 V.1.2.2.1. Youthful + mature sub-stage . . . 223 V.1.2.2.1.1. Single noun . . . . . 224 V.1.2.2.1.1.1. Variation across time . . . 228 V.1.2.2.1.2. Verbal noun . . . . . 229 V.1.2.2.1.2.1. Distribution across time . . . 232 V.1.2.2.1.3. Adverb ...... 233 V.1.2.2.1.4. Adjective . . . . . 234 V.1.2.2.1.5. Adjective + noun/noun + adjective . . 235 V.1.2.2.1.5.1. Distribution across time . . . 238 V.1.2.2.1.6. Noun adjunct + noun . . . . 239 xiv

V.1.2.2.1.6.1. Distribution across time . . . 241 V.1.2.2.2. Moribund sub-stage . . . . 241 V.1.2.2.2.1. Lexical verb . . . . . 242 V.1.2.2.2.1.1. Distribution across time . . . 244 V.1.2.2.2.2. Noun in genitive + noun . . . 246 V.1.2.2.2.2.1. Distribution across time . . 246 V.1.2.2.2.3. Determiner + noun . . . . 247 V.1.2.2.2.4. Prepositional sequence . . . 248 V.1.2.2.2.4.1. Distribution across time . . 251 V.1.2.2.2.5. Long combination of constituents . . 251 V.1.2.2.2.5.1. Distribution across time . . 253 V.1.2.2.3. Before shift sub-stage . . . . 255 V.1.2.2.3.1. Distribution across time . . . 258 V.1.2.3. Language shift stage . . . . . 260 V.1.2.3.1. Variation across time . . . . 261 V.2. MERCER-WARDENS’ SOCIAL INFORMATION AND LINGUISTIC USAGES ...... 263 V.2.1. THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSHIP . . . 263 V.2.2. LINGUISTIC INNOVATORS AND EARLY ADOPTERS . 265 V.2.2.1. Ego-centric networks . . . . . 266 V.2.2.1.1. William Sheringham . . . . 266 V.2.2.1.2. John Whatley and William Cantelowe . . 268 V.2.2.1.3. John Coventry and Hugh Wiche . . . 269 V.2.2.2. Generation ...... 271 V.2.2.3. Socio-centric networks . . . . . 274 V.2.2.3.1. Thomas Fauconer . . . . . 276 V.2.2.3.2. William Estfeld . . . . . 277 V.2.3. SECOND INNOVATORS AND OTHER ADOPTERS . 279 V.2.3.1. Richard Whittington and William Cavendish . 279 V.2.3.2. Thomas Aleyn ...... 281 V.2.3.3. John Shadworth ...... 281 V.2.3.4. Robert Domenyk and Thomas Sedgeford . . 283 V.2.4. THE CASE OF THE AUTOGRAPHERS . . . 284 V.2.4.1. Thomas Onehand . . . . . 284 V.2.4.2. Hugh Wiche and Thomas Dunton . . . 286 V.2.4.3. John Goodson ...... 288 V.2.5. THE INCORPORATION OF TEXTUAL EVIDENCE . 288 V.2.6. A SUGGESTION OF AUTHORSHIP . . . 293 V.2.6.1. Step 1 ...... 294 V.2.6.2. Step 2 ...... 298 V.2.6.2.1. Linguistic variation in the individual mercer-warden: Social networks and language mixing – Take 1 . . . 300 V.2.6.2.1.1. Socio-centric networks . . . 300 V.2.6.2.1.2. Generation and ego-centric networks . 303 V.2.6.3. Step 3 ...... 325 V.2.6.3.1. Fiscal year 1400-01 . . . . . 326 V.2.6.3.2. Fiscal year 1406-07 . . . . 327 V.2.6.3.3. Fiscal year 1413-14 . . . . . 328 V.2.6.3.4. Fiscal year 1414-15 . . . . . 330 V.2.6.3.5. Fiscal years 1415-16 and 1417-18 . . . 331 xv

V.2.6.3.6. Fiscal year 1419-20 . . . . . 333 V.2.6.3.7. Fiscal years 1421-22 and 1422-23 . . 334 V.2.6.3.8. Fiscal year 1423-24 . . . . 338 V.2.6.3.9. 1424-25 and other fiscal years . . . 340 V.2.6.3.10. Fiscal year 1426-27 . . . . 345 V.2.6.3.11. Fiscal year 1427-28 . . . . 346 V.2.6.3.12. Fiscal year 1429-30 . . . . 348 V.2.6.3.13. Fiscal years 1433-34 and 1434-35 . . 349 V.2.6.3.14. Fiscal years 1435-36 and 1436-37 . . 351 V.2.6.3.15. Fiscal years p. 1441-42 and 1442-43 . . 353 V.2.6.3.16. Fiscal years with language shift . . . 363 V.2.6.3.16.1. Renter Wardens’ Accounts: A possible influence? ...... 365 V.2.6.3.17. Linguistic variation in the individual mercer-warden: Social networks and language mixing – Take 2 . . 369

FINAL CONCLUSIONS VI.1. REVISITING AIMS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS . . 379 VI.1.1. HOW DO LATIN, FRENCH, AND ENGLISH COEXIST IN THE MERCANTILE RECORDS OF THE MERCERS OF LONDON DURING THE LATE MEDIEVAL PERIOD? . . . . . 379 VI.1.1.1. Main findings ...... 379 VI.1.1.2. Relevant implications . . . . . 382 VI.1.2. TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE EGO-CENTRIC AND SOCIO- CENTRIC NETWORKS OF WHICH THE MERCER-INFORMANT IS PART CONTRIBUTE TO HIS MIXING PRACTICES AND TO THE RE- EMERGENCE OF ENGLISH AS THE LANGUAGE SANCTIONED FOR BUSINESS WRITING? ...... 383 VI.1.2.1. Main findings ...... 384 VI.1.2.2. Relevant implications . . . . . 388 VI.1.3. WHO ARE THE AUTHORS OF THE MIXED-LANGUAGE MANUSCRIPTS UNDER STUDY? . . . . . 390 VI.1.3.1. Main findings ...... 390 VI.1.3.2. Relevant implications . . . . . 392 VI.2. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . 394

Supplementary Appendices ...... 399 1. Mercer-wardens classified by generation . . . . 399 2. List of mercers in office of wardenship from 1390-91 to 1463-64 401 3. Mercer-wardens’ socio-centric network strength scale scores . 405 4. Complete list of mixed-language variants . . . . 411 Cited Bibliography ...... 433

xvii

List of Tables, Figures, and Maps

Tables 2.1. Proposed NSS for the study of eighteenth-century English . 64 2.2. Relationships between diglossia and bilingualism . . 79 2.3. First attestations of bagpipe in medieval dictionaries . . 91 2.4. A. Thomas’s (1982) and Myers-Scotton’s (1998) views of stages in LS 93

3.1. Distribution of the languages in contact in medieval Britain . 115 3.2. Linguistic evolution of the languages in contact in medieval Britain 115 3.3. Mixed text types and types of CS . . . . . 133 3.4. List of scribes of the MWA ...... 171

4.1. Types of records and periods covered in the Grocers’ and the Brewers’ archives ...... 183 4.2. Structure overview of sections and sub-sections in the MWA . 186 4.3. Tentative network checklist for late medieval England . . 196 4.4. NSS for the wardens and account-keepers of the MC . . 197

5.1. Ranking of variants from the CS stage . . . . 219 5.2. Number of intrasentential variants by size in the MWA . . 254 5.3. Fiscal years with more MO + BS variants than Y+MA variants . 259 5.4. Fiscal years and authors of the autographed entries in the MWA 263 5.5. Wardens in office and earliest mixed category for each (sub-)stage 265 5.6. Ranking of generations by wardenships and of stages by mixes . 272 5.7. Wardens in office and mixes in 1423-24 . . . . 273 5.8. Socio-centric NSS scores for innovators and early adopters . 274 5.9. Socio-centric NSS scores for L. Andrew and Hamme . . 275 5.10. Wardens in office and BS variants . . . . . 278 5.11. Wardens and mixes in some fiscal years during the 1390s . 278 5.12. Mixed variants with Large in office . . . . . 287 5.13. Renter-wardens from Christmas 1442 to 1463-64 . . 289 5.14. Wardens in office p. 1441-42 . . . . . 292 5.15. Wardens in some fiscal years before the ranking system . 292 5.16. Wardenships and sections and sub-sections in the MWA . 293 5.17. Assignment of mixed variants for 1403-04 . . . 294 5.18. First assignment of mixed variants for innovators and early adopters ...... 295 5.19. Wardens in office when AM prevails . . . . 296 5.20. Wardens only in office with SE as matrix language . . 297 5.21. Mixing practices for wardens only in office p. 1455-56 . . 297 5.22. Mixing practices of the firstly identified 63 mercer-informants 298 5.23. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores of the firstly identified 63 mercer-informants ...... 300 5.24. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation I (1) ...... 304 5.25. First-generation wardens’ contact with mixed variants before serving office ...... 305 5.26. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation II (1) xviii

...... 312 5.27. Second-generation wardens’ contact with mixed variants before serving office ...... 313 5.28. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation III (1) ...... 317 5.29. Third-generation wardens’ contact with mixed variants before sering office ...... 317 5.30. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation IV (1) ...... 318 5.31. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation V ...... 319 5.32. Scrayningham’s mixing practices and NSS score . . . 322 5.33. Fourth-generation wardens’ contact with mixed variants before serving office ...... 324 5.34. Fifth-generation wardens’ contact with mixed variants before serving office ...... 324 5.35. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1400-01 . . . 326 5.36. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1406-07 . . 327 5.37. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1413-14 . . . 329 5.38. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1414-15 . . . 330 5.39. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1415-16 . . . 331 5.40. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1417-18 . . . 332 5.41. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1419-20 . . . 334 5.42. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1421-22 . . . 335 5.43. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1422-23 . . . 337 5.44. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1423-24 . . . 338 5.45. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1424-25 . . . 340 5.46. Assignment of mixed variants for 1425-26 . . . 341 5.47. Assignment of mixed variants for 1428-29 . . . 342 5.48. Assignment of mixed variants for 1430-31 . . . 342 5.49. Assignment of mixed variants for 1431-32 . . . 343 5.50. Assignment of mixed variants for 1432-33 . . . 343 5.51. Assignment of mixed variants for 1437-38 . . . 343 5.52. Assignment of mixed variants for 1439-40 . . . 344 5.53. Assignment of mixed variants for 1440-41 . . . 344 5.54. Assignment of mixed variants for 1426-27 . . . 345 5.55. Cavendish’s mixing practices . . . . . 345 5.56. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1427-28 . . . 346 5.57. (1427-28) mercer-wardens’ contact with mixed variants before serving office ...... 346 5.58. Assignment of mixed variants for 1429-30 . . . 348 5.59. Assignment of mixed variants for 1433-34 . . . 349 5.60. Assignment of mixed variants for 1434-35 . . . 350 5.61. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1435-36 . . . 351 5.62. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1436-37 . . . 351 5.63. Mercer-wardens before becoming renter-wardens . . 353 5.64. Renter-wardens before becoming mercer-wardens . . 354 5.65. Rental years and auditors of the RWA . . . . 355 5.66. Assignment of mixed variants for 1441-42 . . . 356 5.67. Assignment of mixed variants for 1442-43 . . . 357 5.68. Assignment of mixed variants for 1443-44 . . . 358 xix

5.69. Assignment of mixed variants for 1444-45 . . . 358 5.70. Assignment of mixed variants for 1445-46 . . . 358 5.71. Assignment of mixed variants for 1446-47 . . . 359 5.72. Assignment of mixed variants for 1447-48 . . . 360 5.73. Assignment of mixed variants for 1448-49 . . . 361 5.74. Assignment of mixed variants for 1452-53 . . . 362 5.75. Assignment of mixed variants for 1453-54 . . . 362 5.76. Assignment of mixed variants for 1454-55 . . . 362 5.77. Assignment of mixed variants for 1455-56 . . . 363 5.78. Assignment of mixed variants for 1456-57 . . . 363 5.79. Assignment of mixed variants for 1457-58 . . . 363 5.80. Wardens in office when LS occurs . . . . . 364 5.81. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation I (2) ...... 369 5.82. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation II (2) ...... 370 5.83. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation III (2) ...... 371 5.84. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation IV (2) ...... 373 5.85. Mercer-wardens by generation and NSS score . . . 374

6.1. View of mixed-language stages in LS in the MWA . . . 380 6.2. Mercer-wardens’ sociolinguistic profiles by generation . . 380 6.3. Switchers’ preferences for CS sub-stages by generation . . 381 6.4. Ranking of guilds by their year of total LS and their evolution in the Orders of Precedence ...... 395

Figures 2.1. Model of transition from speaker innovation to linguistic change 54 2.2. Decision-making process of the bilingual speaker in LC and CS 98

4.1. Innovation type and change in networks . . . . 206 4.2. Distribution of English, French, and Latin texts in official documents 207

5.1. Fiscal years with AM, CS, and LS . . . . . 217 5.2. Y+MA, MO, and BS sub-stages only in fiscal years with CS . 218 5.3. Decision-making process of the multilingual account-keeper . 221 5.4. Fiscal years with AM ...... 222 5.5. Single nouns in fiscal years with presence of mixing . . 228 5.6. Verbal nouns and single nouns in the MWA . . . 232 5.7. Adj+N/N+Adj variants in the MWA . . . . . 238 5.8. N Adj+N variants in the MWA . . . . . 241 5.9. Lexical verbs in the MWA ...... 245 5.10. Lexical verbs and verbal nouns in the MWA during the 1440s . 245 5.11. N in Gen+N variants in the MWA . . . . . 247 5.12. Prepositional sequences in the MWA . . . . 251 5.13. Long combinations of constituents in the MWA . . . 253 5.14. BS variants in the MWA ...... 258 5.15. Fiscal years with CS and LS from 1448-49 to 1463-64 . . 261 xx

5.16. Sheringham’s overall and entire ego-centric network . . 267 5.17. Whatley’s overall ego-centric network . . . . 268 5.18. Cantelowe’s overall ego-centric network . . . . 269 5.19. J. Coventry’s overall ego-centric network . . . . 270 5.20. Wiche’s overall ego-centric network . . . . 271 5.21. Fauconer’s ego-centric network p. 1423 . . . . 277 5.22. Estfeld’s ego-centric network p. 1423 . . . . 277 5.23. Whittington’s overall ego-centric network . . . 280 5.24. T. Aleyn’s overall ego-centric network . . . . 281 5.25. Shadworth-Domenyk network of masters and apprentices . 282 5.26. Domenyk’s overall and entire ego-centric network . . 283 5.27. R. Middleton’s network of masters and apprentices . . 283 5.28. Onehand’s overall ego-centric network . . . . 285 5.29. Lambert’s overall ego-centric network . . . . 286 5.30. Dunton’s overall ego-centric network . . . . 286 5.31. Dunton’s network of masters and apprentices . . . 287 5.32. Lovelace’s network of masters and apprentices . . . 352

Maps 3.1. The Mercery area from the twelfth to the fifteenth century . 150 3.2. Main trading areas of English merchants in the Low Countries and Northern France ...... 159

xxi

List of Abbreviations

Adj+N/ adjective + noun/ AF Anglo-French N+Adj noun + adjective AM absence of mixing AND Anglo-Norman Dictionary BL British Latin BS before shift Corpus of Early English CEEC CF Continental French Correspondence Calendar of the Plea and CPMR Memoranda Rolls of the CS code switching 1381-1412 City of London, 1381-1412 Dictionary of Medieval Det+N determiner + noun DMLBS Latin from British Sources Helsinki Corpus of English eModE early Modern English HCET Texts Linguistic Atlas of Late LALME LC language choice Medieval English LM language maintenance lModE late Modern English Merchant Adventurers’ LS language shift MAC Company Worshipful Company of MC ME Middle English Mercers of London MED Middle English Dictionary MO moribund Mercers’ Wardens’ MWA N Adj+N noun adjunct + noun Accounts N in noun in genitive + noun NSS network strength scale Gen+N OE Old English OED Oxford English Dictionary ON Old Norse PDE present-day English RWA Renter Wardens’ Accounts SE Standard English socio-historical linguistic SHLE SN social network(s) evidence Y+MA youthful + mature

Chapter I GENERAL INTRODUCTION

3

I.1. RESEARCH RATIONALE

Let me begin this PhD dissertation with a brief exposition of the main reasons that have led me to choose the sociolinguistic study of language mixing in the business accounts of the Worshipful Company of Mercers of London (MC) during the late Middle Ages as the research topic and not any other. In addition, the corpus under study is presented, the research goals to be attained are set, and the research questions to be answered are posed. Finally, the content of each chapter is summarised.

I.1.1. MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY

A few days after embarking on this arduous research, I read the following paragraph in one of the first articles I skimmed:

There is about a fifty year gap between the time when the London Pepperers chose English as a medium for their transactions in 1365 and the time when the London Brewers followed the example set by the King and officially proclaimed the adoption of English in 1422 (Heikkonen 1996: 113).

One aspect was of particular interest to me. I had always been persuaded of the impossibility of giving a precise date to linguistic changes. During my years as a university student, I had perused a number of linguistic works whose authors share this same view in defining the boundary marks of linguistic periods (Carvalho 2003: 61; Robinson 2004: 92), when two related languages begin to develop independently (Coseriu 1963/77: 184), or when a change in the linguistic norms of a speech community becomes conventional (Ali 1931/64: 8; W. Davis 2003: 279). However, the exact dating of those two linguistic changes (1365 for the Pepperers and 1422 for the Brewers) made me ponder to what extent the chronology and, by extension, other aspects composing the process leading to language shift (LS) differ from the rest of linguistic phenomena. I then decided to examine the specific characteristics of the LS in both London guilds (or livery companies):1 the Worshipful Company of Grocers and

1 Both terms (“guild” and “livery company”) have been used interchangeably throughout this dissertation. 4

the Worshipful Company of Brewers.2 In order to do so, I took a first look at their manuscripts. The outcome was something unexpected. Concerning the London Grocers, there is actually no record dated 1365 in their manuscripts; the closest extract completely written in English is found in their Wardens’ Accounts at the bottom of a folio (f. 1r) dated 1345. Here it is:

Alle these xxii personis before wretyn, were foundoures of owre fraternitie, and the same day beforn wretyn, they were acorded to be to gydre at a dener in the Abbotts place of Bvry, the xii day of June, in the lle e yere of owre Lord Jhesu m ccc xlv , and in the xix yere of Kyng Edward the Thredde, as it apperyth behynde in this same booke on the iiii leff. And at the sayd dener were chosyn ii the first wardeynes that euer were of owre fraternyte whoys names folwe wretyn, Roger Osekyn and Lavrence de Halywelle. And at ye sayd dener was chosyn a prest to synge for hem, and euery brothir to paye i d. a weke and the prest to haue euery weke xvi d. for his labor.

In his annotated translation of the Grocers’ Wardens’ Accounts, Kingdon (1886: 1 fn. 1) further explains that this text seems to have been re-copied by another scribe in a later period:

The footnote to this page is of much later date than the text of the page itself. The wording and character of the writing seem to be identical with that of the year 1443 [...]. The writer was ignorant of the facts he treats of: for Geffrey de Haliwelle was not enrolled till 1346, after his death in 1336 [...], and therefore did not dine with the rest in 1345.3

Nurmi and Pahta (2004: 449 fn. 6) do account for the actual date but, perhaps inadvertently, make believe that the quantity and quality of documents involved in the shift to English is higher than it actually is:

English was apparently the official spoken language in the courts of law from 1362, when the Statute of Pleading decreed that lawsuits should be in English. [...] In the same year parliament was opened in English, but the first English entries in the Rotuli Parliamentorum date from the late 1380s. The first known English will dates from 1383. English was used beside French in the ordinances of the London Guild of Pepperers in 1345 and, for example, the Guild of Brewers decreed English as their language of record in 1422 (original italics).

2 The Ancient Guild of Pepperers, first recorded in 1180, is actually the forerunner of the Grocers’ Company. On the 9th of May 1345, 22 members of the former found the fraternity of St Antonin, which in 1376 becomes the latter (Heath 1829: 43-6). 3 This is the reason why, differently to Heath (1829: 43-6), Nightingale (1995: 178) considers the number of founding members of the Grocers’ Company to be 21 instead of 22. 5

Nevertheless, further insights into the sociolinguistic realm have, even recently, been developed taking misleading data for granted; here is an example:

One example is the adoption in 1365 of English as their official language by the London Pepperers; these people led a change which was only followed fifty years later by the Brewers after the example of the king. In social network terms, the Pepperers are the linguistic innovators in this particular linguistic development, introducing an innovation into their community (at its broadest: that of the London guilds) which eventually spreads (adoption by the Brewers) after it has gained in status (the example of the king). The Brewers may have formed a more closed network than the Pepperers, thus successfully resisting change for another half century or so (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2000a: 212).

As for the London Brewers, it is absolutely true that there exists a proclamation of the adoption of English as the official language of record in their Masters’ Accounts kept in 1422 (f. 69v). Curiously enough, the Brewers announce this LS in an extract with Latin as the language of communication, whereof the following is a translation into English taken from Herbert (1834-36: 106):

Whereas our mother tongue, to wit, the English tongue, hath in modern days began to honourably enlarged and adorned; for that our most excellent lord king Henry the Fifth hath, in his letters missive, and divers affairs touching his own person, more willingly chosen to declare the secrets of his will; and for the better understanding of his people, hath, with a diligent mind, procured the common idiom (setting aside others) to be commended by the exercise of writing; and there are many of our craft of brewers who have the knowledge of writing and reading in the said English idiom, but in others, to wit, the Latin and French, before these times used, they do not in anywise understand; for which causes, with many others, it being considered how that the greater part of the lords and trusty commons have begun to make their matters to be noted down in our mother tongue, so we also in our craft, following in some manner their steps, have decreed in future to commit to memory the needful things which concern us, as appeareth in the following.

Nonetheless, this announcement does not mean a straightforward or total shift to English. As I have proved elsewhere (Alcolado Carnicero 2009: 77), texts with either French or Latin as the main language reappear in the Brewers’ Masters’ Accounts p. 1422. In light of this scenario of confusion, I understood from the very start that an in-depth study of the business accounts of the late medieval London guilds was an absolute priority. 6

I.1.2. NEED FOR THE RESEARCH

There was undoubtedly an obvious need to establish the true characteristics of business writing in medieval Britain. Laura Wright’s pioneering research work had been extensively focusing on several distinctive features of this particular mixed-language text type during this specific multilingual historical period from a more prominent intralinguistic perspective: hyponymic/hyperonymic relationships between lexemes (L. Wright 1995a), abbreviations and suspension signs (L. Wright 1996b), syntactic rules of switch-points (L. Wright 1998b), and variability (L. Wright 2002). However, L. Wright had also repeatedly expressed an interest in knowing to what extent extralinguistic variables might have played a role in the evolution of mixed-language business writing towards the re-emergence of English as the main language of record:

[Mühlhäusler (1989)] introduced a metaphor for language change due to external economic reasons. His metaphor was the mushroom, and [...] was developed to explain recent change in the languages of the Pacific Basin, which are all affected by the same economic processes. However, it also works for the European phenomenon of medieval business writing, which was produced not only in Great Britain, but wherever merchants needed to bill each other. The “network of underground roots” is in this case the activity of mercantile trading (if mushrooms can be said to have roots), and the “mushrooms” are the functional variety of mercantile accounts and bills, in the various European countries (L. Wright 1998b: 99).

Is the change from the medieval mixed-language business style of writing to the emerging Standard English style related to the change in business patterns? [...] The language described [...] was used extensively in estate administration, but the extent to which merchants routinely used it has yet to be discerned. [...] There seems to have been an increase in the use of mixed-language business writing in the late fourteenth century. Is this to be associated with the redistribution of wealth and the new patterns of commerce and consumption? [...] As Anglo-Norman dropped out of use in other walks of life, did the Romance varieties come to take on a specialised (and increased) role in business writing? Can the evolution of Standard English be related to the commercial picture that had emerged by 1570? [...] The general questions raised here cannot be resolved without analysing the different functional varieties used by late medieval and early Early Modern working people, which begs further research (L. Wright 2001: 203-4).

Concepts such as multilingualism, exploitation of material common to more than one language and accommodation (both lexical and grammatical) were essential for successful business practice. I have tried to show that code-intermediate states, and the abandonment of the 7

mixed varieties for Standard English, are two separate issues. The code- intermediate phenomena discussed here as an essential component of mixed-language business texts were vital to its success, not the route to its abandonment. The ultimate predominance of Standard English was for socioeconomic reasons rather than linguistic ones (L. Wright 2002: 487).

Furthermore, an equal interest had been shown by other prominent researchers in early code switching (CS) and multilingual medieval Britain:

The constant negotiation of code-choice observed in bilingual speech may not apply to the same extent to written texts [of medieval England]; but a bilingual writer may equally choose between a monolingual and a mixed-language text, his choice having specific functions and being clearly influenced by [...] extralinguistic variables (Schendl 2002b: 54).

[B]usiness and trade communication in medieval England was a multilingual affair. And shipping and ship-building records, also a form of business record, are likewise multilingual. The question, then, is why; what this tells us about the language of shipping and ship-building; and what it can tell us, at another, more social or sociolinguistic level, about the nature of multilingualism in medieval England (Trotter 2003d: 16).4

My motivation for applying the theoretical insights of historical sociolinguistic research on early mixed-language manuscripts arose when I noticed the occurrence of vernacular English inextricably intertwined with Latin and French in livery companies’ manuscripts dealing with business transactions, especially the wardens’ and the masters’ accounts. L. Wright (1994b: 108-9) bears witness to this fact:

It has not been specified that certain text-types are more likely to include large amount of vernacular than others. And macaronic text-types written in Britain have not been linked to similar text-types written on the Continent (with the exception of the macaronic sermons). Nevertheless, business records are far more likely to contain numerous amounts of vernacular than other text-types, and this holds good for business records produced in Holland and Germany as well as throughout Britain. By and large, the general decline (or rather change) in Latin has been held sufficient reason to explain vernacular’s presence.

As a matter of fact, this high presence of the vernacular (i) enabled my sociolinguistic approach to mixed-language business records in medieval Britain insofar as, as Labov (1972a, 1972b) suggests, the vernacular offers the best data for a coherent account of the possible mechanisms of change and the structural

4 Trotter (2010) is a clear example of the valuable results of this line of inquiry and of the fact that this interest still continues. 8

characteristics present in a particular linguistic system, and (ii), to judge by the difficulty in gaining access to it expressed by L. Milroy and Gordon (2003), presented a unique opportunity to potentially provide further insights into sociolinguistic research in ancient multilingual speech communities. Also L. Wright (2001, 2005) proposes a popular independent variable in sociolinguistic research as a possible answer to the question of why the mixed British Latin (BL), Anglo-French (AF), and Middle English (ME) forms gave way to the new rising standardised variety of English (Standard English [SE]) as the official language of the business records during the fifteenth century: the social network (SN).5 Based on works relating linguistic changes in southern dialects of ME to migration and influence from the north (Ekwall 1956; Samuels 1963; Fisher 1977, 1979), she explores to what extent the extralinguistic context of the writers of these accounts, characterised by their interaction with traders in the City of London and traders in the English provinces, might have had an impact on the authors’ linguistic usages. In order to do so, L. Wright (2001) focuses on the results of the research project “Metropolitan Market Networks, c. 1300–c. 1600” (Galloway 1999, 2000; Keene 2000), which finds that the patterns of trade around England become increasingly and dramatically dependent on the City of London over the period covered and especially by the early fifteenth century. L. Wright (2005: 393-6) links this dominance of London market and, particularly, the absence of provincial intermediaries (chapmen) to, on the one hand, the direct filtration of elements of northern and eastern morphology and, on the other hand, the rapid spread of this supra-regional written standard dialect developing from London. To her,

trader (that is, speaker) links crossed nation and language-boundaries. Such trader-chains acted as language conduits, leading to my suggestion that Standard English is, in part, a side-effect of change in commerce (L. Wright 2005: 396).

I also decided to further analyse the possible impact of interactional aspects on the mixing habits of the individual account-keeper. However, I wanted to address it not from a mere qualitative perspective. I then turned my attention to the Milroys’ SN theory (L. Milroy 1980/87; J. Milroy and L. Milroy

5 L. Wright (2007) also employs the methodology of SN, but this time in order to account for sociolinguistic variation of speech sounds between London English dialect and rising SE in early modern London. 9

1985; L. Milroy and J. Milroy 1992). In their studies, SN is developed as a quantitative speaker variable and it is assumed that individuals are embedded in networks of personal ties. Basically, in their theory it is argued that when these ties are strong (i.e. members of the network know and relate to each other), they act as norm-enforcement mechanisms; on the contrary, when links are weak, external influences deviant from the norm begin to make their appearance. In more linguistic terms, stigmatised vernacular forms tend to persist in closed networks despite strong pressure coming from outside standardised forms; the latter do not occur in the language of the members of a network, unless networks have been opened up, i.e. members establishing ties outside the network (J. Milroy and L. Milroy 1997: 59-60). SN analysis emerged then as a coherent methodology for studying the interaction between patterns of linguistic maintenance and patterns of linguistic change. But not only was its applicability promising in contemporary communities; Tieken-Boon van Ostade et al. (2000) and de Bot and Stoessel (2002) had already devoted special academic journals to discussing the advantages of the network concept in the study of diachronism and linguistic change. Furthermore, and as seen above (p. 5), Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2000a: 212) even hinted at the possibility of network framework providing a meaningful explanation to the process of London guilds adopting English as their official language of record. In spite of that initial enthusiasm, most works concerned with the role of SN in older stages in the history of English have focused on periods from early modern Britain onwards (e.g. Bax 2000; Nevalainen 2000b; Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2000b).6 Two main factors may be behind this neglect of medieval England: (i) lack of social data, and (ii) despised multilingual data. First of all, Bergs (2000: 251) clearly describes the first problem as follows:

Social network analysis as it has been developed for present-day purposes needs careful revision and testing when it is applied to the history of English before 1500, to say the least. To carry out a social network analysis with the same precision and scrutiny as Milroy’s Belfast study, seems to me, at this stage, utopian. A social strength scale,

6 Perhaps, the only research aiming to explain linguistic usages via a fully fledged account of SN in fifteenth-century England is Bergs’s (2006) study of morphosyntactic variation in the Pastons’ letters (1421-1503). 10

prerequisite for any detailed micro-linguistic study, needs to be developed first, but social data and sociological theories for that period are still lacking.

And Schendl (2002b: 54) further adds that

[w]hile we have a certain amount of information about the overall bilingual situation of medieval England, we know far less about the relevant variables of particular communicative situations in which specific texts were produced and delivered. Similarly, we know little about their influence on code-choice and code-switching. The participants in discourse (writers and addressees) and their multiple relationships, the immediate sociocultural context in which they communicated, as well as the concrete setting of the communicative event, the topic, purpose, and function of specific texts, and their level of formality, are frequently not clear.

And second of all, the study of the linguistic scenario in medieval Britain has been widely dominated by a monolithic view of the period as consisting of several languages (Latin, French, and English) that were clearly separate and well bounded (L. Wright 2002: 486-7). But reality has proved to be quite different:

It is easier today to find macaronic documents from the late medieval period in Record Offices than it is to find monolingual texts, which is a statement to both the number that were written and their contemporary importance (L. Wright 1996b: 6).

This undeniable presence of mixed-language writing in even the most prestigious repositories of the country has recently had an effect upon the academic training of scholars with an interest in medieval Britain:

The present volume shows only too clearly that medievalists cannot be permitted simply not to bother with “difficult languages”, still less to remain monoglot. [...] [T]hose whose interest lies in language find that one language alone is not sufficient if they wish to examine a period and a society where one language was emphatically not enough (Trotter 2000a: 1 original italics).

But apart from the view of monoglotism, many medievalists had not yet been able to free themselves from the influence of the notions of linguistic purity and correctness inherited from Neogrammarians (e.g. Paris 1881; Pope 1934). For instance, any deviation from the lexical-semantic norm in the form of a loanword was considered an intrusion and put down to the scribe’s faulty mastery of the language until very recently (Cobb 1990 in L. Wright 1994b: 108; 11

Kibbee 1991; Clark 1992a: 117-8). “Pig Latin” or “Kitchen French” used to be some of the labels employed in the literature in order to disapprove the study of mixed-language archives. The combination of those two factors had led research on early language mixing to die away into silence. However, modern research in multilingualism has enabled to see medieval mixed-language texts in a new light. Nowadays, medievalists are persuaded of the fact that the role of French and Latin in the sociolinguistic evolution of Britain was not just limited to the overwhelming lexical borrowing from these two Romance languages by English, as propounded by Baugh (1935), Blake (1992b), and Burrow and Turville-Petre (1992), among others. Instead, the status of French in England is now certain to have been so influential on the development of the English language that it is not sufficient to dismiss the whole language contact phenomena as a sign of degeneracy (Rothwell 1985; L. Wright 1996b; Trotter 2000a). It was quite clear that this dissertation offered the opportunity to make my contribution to several sub-fields of research (SN theory, historical sociolinguistics, and multilingualism) and objects of study (medieval Britain and London guilds) begging for further research. Rather than acting as a deterrent, research shortcomings and unexplored routes turned into a challenge to eventually carry out a useful study for the realm of English linguistics. 12

I.2. THE CORPUS

The choice of the livery company to be studied was based on both data availability and data representativeness. In order to explore the presence of mixed-language writing and to find a sociolinguistic explanation to the language contact phenomena classified under that name, (i) the wardens’ and/or masters’ accounts of the guild should have survived the passage of time, and (ii) biographical information available on the guild’s members should also be abundant or, at least, enough so as to build both their ego-centric and socio- centric SN. One livery company qualified easily under both criteria: the MC.

I.2.1. LINGUISTIC DATA AND THEIR SOURCES

The MC’s archive, located within the premises of the MC’s Hall (Ironmonger Lane), holds the records documenting the history of the Company from the fourteenth century onwards. However, due to a (still ongoing) long-term project of transfer of its retrieval systems to an electronic catalogue, access to the original records has been very limited. This situation resulted in consulting available secondary material.7 An unpublished edition of the Mercers’ Wardens’ Accounts (MWA) (Creaton 1976) was the only source available until in 2009 Lisa Jefferson published The Medieval Account Books of the Mercers of London: An Edition and Translation (Jefferson 2009). This new edition was much more extensive and also reliable from a linguistic viewpoint. On the one hand, not only did it include the MWA from 1347-48 to 1463-64 but also the first edition ever of the MC’s Renter Wardens’ Accounts (RWA) from 1442-43, as well as other text types such as oaths and ordinances, whose analysis would also prove relevant in this dissertation. On the other hand, Jefferson’s (2009) edition did take into consideration important features of the business writing such as, for instance, the abbreviations and the suspension sign system. Consequently, I decided to draw my linguistic data exclusively from Jefferson’s (2009) edition. I analysed the accounts kept from 1390-91 onwards and discarded other previous documents kept in 1343-44,

7 The study of a different livery company was also even weighed. The Grocers’ Company was my alternative choice, but it was discarded mainly after the publication of Jefferson’s (2009) modern edition of the MC’s account books. 13

1347-48, and 1376-77 because the latter were scattered through time and impeded a coherent study without interruption. The corpus used in this study amounted to approximately 100,000 words. Variants of English origin, going from a single word to a complete fiscal year, were collected and later divided into different categories, which corresponded with different variables and stages (absence of mixing [AM], youthful + mature [Y+MA], moribund [MO], before shift [BS], and LS), in a classification based on L. Wright’s (1998b) diachronic model.

I.2.2. SOCIAL DATA AND THEIR SOURCES

The MC has been one of the most studied livery companies of London; it is actually quite difficult to find aspects of its history which have not been dealt with in the literature. To give but a few examples, publications have discussed the MC’s connections with the Merchant Adventurers’ Company (MAC) (e.g. Lingelbach 1902; Carus-Wilson 1933; Lyell 1935; Imray 1964), its evolution from the end of the Reformation to the twentieth century (Doolittle 1994), or even its main Hall (Imray and Saunders 1991). To be both the most influential London guild in the history and the premier livery company of the City of London has surely helped the proliferation of works dealing with the MC. Probably, Anne Sutton, former archivist and historian to the MC, is the researcher who has devoted most time to studying the MC from a number of different perspectives; she has focused on the MC’s origins (Sutton 1992, 1995, 1997, 1998), also on its connections with the MAC (Sutton 2002), or on its different manuscripts and possible authors (Sutton 1994b, 2009; Sutton and Hammond 1978; Sutton and Visser-Fuchs 2009). But beyond any doubt, her most detailed work on the MC is The Mercery of London: Trade, Goods, and People, 1130-1578 (Sutton 2005), where she (i) gives an exhaustive account of the MC’s history for more than 400 years, (ii) uncovers the everyday running of the MC, and (iii) even lists the names of MC’s members involved in specific events.8

8 In her PhD dissertation, Sutton (1995) also presents an extensive work on the MC, but only until the year 1348. 14

Sutton’s (2005) historical account was used as an excellent source from which social data were firstly derived. Information on the 145 mercers who served as wardens and, as a consequence, kept the MWA at least once in their lives had to be searched for in order to reconstruct the mercer-wardens’ ego- centric networks as well as to design their socio-centric network strength scale (NSS). In addition, I also turned to other alternative sources in order to draft an as accurate as possible social profile of every informant. Particularly useful were three: I. Rogers’s (1975- ) Fifteenth-Century Biographical Index, British History Online, and The National Archives’ online records. Furthermore, a Google™ search also produced rewarding results; additional links to websites providing further information on a high number of mercer-wardens were found. Once again, the fact that most members of the MC were influential men in the life of London contributes to their visibility in the records and in many different kinds of studies. 15

I.3. AIMS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The endeavour to undertake this PhD dissertation comes from a growing interest in relating mixed-language phenomena to aspects of social structure and their dynamism and change in historical speech communities. The primary objective of my study is to research to what extent social forces underlying human groupings and interpersonal relationships affected the use of the different languages available to the multilingual speaker in ancient times. To this end, I specifically apply the SN theory, as promulgated by the Milroys (L. Milroy 1980/87; J. Milroy and L. Milroy 1985; L. Milroy and J. Milroy 1992), to the group of members of the MC responsible for keeping the multilingual (BL, AF, and ME and SE) business accounts of the premier London livery company during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (1390-1464). This involves not only taking into consideration both the social contexts and the linguistic schemas involved in the use of several languages in writing, but also studying mixed-language phenomena in real terms of both synchronic variation and diachronic evolution. In sum, the present work also endeavours to approach the study of linguistic change in historical multilingual environments from a pure sociolinguistic dimension. The above-developed overall thesis statement can be divided into three more approachable basic research questions; results from the empirical analysis of the MWA will provide answers to them. The two main research questions are the following:

(i) How do Latin, French, and English coexist in the mercantile records of the Mercers of London during the late medieval period? Following Ehrsam Voigts’s (1996: 814) theses, this study attempts to shed light not only on the process of Anglicisation in the domain of medieval business writing, but also on the way the non-random but orderly combination of the three languages reveals successive mixed-language stages on the path to the complete vernacularisation (A. Thomas 1982; Myers-Scotton 1998; L. Wright 1998b).

16

(ii) To what extent do the ego-centric and socio-centric networks of which the mercer-informant is part contribute to his mixing practices and to the re-emergence of English as the language sanctioned for business writing? This work tries to verify whether the dynamics of close-knit networks with strong ties encouraging linguistic maintenance and loose-knit networks with weak ties promoting linguistic change are operative and valid in the mixed-language environments of late medieval London (Granovetter 1973, 1983; J. Milroy 1992b). In addition, as a research concerned with diachronism, a possible correlation of SN with another independent variable as generation is also taken into account.

Dependent on the latter, there is also a further research question:

(iii) Who are the authors of the mixed-language manuscripts under study? This work intends to attribute authorship in terms of likelihood to the MWA, which are jointly rendered by four mercer-wardens at the end of every fiscal year on Midsummer’s Day. I resort to Hope’s (1994) sociolinguistic technique and to some of textual information revealed by the MWA themselves in order to carry out my proposal of author identification. An indispensable requisite for any micro-sociolinguistic study (Bergs 2006: 51), my suggestion of authorship is based on the premise that the scribe in charge of making fair copies from scattered notes limits himself to acting as a scriptor, i.e. someone who only copies texts (Parkes 1976: 127), and does not indulge himself in modifying them, as far as language mixing is concerned. Furthermore, my research also presents detailed social profiles of the informants under study which are later tested against a socio-centric NSS, the first scale for any London livery company, and an ad hoc quantification of direct contact with English particles through their ego-centric ties. 17

I.4. OUTLINE OF CHAPTER CONTENT

The present dissertation is organised along two major parts: a first theoretical part that describes both the theoretical framework supporting the research here presented and the sociolinguistic background behind it (Chapters II and III), and a second empirical part devoted to the analysis and discussion of SN and language mixing in the MWA (Chapters IV and V). Chapter II can be further divided into two broad sub-chapters dealing with the two key pillars on which my research is mainly grounded: (i) sociolinguistics, and (ii) language mixing. On the one hand, as far as the sociolinguistic dimension is concerned, the basic tenets of SN theory (L. Milroy 1980/87; J. Milroy and L. Milroy 1985; L. Milroy and J. Milroy 1992), variationist sociolinguistics (Labov 1963, 1966/2006, 1972a), and historical sociolinguistics (Weinreich et al. 1968; Romaine 1982a; J. Milroy 1992b; Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 2003) are discussed in depth. On the other hand, regarding mixed-language writing, issues on the main language contact phenomena (CS, language choice [LC], and language maintenance [LM] and LS) occurring in the manuscripts under investigation are discussed separately in the first place, while interactions between these terms, with greater emphasis on the causal relationship between CS and LS (A. Thomas 1982; Myers-Scotton 1998; L. Wright 1998b) are recognised in the second place; research on CS in the history of English is also paid special attention (Schendl 2002b; Schendl and L. Wright 2011a). A final section is also devoted to investigating the interesting insights the integration of SN and language mixing has produced in the literature (Gumperz 1976/82; Gal 1979; L. Milroy and Li 1995). Chapter III also consists of two sub-chapters which respectively review (i) the multilingual scenario, and (ii) the socioeconomic context existing in London during the late Middle Ages. First of all, the two different approaches taken in the literature to analyse the coexistence of BL, AF, and ME and SE are addressed: monolingual approach (e.g. Vising 1923; Pope 1934; Kibbee 1991; Fisher et al. 1984; Fisher 1996) and multilingual approach (e.g. Rothwell 1993a; Trotter 2000b; L. Wright 2000c; Ingham 2010, 2012). Second of all, particular attention is paid to the internal evolution and the external development of the MC (and of the MAC) (e.g. Carus-Wilson 1933; Sutton 2002, 2005). Finally, a 18

further broad section is concerned with the explanation of how the MC manages the increase in administrative burden during post-Conquest England and how the linguistic situation of this period is mirrored in the different manuscripts produced by the MC (and the MAC) during this period (Lyell and F. Watney 1936; Creaton 1976; Parker 1980; Jefferson 2009; Sutton and Visser-Fuchs 2009). Chapter IV outlines the method of research followed in the present dissertation concerning corpus selection, data collection and management, and analytical steps. Firstly, it introduces the texts used for the analysis of language mixing in the MC: the MWA (Jefferson 2009). Secondly, it shows how both linguistic and social data are collected and handled in order to carry out an efficient SN analysis of mixed-language writing in the MWA. And thirdly, both the dependent linguistic variables and the extralinguistic independent variables under focus in this work are described. Chapter V is composed of (i) a more detailed categorisation and exemplification of the number of variants realising the different mixed-language stages, together with the graphic representation of their variation and distribution across time, and (ii) of the core analysis in itself, i.e. the verification of whether ego-centric and socio-centric networks and generation are able to account for the synchronic variation and diachronic evolution of mixed- language variants within the process towards the establishment of SE as the official language of record of the MWA. Last but not least, besides this section where the structure of the dissertation is being outlined, Chapter I explains the origins of the research, identifies the texts under study, and sets out both the goals to be reached and the questions to be answered with my research. Chapter VI presents the final conclusions, which are related to these research aims and questions. It summarises the findings, discusses a series of implications, and provides suggestions for future inquiry. Apart from the six chapters comprised and the introductory pages, the dissertation is completed with a list of cited references, and a series of appendices containing (i) a list of mercer-wardens classified by generation, (ii) the mercer-wardens in office from 1390-91 to 1463-64, (iii) the mercer-wardens’ 19

socio-centric NSS scores, and (iv) a list of the mixed-language variants analysed in the dissertation.

Chapter II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

23

II.1. SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS

A research aiming to account for how the human groupings and the interpersonal relations in which the individual is embedded have an impact on how s/he uses his/her language(s), in the following sections I focus particularly on the postulates of the two main theoretical models that try to explain the social mechanisms underlying the linguistic behaviour of a speaker: Labov’s social stratification model and the Milroys’ SN theory. Furthermore, I also discuss how their respective insights have been applied to older stages in the history of the English language.

II.1.1. AN INTERDISCIPLINARY DEVELOPMENT

SN as a field has been shaped during the twentieth century by a plethora of contributions associated with diverse disciplines such as psychology, mathematics, and anthropology.9 Psychologists working in the Gestalt tradition conceived the network concept as capable of influencing the perceptions, experiences, and attitudes of the individual (Moreno 1934; Lewin 1939; Heider 1946). Mathematicians, on their side, developed the technical side of SN analysis by using methods from the graph theory (König 1936); these analysts reformulated basic sociograms (Mayo 1945) and balances (Cartwright and Harary 1956) and introduced refined algebraic models such as cluster analysis (Warner and Lunt 1941) and block modelling (Lorrain and White 1971).

Chiefly significant to sociolinguistic research have been the studies about the effective configuration of social relationships between individuals by Mancunian anthropologists (Barnes 1954; Bott 1957; Mitchell 1969a). These researchers begin to investigate the role played by the ties of the individual inside large-scale social structures. The relations contracted with other members of a common social system prove to be one of the most influential means to influence patterns of behaviour.

9 To trace a thorough outline of the historic evolution of SN analysis falls beyond the scope of this work. A complete lineage can be found in J. Scott (1991/2000: 7-37), Wasserman and Faust (1994: 10-7), and Freeman (2004, 2011). 24

In his fieldwork in a Norwegian fishing village, Barnes (1954) divides its whole social system into three social fields. Over the hierarchically arranged territorial system and the industrial field connected functionally, he gives prominence to all the ties of all kinds (friendship, kinship, neighbourhood, and acquaintance) built between equal persons. Those interpersonal links are said (i) to vertebrate the class system of Bremnes by knitting together people of the parish, and (ii) to integrate the community into a more global regulation by connecting it with other parishes. In order to refer to this third social field, Barnes (1954: 44 et passim.) first employs explicitly the term SN. Furthermore, Barnes also distinguishes between rural communities and urban societies in terms of mesh, i.e. the number of contacts two persons in a network share. He maintains that in urban communities, people do not have as many friends in common as they do in rural societies. Bott’s (1957) survey of twenty London couples expands Barnes’s association of closely knit SN with rural, simple, or primitive societies to working-class families. Bott sets her central issue by means of the relation between organizational features internal to the family (marital roles) and certain external arrangements (social contacts). It is found that “the degree of segregation in the role-relationship of husband and wife varies directly with the connectedness of the family’s social network” (Bott 1957: 60 original italics). She suggests that where husband and wife have a highly connected network of outside relationships, each one is likely to demand less of the counterpart and firm separation of conjugal roles (segregated conjugal role- relationship) follows. But where the SN is dispersed, i.e. the husband and wife do not have mutual friends, they then help each other in household chores (joint conjugal role-relationship). Moreover, Bott also links the density of network to the degree of agreement about familial norms. Consensus on norms and pressure to conform to them is reached in close-knit networks, while loose-knit networks seem to foster more variation of norms (Bott 1957: 60). Mitchell’s (1969a) collective volume of papers on personal relationships in Central African countries echoes this tendency to broaden the structural- functionalist approach (Radcliffe-Brown 1940, 1952, 1957) which had dominated social anthropology in the first half of the twentieth century. In his introductory paper, Mitchell (1969b) discusses the significance and 25

measurability of four morphological variables (anchorage, density, range, and reachability) and five interactional aspects (content, directedness, durability, intensity, and frequency). He urges the necessity of paying as much attention to the morphological (or structural) variables as to the interactional (or content) aspects. Formal methods of analysing SN had tended to concentrate on the structure of relations and had generated much of the literature on SN analysis. The above-mentioned studies, together with other anthropological works (Mayer 1961; Boissevain and Mitchell 1973; Boissevain 1974), point out that particular ties can impinge upon the attitudes and behaviour of the participants in a network. Boissevain (1974) places even greater emphasis on the interactionist dimension of interpersonal bonds; his research implies that behaviour can be directly dependent on meaningful interchanges between people. Since language seems the most direct means of communication to get the meaning across in interactions of human beings, Boissevain thus hints at the possibility of including linguistic among the social behaviours to be explained through the study of exchanges between individuals.10 Linguistic use is then regarded as a factor to which people, speakers in this case, can resort so as to guide preferences for others and to express their own identity.

II.1.2. SOCIOLINGUISTIC APPLICATIONS OF NETWORK ANALYSIS

The gradual incorporation of the network model into linguistic studies in the 1970s mirrors the popularity of this approach in social sciences from the second half of the twentieth century. As a matter of fact, in the first steps of sociolinguistics as a modern discipline, its basis for examining language from a social perspective was determined by the predominant paradigms in anthropology and sociology; it seems hence advisable to focus first on the theoretical context before sociolinguists became attracted by the network theory.

10 A similar idea had already been anticipated in a way by Festinger et al. (1950). As Homans (1958: 599) cites, “[interaction] is a measure of the frequency of emission of valuable and costly verbal behaviour. [...] Festinger and his co-workers show that the more cohesive a group is, [...] the greater the average frequency of interaction of the members”. 26

II.1.2.1. Labov: The socialisation and stratification of linguistic usages

William Labov is credited with being the flagship of the field of sociolinguistics.11 His main early works (Labov 1963, 1966/2006, 1972a, 1972b) represent the convergence of several lines of linguistic research coming from earlier times and contemporary trends in social thought. The origins of sociolinguistics lie in a response to the excessive introspection and abstraction in the study of language by de Saussure’s (1916) structuralism and Chomsky’s (1957, 1965) generative grammar. In his critique of both schools, Labov (1972b: xiii) calls for the necessity of approaching the language used in everyday life situations. However, far from discarding the study of literary texts or experimentation in the laboratory, Labov (1972b: 201) champions the combination of these conventional methods with empirical principles; neither does Labov criticise Chomskian and de Saussurian apparatuses in their entirety. In fact, the exploration of the social element of language has its origin in de Saussure’s (1916) cours, and his Geneva school is even referred to as the social school of linguistics. What Labov (1972b: 185-7) does question via the Saussurian paradox are de Saussure’s and Chomsky’s approaches to language. Langage consists of a dichotomy langue/parole (or competence/performance, in Chomskian terms) where parole corresponds to speech and langue is the social aspect of language. Whereas langue can be elicited from the utterance of a single person since it is a system existing in every speaker’s brain, parole requires the interaction of several individuals to be obtained. Despite the promising existence of a linguistic side of a social nature, Labov denounces that linguists had given the cold shoulder to social life; for them, the study of linguistics was the inspection of linguistic features in isolation in idealised speech communities where people used to speak a homogeneous language with random variation (Chomsky 1965; Bloomfield 1933). Labov rejects this whole idea and engages in the analysis of language in its relation with other social constructs; he advocates the use of social (or

11 This field of research can receive different names: Labovian sociolinguistics, variationist sociolinguistics, quantitative sociolinguistics, secular linguistics, or modern sociolinguistics. In my study, I use the umbrella term “sociolinguistics”. 27

extralinguistic) phenomena to achieve a full understanding of meaningful patterns of linguistic variation and change (Labov 1966a: 102). The Labovian approach thus means a challenge to traditional ideas of linguistics as well as a methodological restructuring.

II.1.2.1.1. Labov in Martha’s Vineyard

The research where variationist postulates are first presented by Labov is his project on the dialect of English spoken in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts (Labov 1963). This island was inhabited by a very diverse population composed of original inhabitants in the western part (Up-Island) and a mixture of permanent residents and summer tourists on the eastern shore (Down-Island). Up-Island was a rural fishing area whose natives, especially from Chilmark, were viewed as archetypes of Vineyard values and fierce opponents to the dissolute habits of Down-island visitors. In that study, Labov (1972b: 1-42) focuses on the conversational analysis of language; more specifically, he addresses himself to the phonetic realisations of the diphthongs /ai/ and /au/ by members of the two communities. In an earlier survey on the dialect of the island where Labov himself had collaborated (Kurath et al. 1939, 1939-43), a mild centralisation of both diphthongs is mentioned. About 30 years later, Labov returns to the island to check the incidence of social factors such as age, place of residence, ethnicity, or occupation over local/standard variation. Through a series of anonymous interviews with speakers from different groups, two pertinent phenomena are discovered. First of all, Labov (1972b: 22) notices that the centralised variants of the two diphthongs most often happen in the speech of young adults (31-45 age group). Secondly, he also notices that centralisation is much more common among people living in Up-Island, notably around Chilmark (Labov 1972b: 25). Labov (1972b: 39) concludes that a higher degree of centralisation as a feature of the local dialect is motivated by the positive attitude of speakers to identify themselves as Vineyarders and by their wish to refuse representative values of the mainland. The correlation between local identity and occurrence of non- standard variants is reinforced by the fact that autochthonous people in permanent contact with standard New England linguistic norms (e.g. university 28

students and permanent residents in Down-Island) use Vineyard dialect variants heavily. Labov also detects signs that the centralisation of vowels in diphthongs is a change in progress initiated by the Chilmark fishermen and gradually spreading to other Vineyard areas. These fishermen overused inadvertently centralised diphthongs to show themselves free from mainland influence. The other islanders began to imitate their way of speaking to associate themselves with the old virtues and desirable values of this rural group. This linguistic innovation gained momentum and became a norm for all the islanders. Furthermore, Labov’s findings and techniques recall Gauchat’s (1905) work, which had also meant a pioneering move far beyond traditional dialectology. It is Gauchat (and not Labov) with his dialect study of the patois in Charmey, Switzerland, who first correlates linguistic variability with the sex and age of his informants (J. Chambers 1995/2009: 16).12 The approaches adopted by traditional dialectologists (or dialect geographers) since the turn of the century (e.g. J. Wright 1898-1905; Gilliéron and Edmont 1902-10; Orton et al. 1962-71) had concentrated on the study of non-standard dialects, their preoccupation with finding speakers of dialects uncorrupted by the standard language in rural areas,13 the use of uniform questionnaires to carry out major surveys, the drawing of isoglosses, and the mapping of dialect variation in a wide area. Labov’s work is much more concerned with social variation in language than with regional variation. As Wardhaugh (1986/2010: 137) points out, “[s]tudies of social variation in language grew out of studies of regional variation”. Labov would therefore epitomise the transition from dialectological work to sociolinguistic research.14 Though J. Chambers and Trudgill (1980) define sociolinguistic research as “urban dialectology”, a somewhat simple rural/urban distinction downplays the implications of Labov’s (1963) work for

12 Kurath et al. (1939-43) are also credited with introducing considerations of social class into the selection of informants for their linguistic atlas; they choose two social indicators: age and education (Labov 1966/2006: 13, 16). 13 Those nonmobile, older, and rural males: “the NORMs”, as called by J. Chambers and Trudgill (1980: 33). 14 J. Chambers and Trudgill (1980: 205-8) point to geolinguistics as a new approach to the study of variation and linguistic change phenomena where traditional dialectology and sociolinguistics can complement each other. More information on geolinguistics can be found in Trudgill (1983) and Hernández Campoy (1999a, 1999b). 29

the future: the more common use of dialect features by younger adults than older males, the evidence that non-standard dialects are not becoming less prevalent, or the selection of socially stratified speakers. All the findings Labov makes in Martha’s Vineyard lead him to the idea that language is always linked to social attitudes of several groups of society. He extends his research to the social stratification of a larger number of phonological variables in a larger urban area: New York City.

II.1.2.1.2. Labov in New York City

Labov’s (1966/2006) work on the social stratification of language in New York City is acclaimed to be the first major contribution to the field of sociolinguistics; in it, he deals with the study of the speech of the Lower East Side community as well as three department stores in Manhattan. Labov sets out to describe the sound system of English in New York City, whose massive variability has often been described as anarchic by New Yorkers themselves (Labov 1966/2006: viii, 30), in order to try to reduce it to a series of clear-cut patterns closely correlated with social characteristics of the population, and to account for both recent and yet to come linguistic changes. Before conducting his American Language Survey in the Lower East Side, Labov decides to carry out an exploratory study in three department stores easily differentiated by their different social status (highest-ranking Saks Fifth Avenue, middle-ranking Macy’s, and lowest-ranking S. Klein). One of his aims is to observe one of the phonological variables under study: /r/ in postvocalic position. In New York City speech, the attitude towards the pronunciation of this linguistic feature had varied over time. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the prestigious variant in New York City was non-rhoticism. By the 1950s, this situation had changed, with /r/-lessness becoming stigmatised and rhoticism taking its place. In his attempt to map the social stratification of this change, it is hypothesised that “if any two sub-groups of New York City speakers are ranked on a scale of social stratification, then they will be ranked in the same order by their differential use of (r)” (Labov 1966/2006: 41). Focusing specifically on the department store research, he specialises this hypothesis: “[S]ales people in the highest ranked store will have the highest values of (r); 30

those in the middle ranked store will have intermediate values of (r); and those in the lowest ranked store will show the lowest values” (Labov 1966/2006: 42). The eliciting technique employed gets a simple response twice (first mention and later emphatic repeat of “fourth floor”) from the informants (sales assistants) to two basic questions and distinguishes two distinct styles: casual speech and emphatic speech. Presented within a quantitative paradigm (Labov 1966/2006: 47-55), the results seem to verify Labov’s hypotheses. A clear and consistent stratification of /r/ in the three stores is shown. Saks Fifth Avenue’s employees use postvocalic /r/ more frequently in both styles than the assistants from the two other shopping centres, whereas the lowest values occur in S. Klein. Nevertheless, the linear increase of S. Klein’s values represents a deviation from the patterns in Saks Fifth Avenue and Macy’s scores.15 Also based on the preliminary social science project “Mobilisation for Youth” (Cloward and Ohlin 1960), the American Language Survey is developed in the Lower East Side, a depressed area being a mix of middle and working classes and immigrant groups. In order to select his informants, Labov adopts a stratified random sampling method which takes into account education, income, occupation, ethnicity, race, birth in New York City, sex, and age. He also includes three distinct linguistic contexts according to the attention paid to speech by the speaker: casual (context A), formal (context B), and reading (contexts C [texts], D [word lists], and D’ [minimal pairs]) (Labov 1966/2006: 58-71). These questionings lead to possible generalisations about linguistic variation as a result of stylistic one. Labov firstly outlines the influence of social differentiation on the several phonological variables chosen for his study. The results continue to confirm the social stratification of the variables and their stylistic variation from context A to D’. Socioeconomic differences are reflected in variations between speakers; variations in one speaker’s language are due to interview contexts. However, a noteworthy variable (postvocalic /r/) differs from the rest in one aspect of its variation pattern. Rather than pronouncing this variant less frequently than the higher social classes, in the most formal reading styles (D and D’) lower-middle- class speakers “over-shoot” the mark of the upper-middle-class informants

15 The department store experiment is replicated 20 years later in Fowler (1986). His results show (i) a good preservation of both patterns of social stratification and patterns of age distribution, and (ii) a slightly higher rate of r-pronunciation (Labov 1966/2006: 56-7). 31

(Labov 1966/2006: 151-2). Labov calls this crossover pattern hypercorrection and sees it as a “synchronic indicator of linguistic change in progress” (Labov 1966a, 1972b: 115). When plotted against age distribution (apparent time), hypercorrection interferes with the ordinary pattern of a linguistic feature spreading progressively down the social scale and accelerates it. Members of the lower-middle class attempt to imitate upper-middle-class speech in order to be recognised as members of this next higher level of status, but they “go beyond the highest-status group in their tendency to use the forms considered correct and appropriate for formal styles” (Labov 1972b: 126). Hypercorrect behaviour is thus also related to the notion of prestige. Labov (1966/2006: 265-341) then measures the subjective evaluation of New Yorkers with regard to five variables. New York City dialect is not considered a prestige variety at all; instead, local people are consciously and overtly negative towards their own speech. This is the reason why New Yorkers are disposed to correct their pronunciation towards a form that is as close as possible to prestige in formal contexts. This social awareness has far-reaching repercussions for New York City speech. Firstly, changes in progress (e.g. pronunciation of postvocalic /r/) are taking place above the level of consciousness of population (Labov 1972b: 244); secondly, these ongoing linguistic changes may start to appear in more casual contexts (A, B, and C) in the future; and finally, instead of finding unpredictable and anarchic linguistic patterns, New York City is a community united by a common set of evaluative judgements as well as a consensus on class differentiation and stylistic norms.16

II.1.2.1.3. Labov and his conception of (socio)linguistics

After more than a decade of research, Labov gathers together the most important findings of his scattered reports on (socio)linguistics in Sociolinguistic Patterns (Labov 1972b).17 That volume presents the academic community with an approachable exposition of Labov’s methods of analysis, his

16 Similar early studies in other places and with other languages have found linguistic patterns comparable to those in Labov’s New York City research (e.g. Shuy et al. [1967] in Detroit, Cedergren [1973] in Panama City, or Trudgill [1974] in Norwich). 17 Labov does not initially accept the label “socio-linguistics” for his type of research. He considers it “an oddly redundant term” (Labov 1972b: 183). 32

typology of the mechanisms of linguistic change and, as a whole, with his “socially realistic linguistics” (Labov 1972b: xiii). Broadly speaking, language is characterised by the natural variability of its rules; “it is common for a language to have many alternate ways of saying ‘the same’ thing” (Labov 1972b: 188). Speakers differ from each other by their percentage use of alternate (dialectal/standard) variants. A key unit, the linguistic variable, is introduced to quantify this alternation between variants (Labov 1966b; Labov 1972b: 7 et passim.). Rather than being ungoverned, variation is controlled through optional (or variable) rules, constrained by non- linguistic factors, and can be quantitatively measured in probabilistic terms (Labov 1972b: 218).18 Those linguistic variables that are significantly correlated with some non-linguistic feature are defined as sociolinguistic variables (Labov 1972b: 237). Variability then turns language into a heterogeneous and dynamic entity in constant change; therefore, Labov’s theory is opposed to the static nature of language, a position held by former trends. However, the aim of his work is not “to provide linguistics with a new theory of language, but rather to provide a new method of work” (Labov 1972b: 207). The Labovian methodology is essentially empirical; it is fundamentally grounded in the task of the fieldworker in real speech situations. In this regard, one of his most important contributions is the introduction of innovative methods of data collection covering a wide range of contextual styles. Labov arranges the different speech styles on a continuum going from the most formal and monitored styles (C, D, and D’) to the most casual and relaxed ones (A and B). Among these speech levels, the most interesting style to the investigator is the least constrained style: the vernacular.19 The vernacular (style A) is defined as “the style in which the minimum attention is given to the monitoring of speech”; it is this vernacular style that displays the essential structure of a language and, consequently, gives researchers the most systematic data for linguistic analysis (Labov 1972b: 208).

18 Variable rule as a concept is first introduced in Labov’s (1969) study on the status of the copula in African American Vernacular English. 19 This notion is exploited much more deeply in Labov (1972a), where he deals with the African American Vernacular English in its social setting. 33

On the basis of structured interviews, a problem to elicit samples of the speaker’s vernacular arises. Any attempt to record this careless informal speech inevitably leads to monitoring on part of the subject. People who know that they are being recorded will not speak as naturally as they would normally do. Labov (1972b: 209) refers to this limitation as the observer’s paradox: “The aim [...] must be to find out how people talk when they are not being systematically observed; yet we can only obtain this data by systematic observation”. The closest a fieldworker can come to casual style occurs when the informant is directly interrupted by a close friend or a family member or must answer the phone. Labov suggests a number of ways to partly overcome this obstacle; for instance, in New York City he resorts to asking compromising (“danger-of- death” [Labov 1972b: 92]) questions for generating narratives of personal experience where no attention is paid to speech. Labov contributes decisively to the development of sociolinguistics as a fully fledged discipline by presenting his theory of linguistic change. According to him, a change in a language takes place “only when a group of speakers use a different pattern to communicate with each other” (Labov 1972b: 277). As mentioned above (p. 31), this change can be observed in progress, either in real time (the study of the speech of a population over an extended period of time) or in apparent time (the study of the language of individuals belonging to different generations at the same period of time) (Labov 1972b: 133). Although the absence of parallelism in the stratification of some variables (e.g. /r/, /æh/, and /oh/) displayed by hypercorrection is deemed the key element of linguistic change, this crossover principle forms part of a much more complex process. Labov (1972b: 178-80) establishes 13 stages of change ranging from change from below the conscious awareness (cases 1-8) to change from above the level of awareness (cases 9-13). Hypercorrection corresponds to stages 3 (from below) and 11 (from above). Furthermore, in this series of cases, Labov also distinguishes among indicators, markers, and stereotypes. An indicator (stage 2) is a linguistic variable without subjective evaluation by the speakers or social significance in the community. A marker (stage 6) does carry social import since speakers are aware of it, and its use varies by social groups and speech styles. Finally, a stereotype (stage 12) is a variable whose negative social meaning makes it be actively avoided and often stigmatised. 34

Prestige, consequently, participates in linguistic change phenomena where social awareness is involved. Labov argues that, on some occasions, people tend to change the way they speak consciously seeking social recognition or high reputation; hypercorrect behaviour by lower-middle class exemplifies it. Lower-middle-class speakers are really concerned with using positively evaluated linguistic variants (e.g. pronunciation of postvocalic /r/) since the latter are widely recognised as belonging to the prestigious speech of the dominant upper-class groups; this is the definition of overt prestige. But speakers may also opt for adopting socially stigmatised variants (e.g. those in New York City vernacular), deviating then from prestige norms on purpose. In this case, people prefer to comply with “the set of covert norms [of their local community], which attribute positive values to the vernacular” (Labov 1972b: 249) in order to show membership and earn respect in their exclusive community; this is the definition of covert prestige. Though linguistic analysis is carried out in a dynamic framework undergoing changes, recurrent allusions to terms such as prestige, consensus, status, or socioeconomic class accentuate Labov’s conception of society as a balanced, stable, and stratified system. As he admits, his social stratification model is based on the work of Barber (1957 in Labov 1966/2006: 40). Barber had been a student of the main exponent of functionalism: Talcott Parsons. Functionalism was the prevalent trend in western sociology in the mid- twentieth century. Parsons’s (1951; Parsons and Shils 1951) studies are deeply rooted in the works of Weber (1904-05, 1921) and, to a lesser extent, in Marx’s (1859) historical materialism. Weber’s tripartite distinction of stratification complicates Marxist dualist model, founded on the class conflict between the bourgeoisie (who enjoys a better social position for owning the means of production) and the proletariat (placed in a disadvantageous position and compelled to sell its labour power to survive). The Weberian approach to stratification is grounded in the interplay of three structures: class, status, and party (Weber 1924). Differences in wealth, prestige, and power lead people to have different life chances; these distinct chances, in turn, have as a result people’s differing styles of life and positions in the social hierarchy (Giddens 1996/2001: 285). Parsons adopts Weber’s concept of status (even if he uses the terms status and class interchangeably) in order to build the functionalist model 35

of stratification. According to Parsons’s theory, social stratification is “the differential ranking of the human individuals who compose a given social system and their treatment as superior and inferior relative to one another” (Parsons 1949/54: 69). Status inequalities among individuals are regarded as a positive contribution to the stability of society; to maintain the steadiness of the patterns of institutionalised culture defining the structure of the system is imperative in order to minimise class conflict and to promote equilibrium rather than change (Parsons et al. 1961: 38, 59-60). In the same way that Weber refers to contrasting lifestyles because of divergent chances, Labov assumes that access to divergent linguistic environments may result in different linguistic performances. Differentiated linguistic forms are ranked in status or prestige by general agreement (Labov 1966/2006: 41); in other words, whereas parts of the social structure are differentiated, a shared evaluation of the forms remains stable. Labov’s consensus-based model of stratification is reflected in his pioneering definition of speech community. Labov had already advanced the idea in his New York City study, where he defines the Big Apple as a single speech community united by a common set of evaluative norms for the variables which differentiate the speakers (1966/2006: 82, 340). Years later, he provides an improved explanation of the term:

The speech community is not defined by any marked agreement in the use of language elements, so much as by participation in a set of shared norms; these norms may be observed in overt types of evaluative behaviour, and by uniformity of abstract patterns of variation which are invariant in respect to particular levels of usage. [...] A speech community cannot be conceived as a group of speakers who all use the same forms; it is best defined as a group who shares the same norms in regard to language (Labov 1972b: 120-1, 158).

The idea of common agreement shown in Labov’s conception of speech community is shared by the two other influential definitions of this notion. Gumperz (1968: 381) defines it as “any human aggregate characterised by regular and frequent interaction by means of a shared body of verbal signs and set off from similar aggregates by significant differences in language use”. According to Hymes (1974: 47), the speech community “postulates the unit of 36

description as a social, rather than linguistic, entity. One starts with a social group and considers the entire organisation of linguistic means within it”.20

It remains beyond any doubt that Labov lays the foundations for a new way of doing sociolinguistics. However, his work has not escaped criticism from “post- or neo-Labovian sociolinguistics” (Romaine 1982b: 2). For instance, Labov’s additive model for variable constraints is brought into question for its inadequate extension to non-phonological levels of analysis (Lavandera 1978), for the problematic combination of generative grammar and quantitative variation (Romaine 1981), and is even superseded by the multiplicative model (Cedergren and D. Sankoff 1974).21 More importantly to my research, L. Milroy (1980/87) challenges Labov’s linear continuum between standard and vernacular. To Labov, the general tendency for low-status speakers is to adjust their speech style to the standard of the socioeconomic class above them in order to gain social approval. L. Milroy (1980/87: 18-9), however, points to the tendency for low-status people to use vernacular forms as symbols of loyalty to a local community and rejection of standard prestige values. Rather than consensus, the pattern arising in L. Milroy’s study is one of conflict between the two opposing forms (J. Milroy and L. Milroy 1997: 53). According to L. Milroy (1980/87: 16-7), patterns and conflicts of linguistic kind are more amenable to study in pre-existing small- scale communities. Therefore, she also expands criticism of social class as a unit of analysis and opts for more concrete categories to which individuals have a clear feeling of belonging. In order to account successfully for her conflict-based model, L. Milroy brings into effect again the above-mentioned notion of SN, which is studied extensively in the next section.

II.1.2.2. The Milroys: The networking of linguistic usages

Labov’s classification of speaker groups in terms of their socioeconomic status defined by five quantifiable features (income, education, residence, occupation,

20 Patrick (2002) outlines the history of the development of speech community as a core concept in linguistics and deeply analyses problems and links with other notions. 21 Both frameworks have been replaced in most cases by logistic regression models (Rousseau and D. Sankoff 1978). 37

and lifestyle) proves unsatisfactory for sociolinguists. Lack of objectivity, impossibility of applying it universally (Guy 1988), excessive abstractness, or difficulty of placing “anomalous individuals” in a specific social class (Trudgill 1974: 33) are among the shortcomings encountered. Linguists have tested alternative social units such as caste (Gumperz 1971), speech community (Labov 1980, 1989), community of practice (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992) and, particularly, SN. Initially developed by anthropologists, the concept of SN breaks new ground for its applicability to all societies, which appear to contain them. Although L. Milroy’s (1980/87) study is regarded as the first comprehensive application of SN in the linguistic realm, previous accounts (e.g. Labov 1972a; Blom and Gumperz 1972; Gumperz 1976/82; Gal 1979) had already concentrated on networks and linguistic usage.22 Addressed to the failure of black adolescents to progress academically, Labov’s (1972a) work on three Harlem street gangs (the Cobras, the Thunderbirds and, especially, the Jets) dismisses verbal deficit theory’s claim about the limitations of working-class and black speakers to communicate efficiently in educational environments (Jensen 1969). In lieu of a separate and insufficient linguistic system, Labov views the speech of black youngsters who participate in the street culture of the ghettos as a “relatively uniform grammar” (Labov 1972a: xiii); African American Vernacular English is best considered a “subsystem within the larger grammar of English” (Labov 1972a: 64). After examining the social differences between the student speech and the classroom dialect, Labov finds a direct connection between students’ peer-group status, linguistic usage, and school achievement. On the one hand, those teenagers who are fully integrated into the core group of their gangs show a higher use of vernacular variables (e.g. copula deletion, double negation, and final stop deletion). On the other hand, isolated members of these gangs, who are effectively outside the street culture and more often attend college (lames), comply better with the standard variety of the school. Consequently, a close relationship between vernacular use and integration into gang culture is established. Labov (1972a: 257) also emphasises the strict control the peer-

22 Gumperz (1976/82) and Gal (1979) are reviewed in later sections (§§ II.2.3.1, II.2.3.2) since both studies deal with multilingual communities instead of multidialectal ones. 38

group exerts over the vernacular in order to avoid departures from group norms.23 Blom and Gumperz’s (1972) ethnolinguistic study is set in Hemnesberget, a small town in northern Norway, where both a traditional local dialect (Ranamål) and a standard language (Bokmål) form part of the community linguistic repertoire. Both researchers explore the way the population decides to use the one as opposed to the other; for this purpose, Blom and Gumperz (1972: 408) analyse qualitatively the speech elicited in conversations using a unitary frame of reference: the network, viewed from the standpoint of actors. The contrast of social meanings attached to Ranamål and Bokmål is highlighted; while Ranamål is an important marker of local people’s common descent and culture, Bokmål is associated with the social and judicial superiority of status enjoyed by the commercial elite (Blom and Gumperz 1972: 418-9). They note that local team members, whose relations have the characteristics of closed networks, show an overt preference for Ranamål; on the contrary, those residents with relationships outside the local community (open networks) show a higher degree of use and tolerance towards Bokmål (Blom and Gumperz 1972: 433).

II.1.2.2.1. The Milroys in Belfast

The publication of Lesley Milroy’s (1980/87) Language and Social Networks marks a watershed in the realm of sociolinguistics for putting SN on a level with the traditional independent variables (age, sex, ethnic group, and social class). The book is also a milestone in network theory since the network concept is explicitly used as an analytic tool subject to quantification rather than as a metaphorical device for describing social relationships (L. Milroy 1980/87: 45). In this monograph, L. Milroy collects the findings of a fieldwork carried out in Belfast from the mid-1970s which aims to explain the role of social ties in the maintenance of Belfast vernacular dialect versus SE.24 Together with James

23 Correlation between adherence to vernacular culture and use of non-standard English features by adolescent speakers is also corroborated in Cheshire’s (1982) investigation in Reading. 24 A number of pilot studies had been previously published elsewhere (e.g. L. Milroy 1976; J. Milroy 1976; L. Milroy and J. Milroy 1977; J. Milroy and L. Milroy 1978; L. Milroy and Margrain 1978). 39

Milroy and other researchers, L. Milroy starts from the hypothesis that “even when variables of age, sex, and social class are held constant, the closer an individual’s network ties are with his local community, the closer his language approximates to localised vernacular norms” (L. Milroy 1980/87: 179). Eight phonological variables (/a/, /ai/, /i/, /đ/, /Λ1/, /Λ2/, /ε1/, and /ε2/) are investigated among 46 individual speakers representing males and females of two age groups (18-25 and 40-55) in three lower-working-class communities (Ballymacarrett, the Hammer, and the Clonard).25 L. Milroy reintroduces terminology from previous network studies but refines it to fully incorporate it into her own linguistic model. Originally defined by anthropologists as a set of linkages among persons which may be used to interpret the social behaviour of the latter (Mitchell 1969b: 2), in the Milroyian model the term SN refers to “the informal social relationships contracted by an individual” (L. Milroy 1980/87: 178). For its visual representation, L. Milroy resorts to the sociogram (Moreno 1934), whose design basically consists of nodes and lines; in this pattern, the speaker on whom the study concentrates (ego) is indicated by an asterisk, whereas several points around it represent other members in the network, and lines signify connections between these participants. She also differentiates between two personal network structures: high-density and low-density.26 While a given person’s contacts all know each other in a high-dense network, in a low-dense network an individual’s personal contacts do not necessarily know each other (L. Milroy 1980/87: 20). The dots and lines that form a basic network can be further developed and their roles categorised; the nature of a network also depends strongly on the quantity and quality of its links. On the one hand, the quantitative aspect is established by measuring a structural component (density); on the other hand, the qualitative side of a network is fixed when calculating a content characteristic (multiplexity) (L. Milroy 1980/87: 49-52). Density in a network occurs when a high number of people ego is linked to are also linked to each

25 Although in this dissertation I mainly focus on the findings presented in L. Milroy’s well- known book, the study of variation in these three low-status inner-city areas is part of a larger project that includes two more areas in and around Belfast: Andersonstown and Braniel (lower- middle-class communities) and Lurgan (a rural town in the hinterland of Belfast). Further details of these later community studies may be found in J. Milroy (1981), J. Milroy et al. (1983), Pitts (1983, 1985), Harris (1985), and J. Milroy and L. Milroy (1985). 26 Instead of using absolute terms (open and closed) like Blom and Gumperz (1972), L. Milroy prefers to call the two kinds of networks this way. 40

other; the greater the number of mutual social connections, the denser the network is. In those cohesive compartments of a network with high density (around 100%), clustering exists. In turn, a multiplex relationship occurs when a person is connected to ego in more than one single capacity. For instance, in the case of Blom and Gumperz (1972), as most Hemnes natives live, marry, and earn their livelihood among others of their own kind, their links to others (as neighbours, kinship, and co-employees) are said to be multiplex; by contrast, the ties between the Hemnes elite and their local team people are uniplex since their contacts remain largely non-personal, focusing around single tasks (L. Milroy 1980/87: 21). L. Milroy (1980/87: 46-8) follows Mitchell’s (1969a) variable of anchorage in the distinction of zones in a network. This principle anchors SN around ego as the main point of reference; the other network members are placed depending on the degree of attachment each has with this focal individual. If a person is directly linked to ego, s/he will belong to the first order zone. Normally, these people are in contact with somebody else ego does not know; in this case, these more distant individuals form the second order zone and come into contact with ego via their first order zone mediator. With this configuration, L. Milroy exploits Mitchell’s ego-centric standpoint, but she does not ignore the socio-centric approach proposed by Barnes (1972). From an ego-centric network perspective, the focal point is both a single actor and the direct links which surround and connect this agent with others; conversely, socio-centric networks are not centred on one particular point but focus on the structural patterns of connections among actors in the network as a whole, and how these patterns explain outcomes within the group. In the latter, the density is that of the overall network; the constraining power of a network is not mediated only through their direct links but through the concatenation of indirect linkages. Properties in these relations that exist independently of agents should be at the centre of attention (J. Scott 1991/2000: 72). L. Milroy’s hypothesis is sustained in a possible interdependence between overall network structure and linguistic behaviour. In order to test it, L. Milroy compares the language of different speakers of her three communities and relates the strength of their ties to their scores on the linguistic variables. As a 41

quantitative measure to compute the network patterns of community speakers is then required, the socio-centric NSS is designed.27 Through a five-point scale, L. Milroy calculates an informant’s network strength by giving him/her one point for each of the following criteria s/he fulfils:

1. Membership of a high-density, territorially based cluster. 2. Having substantial ties of kinship in the neighbourhood. (More than one household, in addition to his own nuclear family.) 3. Working at the same place as at least two others from the same area. 4. The same place of work as at least two others of the same sex from the area. 5. Voluntary association with workmates in leisure hours. This applies in practice only when conditions three and four are satisfied (L. Milroy 1980/87: 141-2 original italics).

The first condition is designed as a marker of density, while the other four reflect multiplexity. As for results, a total score of 5 points (or close to them) would point to membership of a high-dense multiplex network; on the other hand, a score of 1 or even 0 points would indicate a network with uniplex bonds. Scores in calculations of informants’ network and linguistic patterns validate L. Milroy’s major hypothesis. Personal network structures are shown to be of relevance in predicting linguistic usage.28 Those individuals associated with a high score in network strength approximate more closely to the vernacular; by contrast, informants who are not highly attached to their community use vernacular variants less often. Whereas a clear pattern of men scoring high and women scoring low occurs in Ballymacarrett, this pattern is disrupted in the Hammer and the Clonard, where more women tend to use non- standard variants. Explanations provided for these behaviours rely on the social circumstances operating in the communities. In Ballymacarrett, traditional gender roles are preserved; men work locally and participate in local gatherings, while women must work outside of the community. The Hammer and the Clonard are respectively affected by geographical mobility and a high incidence

27 From an ego-centric perspective, the density and the multiplexity of a network are respectively calculated by the following formulas set out in L. Milroy (1980/87: 50-1):

100 Na (actual links)% Nm (multiplex links) × 100% D = M = N (possible links) N (actual links)

28 A number of statistical tests (Spearman’s rank-order correlation tests, Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance, Wilcoxon tests and the T-test) further demonstrate that this close relationship is not a matter of chance. 42

of male unemployment. Inhabitants of the Hammer area are being moved to another location because of urban renewal. On the one hand, men from the Clonard have to look for work in other communities; on the other hand, Clonard women have found a job in their own community, and many of them work together. More closed, dense, and multiplex networks in females together with looseness in male networks give reasons for the reversal of linguistic patterns. The question of why speakers continue to use low-status vernaculars despite the social importance of adopting variants close to the standard constitutes the other significant issue in L. Milroy’s research. Unlike Labov’s focus on the influence of upward mobility on speech change, L. Milroy (1980/87: 169) agrees with Gumperz (1982a) that “dense, close-knit network structures function as important mechanisms of vernacular maintenance, with a powerful capacity to resist the social pressures associated with the standard language”. A correlation between social integration and linguistic conservatism is assumed. Once a speaker is located inside a tight-knit network, which exerts continuous pressure on its members to comply with group rules, s/he becomes reluctant to change linguistically; heavy use of vernacular variants turns out to be a decisive mark of group identity and loyalty to the local community. Disruptions in the network, caused by unstable social conditions, result in changes at the linguistic level.

II.1.2.2.2. The Milroys and the weakness of bonds

The initial orientation of the Milroys’ research in Belfast is towards questions of linguistic stability. As L. Milroy (1980/87: 190) admits, much more attention has been given to the interconnection between a high-dense network and the maintenance of vernacular norms. Like L. Milroy, later sociolinguistic applications of network analysis appear not to take into much consideration the implications of changes in network structures for linguistic mechanisms (e.g. V. Edwards 1986; Lippi-Green 1989; W. Edwards 1992). L. Milroy herself points out that the main reason lies in the difficulty to handle loose-knit networks at the operation level. Speakers in a network of a close-knit type can be easily operationalised; conversely, socially and geographically mobile speakers whose 43

personal network ties are not predominantly dense or multiplex are not easily tracked and specified for purposes of study (L. Milroy 1980/87: 197-9). However, not all network-based approaches to situations of urban monolingualism follow suit. L. Milroy (1980/87: 174-5) mentions Bortoni- Ricardo’s (1985) analysis of the extent to which rural migrants to Brasilândia, a satellite city near Brasilia, move away from the norms of their stigmatised Caipira dialect.29 Bortoni-Ricardo is therefore dealing with the changing linguistic behaviour of mobile individuals in low-dense networks. She also assumes that a change from rural to urban life involves a move from an insulated network (consisting of kinsfolk and neighbours) to an integrated network (with less dense and multiplex links). Two network indices (integration index and urbanisation index) are designed to characterise progress in the transition from rural close-knit networks to urban loose-knit networks. Informants’ index scores are correlated with their scores in four variables which indicate dialect dispersion (intervocalic /l/, diphthongs /ia/ and /iu/ at the end of words, and subject-verb agreement in first person plural and in third person plural). Results posit a direct relationship between changes in network ties and a linguistic movement away from the norms of the Caipira dialect. Particularly stimulating in Bortoni-Ricardo’s work is the application of the network concept to examine the degree of detachment individuals have from close-knit groups. In the same way that a link between a close-knit network structure and vernacular maintenance has been proved, the opposite (the association between loosening of close-knit and linguistic change) is also obvious (L. Milroy 1980/87: 176). J. Milroy and L. Milroy (1985) acknowledge the importance of studying loose-knit networks in mobile sectors of society. But they also find that the methodology adopted for close-knit networks is not feasible in unbounded groups of speakers extending over vast distances. J. Milroy and L. Milroy (1985: 364-82) present a theoretical model to analyse the relation between a loose-knit

29 Bortoni-Ricardo (1985: 114) refers to this process as one of “dialect diffuseness”, a concept already introduced by Le Page (1975). L. Milroy (1982) had already suggested that the variable of network structure should be included as one of the social mechanisms encouraging linguistic focusing. 44

network structure and linguistic variation and change based on the social function of uniplex network ties (E. Rogers 1962; Granovetter 1973, 1983). In his suggestive paper, Granovetter (1973) distinguishes between weak (uniplex) and strong (multiplex) interpersonal ties by defining the strength of a tie as “a (probably linear) combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding) and the reciprocal services which characterise the tie” (Granovetter 1973: 1361); in other words, a tie will be weak, if the relationship between the participants is based on low transactional content, low frequency, and lack of intimacy.30 Granovetter’s most relevant contribution is the greater importance attached to weak bonds. He sees weak ties between individuals as responsible for both linking separate close-knit networks and introducing external changes and influences into micro-groups; he thus despises the long-standing assumption that it is strong ties which are critical in linguistic contact and diffusion (Downes 1984: 155 in J. Milroy and L. Milroy 1985: 365). To Granovetter, the stronger the relations between individuals, the more the contacts are shared and, consequently, only recurrent information will flow; in turn, weak ties grant close-knit network members access to resources they do not find in their own circles but in others. Weak ties then function as “bridges” (Granovetter 1973: 1364 italics supplied) through which new information is transmitted from one group to another.31 Even though Granovetter’s ideas might seem incongruent, researches on the search for an abortionist (Lee 1969) or job opportunities (Granovetter 1974) show that the primary sources from which people acquire the information they require are their acquaintances. Also, E. Rogers (1962) provides further empirical evidence to support the principle that innovations reach close-knit networks via weak interpersonal bonds. E. Rogers (1962) aims to define how, why, and at what rate new ideas spread through cultures by studying hundreds of cases of innovation in areas of life such as agriculture, education, and technology. E. Rogers (1962: 150) presents an overview of five categories of adopters in diffusion research:

30 Broadly speaking, a weak tie between two persons would correspond approximately to a degree of acquaintanceship, while a strong tie would link two very close friends (J. Milroy and L. Milroy 1985: 364). 31 The definition of a bridge as “a line in a network that provides the only path between two points” had already been anticipated by Harary et al. (1965: 198). In addition, Boissevain’s (1974) brokers as a second order mediator between patrons also recall this image. 45

innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards.32 The distinction between innovators and early adopters turns out to be significant for J. Milroy and L. Milroy (1985: 367). On the one hand, innovators are the first individuals to adopt an innovation due to their venturesome character. This desire for launching new ideas leads them out of their local networks’ boundaries to interact with others; from this marginality, they will try to import the innovation into their own networks (E. Rogers 1962: 150). Early adopters, on the other hand, are popular individuals more centrally located in the network than innovators; they have contracted strong ties, conform closely to group norms, and serve as a role model for the rest of the members (E. Rogers 1962: 151). According to the innovation-decision process theorised by E. Rogers (1962: 163), once early adopters decide to adopt the innovation introduced by the innovator (decision stage), it will be disseminated to other network members (early and late majority as well as laggards) later (implementation and confirmation stages) in the manner of an S-shaped curve.33 These findings are extrapolated to both micro- and macro-linguistic level studies: backing of /a/ and /u/-/Λ/ alternation in Belfast, and the conservatism of Icelandic language, respectively (J. Milroy and Milroy 1985: 370-80). All cases exemplify, firstly, that a linguistic innovation is introduced by marginal speakers who, for being tenuously linked with networks, do not conform blindly to group linguistic norms; the innovation is then transmitted by means of weak ties until it reaches a central figure (early adopter) that decides to adopt it; at that moment, the linguistic form will be accepted by the rest of network members. Secondly, the more social mobility and instability in a territory are, the faster linguistic diffusion will take place insofar as close-knit networks are broken and weak ties proliferate. Unlike English, Icelandic has undergone little change because across the centuries, Iceland has maintained strongly established kin and friendship networks. The Milroys compare their model of 1985 with Labov’s (1980) attempt to locate the innovators within a community (in that case, Philadelphian neighbourhoods). To the Milroys, their model does not entirely agree with

32 J. Chambers (1995/2009: 92-113) compiles different terms employed in the literature to refer to the same kinds of adopters. 33 In case of an innovation being rejected during any stage of the process, it will either spread slowly or die out automatically. 46

Labov’s characterisation of the speaker-innovator since his account concludes that

[s]peakers who lead sound change are those with the highest status in their local communities as measured by a social-class index. [...] [T]he most advanced speakers are the persons with the largest number of local contacts within the neighbourhood, yet who have at the same time the highest proportion of their acquaintances outside the neighbourhood. [...] [T]hus we have a portrait of individuals with the highest local prestige (Labov 1980: 261).

According to this idea, persons that lead linguistic innovations have high prestige and a large number of ties both inside and outside their group. Although J. Milroy and L. Milroy (1985: 369-70) find it difficult to identify these individuals with strong and weak ties at the same time, they guess that Labov may be describing early adopters. In fact, the Milroys criticise both Labov’s failure to distinguish early adopters from innovators and the little attention paid to the lames of his (1972a) Harlem study. Lames closely resemble the true innovators; they are isolated individuals within the group, have different aspirations from their peers, and are less familiar with vernacular norms. The Milroys’ differentiation between Labov’s leaders and innovators seems clear. That distinction is in fact corroborated when it is claimed that social groups who contract many weak ties and are implicated in the diffusion of linguistic innovations consist of persons who belong neither to the highest nor to the lowest social groups (J. Milroy and L. Milroy 1985: 380); Labov’s (1972b: 294-5) principle that innovative groups are located centrally in the social hierarchy, i.e. in the upper-working or the lower-middle class, is therefore found consistent with the Milroyian model.34 The possible integration of both frameworks has important implications for sociolinguistic research since it means linking micro-interactional relationships and macro-societal structures.

II.1.2.2.3. The Milroys and the integration of social models

The Milroys reconsider their criticism of social class before the possibility of reconciling this macro-level construct with their own network model to obtain a

34 Nevertheless, Labov (2001: 364) greets with scepticism the Milroys’ characterisation of innovators: “[T]he question remains as to why the model provided by the marginal member is copied by the central figure of a network.” 47

novel framework that offers a more coherent study of linguistic variation and change. J. Milroy (1992b: 206-20) introduces two types of linguistic scenario: in one of them external influence is resisted, while in the other external changes are admitted more readily; he claims that it is not appropriate to talk about these two scenarios in absolute terms since a group that is norm-changing at one period of time may become norm-maintaining at another (and vice versa). Attempts to explain situations where the two scenarios may be mixed by using the SN model have proved insufficient. According to J. Milroy (1992b: 207), SN is most readily operationalised to account for linguistic maintenance rather than change; this is why he urges the need to supplement the Milroyian approach with something else that accounts best for patterns of linguistic variation: a social theory sustained by the notion of weak network ties. Previously hinted by J. Milroy (1992b: 216-20), L. Milroy and J. Milroy (1992) present Højrup’s (1983) ethnological theory of life-modes as the framework that enables the connection between the two orders of social organisation. Højrup’s process splits the population of Denmark and other Western European countries into subgroups defined in terms of three life- modes: that of the self-employed (number 1) and those of the wage-workers (numbers 2 and 3). Each life-mode carries its own specific ideology and reflects a unitary system of practices in work, family, and leisure. With the Danish fishing industry as an example of life-mode 1, the primary concern for individuals in this life-mode is to keep the production of a family enterprise running in order to remain self-employed; hence, family members are solidarily involved to each other, and little distinction between work and leisure activities exists. Life-mode 2, that of the ordinary wage-earners (e.g. industrial workers), consists of producers who do not own the process of production where they are enrolled and whose purposes are to earn an income and to enjoy their free time; when compared to life-mode 1 workers, these wage- earners’ family is separate from their work activities and their commitment to work is lower, unless they enrol in trade unions. The typical wage-earner in life- mode 3 is a higher professional employee with high skills and paid to monitor the production process (e.g. university teachers); this process to exercise more and more power over others requires such an immersion of the individual in 48

his/her job that work becomes life to a high extent (the concept of freedom is associated with the career situation and the family fulfils a supportive role). Each of these life-modes is described focusing on points of contact with the Milroyian network analysis (L. Milroy and J. Milroy 1992: 18-23). This comparative analysis is particularly important since the different types of network structure emerge from differences in the life-modes of the individuals. Life-mode 1 is clearly associated with a close-knit type of network structure and a solidarity ethic. In life-mode 2 there are two differing groups of ordinary wage-earners depending on their salary; consequently, dissimilar network ties can be found. Amongst those with low wages solidarity arises to survive; this unity is embodied in the close-knit networks of the traditional working-class society. In turn, those who earn enough and feel secure in their prospects are prepared to sell their labour, thereby becoming mobile and severing strong network ties. Life-mode 3 professionals are socially and geographically mobile, forming many loose ties; however, they will also constitute close-knit clusters through which they control considerable resources. The link running from abstract institutional structures to specific SN is ultimately reflected in the sociolinguistic sphere. A non-legitimised linguistic code (vernacular) will be maintained by all speakers associated with life-mode 1 and those relatively poor wage-earners in life-mode 2. Conversely, weak ties in the networks of life-mode 2 affluent wage-earners and all life-mode 3 individuals ensure the dominance of a legitimised linguistic code (standard).35 It is evident to L. Milroy and J. Milroy (1992) that different kinds of SN structure do not occur accidentally but emerge from different life-modes, which themselves are constitutive of distinct classes. Close-knit ties are characteristic of lower and higher social classes, whereas SN density and multiplexity tend to be weak in the middle sectors of society. The conditions in which linguistic norms are more susceptible to change predominate in this centrally located population. The idea of linguistic market (Bourdieu 1977 in J. Milroy 1992b: 210) has also been used as a means to interconnect behaviour at the level of the speaker with pressures in predetermined social classes (Dittmar et al. 1988; D. Sankoff

35 Pedersen (1994) uses the concept of life-mode as an analytical tool to describe the linguistic variation of a Danish dialect on the island of Funen. Her study demonstrates that the degree of dialect use is inversely proportional to the degree of urbanisation. 49

et al. 1989 in L. Milroy and J. Milroy 1992: 3-4). Bourdieu compares discourse with an exchange within a market where the differential values of codes as linguistic resources are politically embedded and the access to the use of the legitimised code (standard) as symbolic capital is unequally distributed; tensions arise when the dominated class acknowledges the supremacy of the dominant variety and its own lack of access to this valued linguistic code. Following Woolard’s (1985) criticism of Bourdieu’s theses, L. Milroy and J. Milroy (1992: 3-4) also reject Bourdieu’s proposal that even when the legitimated code is not used, it is merely a suspension rather than a challenge to the legitimacy of the official language or a violation of the rules constitutive of this code. The Milroys also view the standard/vernacular opposition in terms of alternative (rather than exclusive) linguistic markets; as a matter of fact, their own sociolinguistic work in Belfast has shown that vernacular is a socially promoted variety in non-standard domains as well.

II.1.3. RECONSTRUCTING SOCIAL NETWORKS

Both sociolinguistics and SN theory count the relationship between linguistic variation and change among their main research topics. For over a century, linguistic change per se has constituted one of the most intricate phenomena in the linguistic science, especially for those investigators interested in historical (or diachronic) linguistics.36 Its study has benefited from various disciplines that go back to, at least, several generations of linguistic workers and, at the same time, has functioned as a meeting place for them. How these different approaches have tried to find a response to the nature and mechanisms of linguistic change deserves an account in this section.

II.1.3.1. The Neogrammarian heritage: Both neglect and inspiration

The concern about the historical development of languages arose at the end of the eighteenth century with the discovery of genetic relatedness between different classical languages. These interconnections implied both a common

36 Lots of manuals have focused on the study of linguistic change in depth (e.g. Sturtevant 1917; Hoenigswald 1960; Aitchison 1981; Keller 1990; McMahon 1994; Labov 1994, 2001, 2010; Croft 2000). 50

origin (proto-language) and groups of related languages (language family) to be recovered through the comparison of cognate terms and the reconstruction of past forms in partial written records. Late nineteenth-century German linguists evolved these techniques to form generalisations of universal applicability and to specify impossible processes of change as their ultimate goals. Their Neogrammarian hypothesis perfectly exemplifies these aims as well as the prominence of the phonological level over syntactic and morphological layers: sound change takes place according to laws that admit no exception (Leskien 1876: xxxiv in Jankowsky 1990: 223).37 Another important Neogrammarian contribution was the refutation of the metaphor that compares languages to living organisms with an existence independently of human beings (Trench 1851; Schleicher 1861; Müller 1881 in J. Milroy 1992b: 22-3); any change was attributed to the natural internal evolution of a biological entity instead of to the influence of speakers. Some of the least orthodox Neogrammarians (e.g. Whitney 1867; Osthoff and Brugmann 1878; Paul 1880) argued that language exists only in individuals, whence all changes must necessarily arise. Weinreich et al. (1968) rely particularly on Paul (1880) since his text had become enormously influential for more than a generation of linguists. In their opinion, some ideas held in structuralism, descriptivism, and generativism had been partly inherited from Paul; a few can be listed. First of all, de Saussure (1916), for instance, places historical phenomena into a totally different domain of investigation that has nothing in common with the primacy of the structural approach; this antinomy between diachrony (the evolution of a language throughout its history) and synchrony (the state of a language at a given time) parallels Paul’s concepts of historische Grammatik and deskriptive Grammatik (Körner 2008: 112). Secondly, Bloomfield (1933) also puts the burden of explaining change on two mechanisms: (i) phonetic and analogic-semantic changes, which take place in the speech of individuals (Paul’s intra-individual spontaneous mechanism), and (ii) dialect borrowing, known by Paul as the selective adoption of features from the speech of one’s interlocutors (Weinreich et al. 1968: 122-4). Next, Weinreich et al. (1968: 113-4) even reinterpret Paul’s

37 Grimm’s (1819) and Verner’s (1877) laws on the Germanic sound shift illustrate this belief in the regularity and systematicity of the sound change when the adequate environment is met. Whenever an unpredictable change occurs, it is classified as analogical. 51

hypothesis of the diffusion of a change through a community as though it followed an S-shaped curve from minority to majority, and then to totality.38 Furthermore, Post-Bloomfieldian linguists like Bloch (1948) echo Paul’s belief that “the true object of the linguist is the totality of the manifestations of speech activity in all individuals in their mutual interaction” (Paul 1880: 25 in Weinreich et al. 1968: 105) when he defines the term idiolect as “the totality of the possible utterances of one speaker at one time in using a language to interact with one other speaker” (Bloch 1948: 7). Finally, Paul’s assumption that homogeneity of language, to be found in the idiolect, must be a prerequisite for linguistic analysis is adopted by generative grammarians concerned with an ideal speaker/listener in a completely homogeneous speech community (Chomsky 1965: 3-4 in Weinreich et al. 1968: 125). In their discussion of the theories of Paul and of the Neogrammarian heritage, Uriel Weinreich, William Labov, and Marvin Herzog criticise that the primacy of structural and synchronic aspects since the emergence of the de Saussurean paradigm had minimised the importance of historical linguistics as a discipline; they also question the methods and material employed when diachronism monopolised the field of linguistics. This Columbia-based team of linguists presents a model combining both approaches bound to bypass basic theoretical problems and paradoxes concerning linguistic change. Particularly, their theory of linguistic change deals with nothing less than the manner in which “the linguistic structure of a complex community is transformed in the course of time so that [...] both the language and the community remain the same, but the language acquires a different form” (Weinreich et al. 1968: 102). Paul’s idea of isolation of the language of the individual (idiolect) from the language of the group (language custom) is considered to be the originator of all paradoxes which have encumbered the study of linguistic change. Contradictions have been hardened when homogeneity of language is drawn upon as a precondition for its functioning. The most notable paradoxes that emerge range from the choice between studying either the structure or the history of languages to the irreconcilable opposition between the individual and the society, and through the difficulty of combining the idea of change with the

38 Altmann et al. (1983: 105 in Denison 2003: 54) argue that the explicit term S-curve in the context of linguistic change goes back to Osgood and Sebeok (1954). 52

categorical nature of homogeneous structure. In order to overcome these obstacles, the authors conclude that the solution lies in breaking down the identification of structuredness with homogeneity; linguists must abandon the idea of the homogeneous idiolect in favour of structured heterogeneity and orderly differentiation (Weinreich et al. 1968: 100-1). Linguistic structure includes “the orderly differentiation of speakers and styles through rules which govern variation in the speech community; native command of the language includes the control of such heterogeneous structures” (Weinreich et al. 1968: 187-8). Following Meillet’s (1906) claim for the role of social factors in linguistic change, it is also argued that “the variable structures contained in language are determined by social functions [...] [and] linguistic and social factors are closely interrelated in the development of language change” (Weinreich et al. 1968: 188). Weinreich et al. (1968: 102) coordinate their scattered impressions and findings on why and how linguistic changes take place in order to build an overall framework consisting of five key problems (or questions) that any theory aiming to explain linguistic change must solve (or answer): (i) the constraints problem deals with the general constraints that determine possible and impossible changes and directions of change, (ii) the transition problem seeks to discover by what route language changes, (iii) the embedding problem focuses on determining how a linguistic change evolves within the surrounding context of linguistic and social relations, (iv) the evaluation problem asks how members of a community react to a linguistic change and what the effect of this response is on the change, and finally (v) there is the pivotal actuation riddle: “[W]hy do changes in a structural feature take place in a particular language at a given time, but not in other languages with the same feature, or in the same language at other times?” Research on empirical observations of linguistic change in progress conducted by Labov has mainly focused on these problems since the Labovian model is said to be the incarnation of the Weinreich et al.’s (1968) principles (e.g. Labov [1980] on transition, Labov [1982] on the five problems, and Labov et al. [1982] and Labov [1990] on embedding). 53

J. Milroy (1992b: 20), however, is surprised by the lack of systematic attention received by the actuation problem;39 he thinks that linguists have no excuse for not addressing “the very heart of the matter” (Weinreich et al. 1968: 102). J. Milroy (1992b, 2003) dares to explore why linguistic innovations arise by adopting a viewpoint that also challenges internal-based explanations. Following Labov’s (1972b: 283) prediction that in the actuation problem social factors are deeply involved, his point of view is that “actuation must be speaker- based” (J. Milroy 1992a: 77). To him, linguistic change (and linguistic maintenance) originates and is implemented as a consequence of the activities of speakers. To put it simply, “it is not languages that innovate; it is speakers who innovate” (J. Milroy and L. Milroy 1985: 345). Likewise, dialects remain divergent from mainstream norms of language and persist for generations by social pressures (J. Milroy 1992b: ix). Therefore, linguistic change and maintenance cannot be explained “without inquiring into social factors” (J. Milroy 1992b: 24). This position is opposed to system-based accounts of change of which Lass (1980, 1987, 1997) has been a prominent defender in recent times. He strongly dismisses exogenous explanations when he claims that, in most respects, external accounts do not help to explain changes in linguistic structure (Lass 1987: 34-5), since “endogenous change is part of the nature of the beast” (Lass 1997: 208). Moreover, it is pointed out that when attempts to introduce external factors into explanation have been made, they have turned out to be “superficial and otiose” (Lass 1980: 120). In turn, the most fruitful results have come about when historical linguists have studied “formal objects and their mutations over time, not [...] their inventors or users” (Lass 1980: 121). Lass’s view can be summarised as follows: “it is languages that change and not speakers that change languages” (Lass 1980: 122). With his emphasis on the role of the speaker in linguistic change,40 J. Milroy observes a dichotomy speaker/system that leads to an associated

39 The constraints problem has not been investigated in much detail either but, as Weinreich et al. (1968: 101) note, it is because this question falls beyond the scope of quantitative sociolinguistics (J. Milroy and L. Milroy 1985: 341). 40 Awedyk (1998) gives evidence that some Neogrammarians (e.g. Osthoff and Brugmann 1878) and forerunners of structural linguists such as Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (Stankiewicz 1972) had already made the speaker responsible for linguistic change. After wondering why several generations of historical linguists have paid so little attention to speaker-based aspects of sound 54

distinction between speaker innovation and linguistic change. An innovation is an act of the speaker, whereas a change is manifested within the linguistic system. This differentiation seems to help in clarifying the actuation problem insofar as the speaker innovation can be described as an act of the speaker which, if successful, is capable of changing linguistic structures. The explanation of the conditions in which an innovation is successful, and those in which it is not, will be part of the solution to the problem (J. Milroy 1992b: 169).41 An innovation does not become a change until it has been adopted by other speakers (J. Milroy 1992b: 171).42

Figure 2.1. Model of transition from speaker innovation to linguistic change (J. Milroy 1992b: 170)

The same distinction innovation/change can also be used to describe how an isolated innovation succeeds in entering, spreading, and modifying the language of a wider community before becoming a change. In Figure 2.1 above, the model of transition from speaker innovation to linguistic change provided by J. Milroy (1992b: 170) is graphically represented. When a linguistic innovation created by a marginal speaker is accepted by at least one part of the change, he concludes that their ultimate goal has been to explain the inner laws of language for being linguistics a cognitive science (Awedyk 1998: 42). 41 J. Milroy and L. Milroy (1985: 342) treat the diffusion of innovations as part of the actuation question, whereas Labov regards it as an aspect of transition. This discrepancy in the categorisation of the phenomenon is the result of the overlap among the five aspects of the problem of linguistic change; for instance, J. Milroy (1992b: 14) tends to treat constraints, embedding, and evaluation as aspects of the same thing. 42 Not every innovation leads to a change in the same way that “not all variability and heterogeneity in language structure involves change” (Weinreich et al. 1968: 188). 55

speech community, it disseminates to the remainder with increasing speed in an S-curve of diffusion;43 later, once this new linguistic form has been established in the linguistic system, it will be recognised as a change in the community by the sociolinguist.

II.1.3.2. Historical sociolinguistics

Last but not least, Weinreich et al. (1968: 96) call for the test of historical linguistic theory and its techniques against the situation observable in complex urban groups; they state that the study of the dynamics in contemporary communities may lead to refinements of method “which are bound to clarify problems left unsolved in historical linguistic study of the past” (Lehmann and Malkiel 1968b: viii). Labov’s (1975) analysis of the mate/meat merger is particularly convincing in his use of quantitative models to demonstrate how the present might be used to explain the past. Without instrumental records of the use of language in the past, Labov shows that long-standing problems of historical linguistics can be resolved only if linguists draw on the inexhaustible store of data to be found in the study of change in progress in present-day speech communities. He does not, however, claim that a historical issue can be resolved as decisively as linguists might do for a synchronic problem: “The best that we can do is to develop the most plausible reconstruction of past events, in the light of other past and present data” (Labov 1975: 850). Romaine (1982a: x) regrets the few attempts to encompass both historical linguistics and sociolinguistics “to use the past to explain the present”, rather than vice versa as implied by Labov, in the sense of confronting issues with evidence from past periods. One of the objectives stated in her book is to develop a foundation for a field of research she refers to as “socio-historical linguistics” (Romaine 1982a: x). As for the nature of this new discipline,

[t]he main goal [...] would be to investigate and provide an account of the forms/uses in which variation may manifest itself in a given community over time, and of how particular functions, uses and kinds of variation develop within particular languages, speech communities, social groups, networks, and individuals (Romaine 1982a: x).

43 The speed with which an innovation is adopted is determined by social factors; for example, the Milroys’ work draws attention to the relevance of SN in this respect. 56

The corpus selected for her research consists of numerous tokens from texts of seven different stylistic levels written in the Central Scots region between c. 1530 and c. 1550. She scrutinises the texts for relative clause formation, identifying three fundamental strategies: wh- forms, that, and no relative marker (Ø). Her analysis comprises the application of cross-product model and implicational scaling to the data (Romaine 1982a: 139-82). On the basis of these techniques, relative marker deletion may serve as a social and stylistic marker. Cedergren and D. Sankoff’s (1974) variable rule model is then applied to the Ø data, and a comparison of Middle Scots with samples of present-day Scots and present-day English (PDE) is also displayed (Romaine 1982a: 183-217). Romaine demonstrates convincingly that the stylistically motivated variation in relative clause use has remained stable despite minor fluctuations over time; she further argues that stylistic factors can be responsible for linguistic change.44 Likewise, Romaine uses this case study to raise fundamental questions about the future perspectives of “socio-historical linguistics”, regarding mainly its epistemological status (e.g. the relevance of written language or the choice of a scientific methodology for a fruitful study of historical material).45 J. Milroy (1992b: 220-2) develops his own view of what he terms “historical sociolinguistics”.46 Despite being as variationist as Romaine’s model, the approach advocated by J. Milroy is more social; “the changing patterns of language are not seen exclusively as changes in the linguistic shape of a language variety, but also as changes in social agreement on the linguistic norms of communities” (J. Milroy 1992b: 221). He also questions Romaine’s and even Labov’s paradigms, which he considers “mainly system-oriented and [...] of an abstract idealising kind, rather than [...] experimental [...] and speaker- oriented” (J. Milroy 1992b: 221).

44 Romaine and Traugott (1985) present a programmatic statement on style that, according to Wright-Fitzmaurice (1991: 471), has become a manifesto for treatments of syntactic change from a variationist socio-historical perspective. 45 Since the publication of Romaine’s groundbreaking work, social approaches to linguistic variation and change have been more popular than ever (e.g. Machan and C. Scott 1992; Fennell 2001; Conde Silvestre 2007; Hernández Campoy and Conde Silvestre 2012; Millar 2012). 46 “Socio-historical linguistics” and “historical sociolinguistics” are generally employed interchangeably; as a matter of fact, an internet journal edited by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade has both names (URL: www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/). Throughout this dissertation, I opt for the term “historical sociolinguistics”. 57

An increase in works where the variationist paradigm has become one of the standard methods in historical sociolinguistics has been witnessed over recent years. Not necessarily do all methods explore linguistic variation in order to understand linguistic change. Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003: 17) clarify the lines of enquiry of the three major paradigms established:

In social dialectology, the object of study is the orderly heterogeneity of linguistic variation, while the sociology of language focuses on languages and language varieties at the macro level with the aim of accounting for their status and use in speech communities. Interactional sociolinguistics, finally, works at the micro level and is concerned with the verbal and non-verbal organisation of discourse interaction. [...] [T]he three paradigms should also largely employ different methods to achieve [their objects of study], quantitative in the case of social dialectology and the sociology of language, and qualitative in the case of interactional sociolinguistics. What they aim to find out is also different. Interactional sociolinguistics is concerned with communicative competence and discourse construction, while social dialectology is the only one of the three approaches to model processes of linguistic change (italics supplied).47

Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2005: 35-6) see the three frameworks as complementary; they argue that these paradigms, in fact, form an implicational scale that depends on the preservation of linguistic material. For instance, as regards the Old English (OE) period (c. 700-c. 1100), it is possible to study the status and functions of languages and varieties, i.e. questions concerning the sociology of language. Later periods, such as late ME (c. 1300-c. 1500) and early Modern English (eModE) (c. 1500-c. 1700), do offer sufficient material for the study of linguistic variation. Interactional sociolinguistics requires information about individual usage and discourse patterns, which can be found in texts from the eighteenth century onwards. Diachronic variation and change is, therefore, only one part of historical sociolinguistics, but efficient corpus-based studies of individual linguistic changes in their contexts (e.g. Rissanen et al. 1993, 1997) have contributed to the above-mentioned rise in variationist approaches. One clear example is the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC), a corpus of about 2.7 million words with data from nearly 800 people covering the period c. 1410-c. 1681. The

47 Table 2.1 in Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003: 18) gives a synoptic view of the research agendas the three frameworks cover between themselves. See also Table 2.1 in Raumolin-Brunberg (1996: 18) for a schematic comparison of present-day sociolinguistic research with that conducted on varieties of the past. 58

CEEC arises as a resource for supplying the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (HCET) with extralinguistic information of the texts included in order to reach a fuller understanding of the factors conditioning their variation. Extensive computerised corpora like the CEEC contribute to overcome, at least in part, problems associated with linguistic material of the past and may even be suitable for recreating the social context in which texts are produced. However, available extralinguistic data are not always necessary; historical sociolinguists can resort to auxiliary disciplines such as social history, when social information is underrepresented, in order to complete the process of reconstruction. Despite the fact that the communication between sociologists and historians has been described by Burke (1992: 2-4) as “a dialogue of the deaf”, he sees social history as the connection between two significant fields of human endeavour: history and sociology. Raumolin-Brunberg (1996: 19) also equates the role of social history in historical sociolinguistics with that played by sociology in present-day sociolinguistics. It is social historians who provide historical sociolinguists with data that make it possible to create the framework against which linguistic variation and change can be analysed and to reconstruct historical independent variables in correlation with them (Richter 1985: 57-8).

II.1.3.2.1. The limitations of historical inquiry

The approach developed in order to investigate earlier forms of English and to reconstruct past stages of society is essentially multidisciplinary, calling on sociolinguistics, historical linguistics, and social history. This multidisciplinary character means not only the incorporation of theories and practices from all three fields but also the struggle with the conflicts and pitfalls originated in these areas (Bergs 2006: 12).

II.1.3.2.1.1. Back-projection

As stated above (p. 55), Labov’s research on sound change in progress is rooted in the reliance on modern methodology to interpret historical records given their imperfect character. In order to sustain this idea, he adapts a principle 59

borrowed from geology: the uniformitarian principle; it reads as follows: “[T]he linguistic processes taking place around us are the same as those that have operated to produce the historical record” (Labov 1972b: 274-5). Romaine (1982a: 122-3) accepts the uniformitarian principle as the working principle of sociolinguistic reconstruction from a variationist perspective when she writes that “sociolinguistically speaking, [...] there is no reason for claiming that language did not vary in the same patterned ways in the past as it has been observed to do today”. Nevertheless, Raumolin-Brunberg (1996: 19-20) cautions that the uncritical transfer of the models of present-day societies into the past is to be avoided. She warns of the risks of a biased analysis of past societies and of the impossibility to account for the fact that social factors conditioning processes of linguistic change in the past are themselves also transformed over time (Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 1989: 100). The uniformitarian principle seems to be invalidated, at least partly, by the avoidance of back-projection. Based on the social histories of English by Laslett (1965/83), Leith (1983), and Crowley (1989), Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003: 30-43) articulate the reconstruction of the social context of linguistic use in Tudor and Stuart England. Both researchers try to minimise the effects of back-projection by discarding labels familiar in modern sociolinguistics in favour of adapted descriptors. For instance, because social class is a construct formulated in a period that postdates Renaissance England, they opt for contemporary concepts such as estate, social rank, or order; gender is also chosen in place of sex.

II.1.3.2.1.2. Impoverished data

It is widely assumed that historical sociolinguists cannot benefit from the same amount of data as modern sociolinguists for their studies through face-to-face interviews or elicitation in real-world situations. J. Milroy (1992b: 45) highlights two major limitations that strongly contribute to an impoverishment of the database of historical sociolinguistics:

The first is that past states of language are attested in writing, rather than in speech; [...] written language [...] is deprived of the social and situational contexts in which speech events occur. [...] The second limitation is that historical data have been accidentally preserved and 60

are therefore not equally representative of all aspects of the language of past states; [...] the researcher into past states must use materials which were not in the first place collected for this purpose (italics supplied).

Among the disadvantages of written texts are the “temporal gap between the introduction of new forms in speech and their first recordings in written texts” (Raumolin-Brunberg 1996: 17), and the impossibility to gain access to the language of the lowest social strata due to their illiteracy (Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 2003: 27). Before late modern England, writing and reading skills were confined to upper- and middle-rank male informants, with a majority of the English people completely or semi-illiterate and with the average rate of female literacy even lower than that of men (Nevalainen 2000a: 40). Apart from the lack of linguistic data, extralinguistic information needed for sociolinguistic research may not be as readily available as desired. According to Labov (1994: 11), the fact that sociolinguists usually “know very little about the social position of the writers and not much more about the social structure of the community” is as serious a problem as the other half of the problem. The limited nature of its database leads Labov (1994: 11) to define historical (socio)linguistics as “the art of making the best use of bad data”. Nonetheless, Nevalainen (1999) considers that Labov is partly overstressing the importance of bad data. The emphasis should rather be placed on “making the best use of the data available” (Nevalainen and Raumolin- Brunberg 2003: 26 italics supplied). Not only has their work on variation proved able to make the most of bad data, but advances in computing technology have also improved the quality of data (e.g. the HCET and the CEEC).48 Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003: 27) even point to two aspects where historical researches may have an advantage over modern investigations: (i) the depth in time makes it possible to undertake studies in real time and (ii) the nature of communication of historical data is genuine and unaffected by the participation of the researcher.49

48 Bergs (2006: 46) also maintains that the availability of data for historical sociolinguistic studies is much greater than thought. For instance, he cites MacFarlane (1977), who shows that the manorial records from the thirteenth century onwards allow for detailed reconstructions of historical communities. 49 J. Milroy’s position is less optimistic than Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg’s. To him, historical sociolinguistics cannot be considered an experimental science but a mainly speculative branch, where the data may be so impoverished that decisions are reduced to choosing the best explanation amongst a set of possible explanations (J. Milroy 1992b: 46). 61

II.1.3.2.1.3. Register consciousness

Unlike those researchers who assume that historical data are produced without any interference by the interviewer, Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2000c) argues that historical sociolinguists do have to take account of the observer’s paradox. But this paradox takes a different form: the register consciousness. The nature of historical data, whether written or spoken, has been inevitably affected by a certain linguistic consciousness in the part of the producers; speakers and writers monitor the language of their utterances due to the metaphorical presence of the observer through a well defined set of writing rules, or the fear of their information being disclosed (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2000c: 455). Tieken-Boon van Ostade’s exposition appears to comply with J. Milroy’s (1992b: 66) Principle 1: “[L]anguage in use is always observed within a social context of some kind”. This principle contradicts the definition of the vernacular as that spoken style which is absolutely free from consciousness and constrains when elicited. To J. Milroy, the vernacular is an idealised style impossible to reach entirely in practice; all utterances without exception are contaminated by some sort of monitoring. The furthest a sociolinguist is able to go is to obtain the least self-conscious style, i.e. those forms which are as distant as possible from the formal (or standard) norm.50 Tieken-Boon van Ostade lists two text types which can be placed in relative closeness to the vernacular: epistolary writings and private journals. Private letters and journals are less likely to be subject to the consciousness constraint because of their very aspect of intimacy.51 Journals, personal letters, or any other kind of historical record revealing links of the author with other people also constitute material of immense value in determining the nature of a SN in the past. The fact that an individual keeps an entry mentioning a third person, or sends him/her a letter points to a kind of relationship, either weak or strong, between them. Any piece of information, however small, about persons accustomed to interacting with each other has to

50 The concern for vernacularity in the past is what differentiates this kind of approach from more traditional ones (e.g. Wyld 1914; Dobson 1955), whose object of study is the system of the standard language (J. Milroy 1992b: 52). 51 Even though Tieken-Boon van Ostade draws on evidence from the eighteenth century, her arguments can be valid for any other period in the history of English. 62

be exploited as much as possible. Only in this way could historical SN be reconstructed, at least partially.

II.1.3.3. Social networks in the past

Socio-historical researches have mainly concentrated on variables such as social rank (e.g. Nevalainen 1996b; Meurman-Solin 2000), gender (e.g. Nevalainen 1996a, 2000a; Palander-Collin 1999), age (e.g. Raumolin-Brunberg 2005), mobility (e.g. Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 2000; Keene 2000), or style (e.g. Romaine 1985). The projection of SN into the past had received little systematic attention a. 1998, Tieken-Boon van Ostade (1991, 1996) and Raumolin-Brunberg and Nevalainen (1997) being exceptions. But the celebration in that year of a first international workshop devoted to exploring the possibilities of applying the notion of SN to older stages in the history of English has meant a boom for this sort of studies (e.g. Díaz Vera 1999; Hernández Campoy and Conde Silvestre 1999, 2005; Tieken-Boon van Ostade et al. 2000; Conde Silvestre and Hernández Campoy 2004).52 All these network researches are inspired by the a priori capability of universal application of the network concept, as formulated by L. Milroy (1980/87: 178). It seems likely that, in the past, speakers contracted informal social relationships similar to those existing in present-day society. It should then be possible to identify in historical stages of English the same types of SN as today. J. Milroy (1992b: 196) centres around SN to explain why some languages (English and Danish) have been much more structurally innovative than other related languages (Icelandic). As hinted above (p. 45), the conservativeness, stability, and uniformity of Icelandic are due to “the high value placed on the maintenance of strong-tie relationships over long distances, [which] may [...] explain the failure of Icelandic to split up historically into divergent dialects” (J. Milroy 1992b: 196). On the other hand, divergence in English and Danish may be attributable to numerous loose-knit patterns.

52 The 10th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, held at the University of Manchester in September 1998, concluded with this workshop called “Social Network Analysis and the History of English”. The second edition of the workshop took place on the 24th of April 2008 in Almagro, Spain, under the auspices of the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. 63

In a similar manner, Nevalainen (2000b) hypothesises that the changing patterns of mobility in the English population might be used to account for developments in eModE. A growing geographical and social mobility in this period contributes to the break-up of strong ties and, consequently, to the increase of weak ties. Nevalainen (2000b: 256-60) lists the following factors affecting mobility patterns: labour shortage in the aftermath of the Black Death, catastrophic events caused by the Wars of the Roses, or the Civil War (Raumolin-Brunberg 1998), rural flight into urban areas, or the commercialisation of English society with London as the focal point (Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 2000). Through weak ties not only do northern dialect features (-[e]s, you, the which) brought by immigrants succeed in making their way to the capital, but London also leads the diffusion of these morphological changes, except for the which (Nevalainen 2000b: 264). Bergs (2006: 53) assumes that the study of SN structures may offer valuable insights into reasons for diachronic linguistic changes. He argues that phases of linguistic stability and equilibrium (e.g. from c. 800 to the Norman invasion) should correspond to phases with stronger network structures, while phases of linguistic change (e.g. a. 800 or p. 1066) should correspond to phases with weaker network structures. Bergs (2006: 56) further agrees with historians in c. 1500 as the period when the transition from a prototypically medieval (mostly feudal and rural) society to a prototypically modern (mostly urban and innovative) society took place. Before that date, networks were more dense and multiplex, whereas p. 1500 they became rather loose-knit and uniplex. However, Bergs (2000) notes that network applications of this kind only work straightforwardly at a macro-linguistic level since only structural components (density and clustering) can be universally applicable. More detailed micro-linguistic researches at the level of the individual are problematic because content factors such as multiplexity are not universal. These interactional components are “subjective criteria that have to be developed and evaluated for each particular situation in which they are to be applied” (Bergs 2000: 241). Refinements are then necessary for small-scale network studies to look promising. For instance, Bax (2000) devises a different NSS which can be very specifically applicable for the study of eighteenth-century English: 64

Table 2.1. Proposed NSS for the study of eighteenth-century English (Bax 2000: 282)

Functional component – One point is assigned to network contacts A and B for each of the following conditions that they fulfil with regard to each other: (a) Being family (kinship/marriage) (b) Living in the same household (c) Having a professional relationship (d) Interacting as members of the same formal club (e) Living in the same place and knowing each other Spending voluntary leisure time together inside the context defining (f) group membership Spending voluntary leisure time together inside the context defining (g) group membership Emotional component – Each term classifies how network contact A views network contact B. Only B is assigned the corresponding points:  Close friend (3 points)  Friend (2 points)  Acquaintance whom A likes (1 point)  Acquaintance whom A dislikes (-1 point)  Enemy (-2 points)

Bax (2000) proposes a NSS where network patterns (functional component) and attitudinal factors (emotional component) are combined. Whereas the sum of functional conditions is named that informant’s one-to-one functional score, one-to-one emotional score is determined by the emotional distance between the two informants under study. He puts into practice this new design with a quantification of the interrelationships between four members of the Thrale circle (Fanny Burney, David Garrick, Samuel Johnson, and Mrs Thrale) in the winter of 1779. In view of the functional and emotional strength scores, Johnson holds the most central position within the network and the largest number of multiplex relationships.53 Another research that incorporates volitional aspects in networks is Wright-Fitzmaurice’s (2000b) work on Joseph Addison’s writing as a model for early eighteenth-century English prescriptive grammarians. The reasons for the influence of Addison’s language must be found in his reputation as the key figure behind the project of The Spectator, one of the most popular periodicals

53 Other researchers have independently developed NSS for particular contexts and situations. For instance, Lippi-Green (1989: 218-20) introduces a measure of network integration in the local community of Grossdorf, Austria, of 42 respondents of each gender and from different ages. Furthermore, Bergs (2006: 59) also presents a “tentative” NSS for late medieval England that is further studied below (pp. 196-7). 65

of the time. In order to define the connections between the individuals (e.g. Joseph Addison and Richard Steele) around the creation of The Spectator, Wright-Fitzmaurice (2000a) reintroduces the concept of coalition.54 To her, a coalition occurs when “actors knowingly contract ties with specifically selected other actors, for particular purposes, for a particular period of time” (Wright- Fitzmaurice 2000a: 273). The purposeful character of coalitions adds valuable perspectives for the analysis of linguistic maintenance (rather than change) in earlier speech communities (Wright-Fitzmaurice 2000a: 276). Wright-Fitzmaurice (2000b) reconstructs The Spectator’s SN. This reconstruction helps to characterise William Congreve, in a peripheral position, and Joseph Addison, centrally located, as the innovator and the early adopter respectively. Congreve’s preference for who(m) and which as relative markers is innovate within his network; instead, other members such as Lord Wortley, Lady Mary Montagu, or Alexander Pope predominantly opt for that and Ø. The fact that all forms score similar ratios in Addison’s linguistic behaviour underlines that his style is conforming with the prescriptivists’ relative marker choice: who(m) and which. Bergs (2006: 69-70) also reconstructs the Pastons’ network in his work on morphosyntactic variation in their private letters. Unfortunately, not all researchers are able to do it. As pointed out above (§ II.1.3.2.1.2), this sort of studies are at the expense of data availability. When researchers have enough data at their disposal, plenty of biographical information can be collected to build complete SN; otherwise, conclusions on informants’ linguistic behaviour remain merely speculative. This is the case of many network studies where researchers have no choice but to deal with poor data and, consequently, to focus exclusively on relevant individuals who might have acted as linguistic innovators for establishing weak links in loose-knit networks. Tieken-Boon van Ostade’s (1991) study on Samuel Richardson clearly exemplifies this aspect. An extremely conservative user of periphrastic do, Richardson is also classified as a socially mobile businessman in contact with the leisured class, especially the group of men centring around Samuel Johnson. Nevertheless, his ties with most group members are weak; Richardson is then a

54 Coalition had already been defined as “a temporary alliance of distinct parties for a limited purpose” (Boissevain 1974: 171 original italics). 66

mere outsider, his only close contact being with Johnson. Suspicions about Richardson being “something of an innovator in language” (Keast 1957: 432 in Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1991: 48) are confirmed when the innovation (usage of periphrastic do) is adopted by Johnson and spreads as a result of the latter’s prestige within the network (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1991: 50-3). Richardson’s influence has been recognised in the language of James Boswell (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1996) or Sarah Fielding (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2000b). 67

II.2. MIXED-LANGUAGE WRITING

The umbrella term mixed-language writing is employed in my dissertation in order to refer to the major language contact phenomena occurring in the MWA: CS, LC, and LM and LS. In the following pages, I focus firstly on these phenomena separately, secondly, on the interrelations existing between them and, finally, on research combining the two main theoretical tenets of this study: SN and mixed-language writing.

II.2.1. CONCEPTUAL SHAPING AND DELIMITATION

By way of introduction, I feel it appropriate to devote some lines to try to (i) provide a clear definition for CS, LC, and LM and LS, and (ii) to draw as precise as possible distinctions between them.

II.2.1.1. Code switching

From the very beginning, Clyne (2003: 72) makes it clear that “the term ‘code- switching’ has now become so polysemous and unclear that it is necessary to find more precise terms to map out the boundaries and interfaces”. If there is one major factor which characterises research on CS,55 it seems to be its inconsistent terminology. It falls beyond the scope of this section, though, to introduce an exhaustive overview of the conceptual miscellanea used in contact linguistics on the subject of CS.56 Instead, I concentrate on the definitions provided by other studies which are more sociolinguistically oriented:

the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two different grammatical systems or subsystems (Gumperz 1982a: 59).

[T]he use of more than one language in the course of a single communicative episode (Heller 1988: 1).

[T]he use of two or more varieties in the same conversation (Myers- Scotton and Jake 2001: 87).

55 This term can also be written as code switching or codeswitching. Personally, when expanded by me in this dissertation, I always spell it as two words with white space between them. 56 See Gardner-Chloros (2009: 10-3) and Bullock and Toribio (2009: 2-5) for a more detailed overview of the multiplicity of terms. 68

Descriptions offered by researchers with an interest in the sociolinguistic aspects of CS tend to focus on conversation as the level of analysis. Firstly, Gumperz (1982a: 59) is actually defining conversational CS as part of a field of research called interactional sociolinguistics (Blom and Gumperz 1972: 432 et passim.). Secondly, the application of Myers-Scotton’s (1993b) markedness model to CS also rests on her negotiation principle as well as on three maxims (unmarked [or conventional] choice, marked [or unexpected] choice, and exploratory choice), all based on Grice’s (1975) cooperative principle. And thirdly, Auer (1984, 1992) even expands Blom and Gumperz’s (1972) interactional aspects of CS such as contextualisation by explicitly introducing conversation analysis techniques. This gives rise to a paradox for historical sociolinguistic studies insofar as in the case of the latter, written data available for study do not present the inherent interactional dimension of spoken data. Attention could be paid to texts with a more spoken nature such as oral poetry, plays, songs, or even journal and letters, but this would leave out many other texts where mixture of languages equally occurs. A definition of CS which accounts for the nature of historical sociolinguistics seems to be then necessary; in its elaboration, I am not either as extreme as Sebba (2013: 97-8), who calls into question the applicability of CS (and other related terms) to written language at all, or as conservative as Schendl (2000/03), who follows Gumperz’s (1982a: 59) definition of CS without any modification for his medieval poems. As a whole, I define written CS as the appearance of grammatical units from different languages in the same text. As Onysko (2006) argues, any closer definition of written CS favours a structural approach; and mine is no exception. Grammatical units play a vital role for the identification of CS. And it is true that the question of how this definition can account for socio-historical aspects of CS remains; as a matter of fact, the social dimension lies outside the scope of the definition. The answer then must lie in the explanation of why one person in the past switched (if s/he did) while writing in a different way as another. The reasons for switching have to take the role of extralinguistic variables into account.

69

II.2.1.1.1. Types of code switching

Sociolinguistic approaches also bring different typologies of CS. For example, Auer (1984) differentiates four kinds of CS. Discourse related CS means “the use of code-switching to organise the conversation by contributing to the interactional meaning of a particular utterance” (Auer 1998c: 4). Participant related CS occurs when the bilingual speaker has to decide between continuing with the same language as the previous turn or switching to the other both s/he and the rest of participants speak (Auer 1995: 126); the decision to switch may be motivated by his/her preference for the language (i) in which s/he feels more competent (competence related CS), or (ii) with which s/he aims to show identity consciousness (preference related CS). Blom and Gumperz (1972: 424- 5) also distinguish between two types of CS: situational and metaphorical;57 whereas the former recalls the fact that participants, surroundings, and social norms affect the choice of variety, in the case of the latter, choice relates to particular kinds of topics or subject matters. Rather than a function-based distinction as the previous ones, the typology adopted for written CS in the past has to be more of a syntactic kind again (Schendl 2000/03: 306). Based on Poplack’s (1979) pioneer syntactic configuration of CS, Romaine (1989: 112-5) identifies the following types:

(i) Tag switching implies the insertion of tags and set phrases from one language into an utterance otherwise in another. These constituents are freely movable and may be inserted almost anywhere in the sentence without violating any syntactic rule.

The proceedings went smoothly, ba? “The proceedings went smoothly, didn’t they?” ([English/Tagalog] Bautista 1980: 247 in Romaine 1989: 112 original italics).

57 Gumperz (1982a: 61) captures the term of metaphorical switching under the label “conversational code switching”. 70

(ii) Intersentential switching involves a switch occurring at a clause or sentence boundary and also between speakers’ turns.

Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en español. “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English and finish it in Spanish” ([English/Spanish] Poplack 1979: 32 in Romaine 1989: 113 original italics).

(iii) Intrasentential switching occurs within the clause or sentence boundary. These switches are syntactically risky for being the most intimate type. They must conform to the underlying syntactic rules of the two languages.

Otherwise, you bai go long kot. “Otherwise, you’ll go to court” ([English/Tok Pisin] Romaine 1989: 113 original italics).

As Schendl (2000/03: 306) further remarks, Romaine’s (1989) classification represents her own personal interpretation of Poplack’s (1979) work. He particularly alludes to the fact that Poplack actually (i) groups switches into two types: intrasentential and extrasentential, and (ii) does not list clauses under the extrasentential category as Romaine does.58 Apart from the inconsistencies caused by the multiplicity of terms employed to refer to the same phenomena, another sort of disparities comes from the types of CS proposed in the literature depending on the approach adopted. For example, studies drawing on the social context of the utterances add flagged switching to the list; this kind of CS draws attention to the act of switching in itself:

Mais je te gage, par exemple que... excuse mon anglais, mais les odds sont là. “But I bet you, for example that... excuse my English, but the odds are there” ([French/English] Poplack 1985/87: 61 italics supplied).

58 I agree with Schendl (2000/03: 306-7) when, following Myers-Scotton (1993a), he classifies switches of both finite and non-finite dependent clauses as intrasentential, and switches between independent clauses as intersentential. 71

Even though Romaine (1989: 113) incorporates switching within a word boundary into intrasentential switching, other researchers (e.g. McArthur 1992) also prefer to talk about an additional type of CS called intraword switching:

shoppã “shops” ([English/Panjabi] McArthur 1992: 229 original italics).

Intraword switching as a separate term does not appear to be very widespread in the literature though, insofar as it may inflame the already heated debate about the discrimination between CS and loanword.

II.2.1.1.2. Code switching or loanword: Quite a dilemma

When the foreignism is a single lexeme, it is very difficult to determine whether the item has been switched or borrowed. Roughly speaking, there are nearly as many arguments in favour of the former as of the latter in the literature. Researches coming from different approaches have tried to draw the line between both phenomena; the most relevant proposals from each approach warranty some discussion below. Intralinguistic approaches mainly focus on the grammatical aspects underlying CS. Their first way to differentiate loanword from CS arises from grammatical constraints that govern CS. Initial models proposed in the literature try to understand where within the sentence, switching between two specific languages is (im)possible (e.g. Gumperz and Hernández Chávez 1968/75; Timm 1975; Lipski 1978; Pfaff 1979). D. Sankoff and Poplack (1981) are the first researchers to explicitly claim universal validity of syntactic restrictions on CS through two probabilistic (rather than absolute) constraints:

The free morpheme constraint: a switch may not occur between a bound morpheme and a lexical form unless the latter has been phonologically integrated into the language of the bound morpheme (D. Sankoff and Poplack 1981: 5 italics supplied).

This constraint excludes switches like *run-eando and *eat-iendo, insofar as English-origin verbal roots are not integrated into Spanish phonological system, but not forms like flipeando.

72

The equivalence constraint: the order of sentence constituents immediately adjacent to and on both sides of the switch point must be grammatical with respect to both languages involved simultaneously (D. Sankoff and Poplack 1981: 5 italics supplied).

This restriction predicts that CS tends to occur “at points around which the surface structures of the two languages map onto each other” (Poplack 1979: 14). According to the equivalence constraint, for instance, a switch cannot occur from a Germanic to a Romance language between an adjective and a noun in a nominal group since adjectives in Germanic languages come before the nominal head, whereas they normally follow it in Romance languages. Far from being universal, counter-evidence from new pairs of languages as well as novel models have been widely found.59 Although there is little consensus as to how constraints should be conceptualised, it is widely accepted now that CS is neither random nor deviant but governed by general principles. A further criterion is based on the degree of integration (or nativisation) of the foreign item into the recipient language. Poplack (1979) argues that a lexical item constitutes a loanword as long as it shows phonological, morphological, and syntactic integration into the recipient language; as soon as one of these levels of integration is violated, the lexeme is considered to be an instance of CS. Although phonological integration was originally included in Poplack’s (1979: 9) table, this criterion was later rejected because of phonological variability. Poplack et al. (1987) then propose a borrowing continuum ranging from established loanword to nonce borrowing. As Poplack and Meechan (1995: 200) later suggest,

established loanwords (which typically show full linguistic integration, native-language synonym displacement, and widespread diffusion, even among recipient-language monolinguals) differ from nonce borrowings only insofar as the latter need not satisfy the diffusion requirement.

This statement drawing attention to the notion of diffusion actually borders many sociolinguistic approaches. One of them is Myers-Scotton (1992), who also points to frequency of appearance of the linguistic item in the speech community as a basis for distinction. Elements which are recurrent in the discourse of different speakers from the same community become loanwords as

59 See Bokamba (1989) for a concise critical overview of the syntactic constraints paradigm within the study of CS. 73

opposed to switches, which occur just once and are due to idiosyncratic reasons. However, she further thinks that the tracking of foreignism from CS to loanword is just as difficult as that of a neologism from innovation to change, since both are instances of the transition problem. Nevertheless, J. Milroy (1998) offers a solution to this problem by focusing on J. Milroy and L. Milroy’s (1985) innovation/change framework (pp. 53-5). J. Milroy (1998: 23) puts the process of linguistic borrowing on a level with that of linguistic change insofar as both are initiated by speakers and passed from speaker to speaker until their whole acceptance (or not) into the linguistic system. Recalling the conception of the language-using individuals as the locus of the contact (Weinreich 1953: 1), J. Milroy holds that the origin of the linguistic change lies with the individual. More specifically, it is the bilingual individual who activates the process of borrowing by innovating his/her speech with the importation of non-native elements; the process is culminated when the switched foreign item is incorporated into the L1 of other speakers of the same speech community. Once again, collective frequent use is the decisive factor for an ephemeral innovation (CS) to be considered a consolidated change (loanword). CS is then seen as a major triggering mechanism of borrowing influence. CS is not a change but an innovation; the contact-induced change is the loanword.60 Loanword is one of the two types of contact-induced linguistic change that have been traditionally identified in the literature. The second one is interference. J. Milroy inclines to the view that the difference between loanword and interference (like the actuation problem) has to be explained in terms of external causation and particularly due to language contact.61 To Thomason (2001: 66-76), the distinguishing factor between them is the absence/presence of imperfect learning. On the one hand, when learners of an L2 bring features from their L1, interference occurs insofar as learners introduce features that are

60 Among the wide range of terms used in the literature to refer to this phenomenon, I have preferred “borrowing” for the process itself and “loanword” for the culmination of that process as word. 61 J. Milroy (1998: 24) further argues that he does not mean that “there might not be aspects of change that have to be accounted for by internally-based speaker motivation”. For instance, Thomason (2001: 76-7) mentions three: universal markedness, linguistic integration, and typological distance. 74

not used by L1 speakers. On the other hand, in the process of borrowing, those who introduce new features are the native (or at least, fluent) speakers of L1.62 Finally, psycholinguistic approaches have also contributed to this debate. According to them, whereas CS occurs necessarily in the speech of bilingual speakers since one cannot switch to an unknown linguistic system, loanwords can also occur in monolingual speech. Thomason (2001: 133), however, casts a shadow over this criterion’s usefulness in cases where everybody is bilingual.

II.2.1.2. Language choice

Whenever a speaker participates in an intercultural encounter, s/he is faced with the challenge of choosing the appropriate language for that communicative setting; s/he has to answer the following question, plainly formulated by Fishman (1965): “[W]ho speaks what language to whom and when?”. That decision and everything around constitutes the problematic of LC. LC is a phenomenon that evolves at two interrelated levels of abstraction: the individualistic and the societal. As a consequence, whenever in the course of a conversation between bilinguals the medium of communication is left open and the speaker has to choose, forces operating at both levels underlie his/her choice. First of all, I briefly review the most relevant theories of LC as an individualistic phenomenon and, secondly, I do the same for those focusing on LC as a societal phenomenon.

II.2.1.2.1. Language choice as an individualistic phenomenon

Giles’s (1971, 1980) speech accommodation theory examines the reasons why speakers modify their speech with respect to their interlocutors. His theory claims that speakers are motivated to accommodate their speech styles (and other aspects of a non-linguistic nature) as a means of expressing intentions, values, and attitudes towards others (Giles et al. 1977: 322). People can adjust their speech by either moving towards the speech of their interlocutor

62 Speakers’ attitudes and intensity of contact are other social predictors of contact-induced linguistic change mentioned by Thomason 2001: 66, 77-85). As for the latter, Thomason and Kaufman (1988: 77-100) propose their own borrowing scale from casual to not-so-casual contact. 75

(convergence), or emphasising the differences between both styles (divergence). In essence, the desire of approval lies behind that decision; in the first case, the speaker desires to receive a positive evaluation from his/her interlocutor, which could eventually entail personal benefits; in the second case, however, s/he expects to receive it from his/her community, which has generally been in a situation of oppression. Regarding this last idea, Giles et al. (1977) further introduce the concept of ethnolinguistic vitality in order to refer to

that which makes a group likely to behave as a distinctive and active collective entity in intergroup situations. From this, it is argued that ethnolinguistic minorities that have little or no group vitality would eventually cease to exist as distinctive groups. Conversely, the more vitality a linguistic group has, the more likely it will survive and thrive as a collective entity in an intergroup context (Giles et al. 1977: 308).

Even though Giles’s model was originally designed for monolingual situations, its implications for bilingual studies were soon evident. Le Page and Tabouret-Keller’s (1985) study of creoles in Belize and St Lucia bears witness to this. As a matter of fact, both researchers acknowledge the influence as well as the similarities between Giles’s work and their own (Le Page and Tabouret- Keller 1985: 2). Le Page and Tabouret-Keller’s (1985) approach views LC as an act of identity whereby the speaker’s personal and social identity to the world is proclaimed via his/her language of communication, insofar as s/he has to select from more than one language at his/her disposal:

The individual creates for himself the patterns of his linguistic behaviour so as to resemble those of the group or groups with which from time to time he wishes to be identified, or so as to be unlike those from whom he wishes to be distinguished (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985: 181).

Depending on the number of identities available for enactment, the speech community can be regarded as diffuse (if the range is wide, and the boundaries between varieties are not well defined) or focused (if there is one variety which sets the norm of purity for the rest of the community). In a similar vein, Bell’s (1984) audience design derives in part from Giles’s theory. Once again, it is argued that the main factor underlying LC is the addressee insofar as “people are responding primarily to other people” (Bell 1984: 197). Other non-audience factors such as setting or topic are given a 76

subservient role, and their effects are derived on the addressee. The application of this model to bilingual settings has been carried out successfully by Li (1988, 1994) in his studies of Chinese/English communities in Newcastle upon Tyne.63 Not all micro-level approaches focus exclusively on the interlocutor as the main communicative factor affecting LC though. In her study of Japanese American couples, Ervin-Tripp (1964) points to the notion of topic. According to her conclusions, Japanese informants who have left their country of origin tend to discuss topics related to their new life in the United States in English, whereas messages whose content deals with their hometown are transmitted in Japanese. Furthermore, informants confess that they have difficulty discussing topics in the other language.

II.2.1.2.2. Language choice as a societal phenomenon

Contrary to the previous individualistic approaches that view LC as determined by the interpersonal relationship between addresser and addressee, societal approaches are, as their name implies, more “society-centred” (Fasold 1984: 187); that is to say, the linguistic usages of the individual are influenced by overall social norms. The most relevant contributions to this macro-societal approach come from the works of Charles Ferguson and Joshua Fishman.

II.2.1.2.2.1. Diglossia and domains

Ferguson (1959: 336) uses the concept of diglossia in order to refer to the linguistic situation reported in some countries where

in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety [...] which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any section of the community for ordinary conversation.64

63 In spite of this example and Bell’s own suggestions, researches applying this model to situations of bilingualism have not proliferated. 64 Fasold (1984: 34) points out that Ferguson’s coinage is inspired by the French form diglossie in the work of Marçais (1930). 77

For convenience of reference, Ferguson prefers the terms high variety (H) for the superposed variety and low variety (L) for the primary dialects. In his original formulation, nine characteristic features of diglossia where H and L differ are highlighted (function, prestige, literary heritage, acquisition, standardisation, stability, grammar, lexicon, and phonology). One of the most important features is the specialisation of function for H and L; both varieties coexist in a speech community but are employed in different contexts and serve different functions. H and L are distributed on a binary opposition with only slight overlap, so that in one set of situations only H is considered appropriate (sermons, letter writing, political speeches, university lectures, news broadcast, newspaper editorial, and poetry) and in another, L and only L (work instructions, family conversations, soap operas, cartoons, and folk literature); community members would find it odd if anyone used H in an L domain, or vice versa. Examples selected to illustrate Ferguson’s notion of diglossia are Classical Arabic (H) and Egyptian Arabic (L) in Egypt, Standard German (H) and Swiss German (L) in Switzerland, French (H) and Haitian Creole (L) in Haiti, and Katharévusa Greek (H) and Dhimotikí Greek (L) in Greece. Ferguson’s formulation of diglossia becomes widely accepted in the few years that elapse since its publication, and it does not take researchers long to extend its scope and to refine potentially weak points. As exemplified right above, diglossia is a notion initially construed to account for the use of different dialects of the same language. Fishman (1980: 4) introduces the possibility of extending the original definition to include communities where H and L are not necessarily genetically related varieties but different mother tongues;65 this extension leads to four possible combinations between H and L:

1. H as classical, L as vernacular, where the two are genetically related, e.g. Classical and vernacular Arabic, Sanskrit and Hindi. 2. H as classical, L as vernacular, where the two are not genetically related, e.g. textual Hebrew and Yiddish. 3. H as written/formal spoken and L as vernacular, where the two are not genetically related to one another, e.g. Spanish and Guaraní in Paraguay. 4. H as written/formal spoken and L as vernacular, where the two are genetically related to one another, e.g. Urdu and spoken Panjabi.66

65 Fishman’s version has been referred to as extended diglossia and Ferguson’s as classical diglossia. For a brief survey of different terminologies, see Schiffman (1997: 209). 66 Jendraschek (2004) schematises and exemplifies other situations of distribution between varieties in bilingual and multilingual societies. 78

In a similar vein, Fishman (1965: 86) reintroduces the concept of domain.67 As he states, “the concept of domains of language choice represents an attempt to provide socio-cultural organisation and socio-cultural context for considerations of variance in language choice in multilingual settings”. Together with media, role, and situation, domain is seen as a source of variance in linguistic usage in multilingual settings and can be also a useful means of illuminating patterns of LC (Fishman 1964: 35-6). Fishman (1965) divides society into several spheres of activity ranging from family domain to governmental administration domain through occupational domains.68 Proper and/or common usage in each domain dictate that only one of the theoretically co-available languages in a speech community will be chosen by particular classes of interlocutors on particular occasions (Fishman 1965: 67-8); domain itself then contributes to understand why individuals communicate with each other in one language and not in the other. A typical example given consists of husband and wife talking about domestic issues at home (family domain); this domain would require the use of a specific language surely different from that employed in their respective workplaces (work domain).69

II.2.1.2.3. Language choice and its interaction with both dimensions

On the one hand, classical diglossia and extended diglossia are originally formulated at the macro-societal level; as a consequence, they only refer to language distribution in the society as a whole and not in the actual usage of individuals (Saville-Troike 1982/2003: 45-6). On the other hand, bilingualism does not represent an “enduring societal arrangement” (Fishman 1989: 181) but is limited to describe the use of two (or more) languages by individuals. Despite the a priori difficult reconciliation between both dimensions, Fishman (1967)

67 Fishman (1964: 37-8) cites the works of Schmidt-Rohr (1932) and Mackey (1962) as some of the previous elaborators of the concept. Li (1994: 7) adds Weinreich (1953) to this list. 68 Schmidt-Rohr (1932) proposes nine domains (family, street, school, press, literature, church, military, courts, and bureaucracy). In turn, Mackey’s (1962) division is into five areas (home, community, school, mass media, and correspondence). 69 The domain model is not without its shortfalls though; even Fishman (1965: 87-8) himself enumerates a number of remaining problems. Li (1994: 10) demonstrates that a clear-cut distinction between domains does not exist in some contact situations, e.g. a patient accidentally meeting his/her doctor in a supermarket and beginning to talk about domestic affairs. 79

constitutes the most ambitious attempt to connect the societal arrangement of languages with the linguistic manifestations of speakers.70 Fishman (1967: 29) explicitly aims to relate sociological and psychological approaches through the interaction of their main constructs: diglossia and bilingualism.71 The relationships between diglossia and bilingualism produce four possible combinations which are schematised in Table 2.2:

Table 2.2. Relationships between diglossia and bilingualism (Fishman 1967: 30)

Diglossia

+ - 1. Both diglossia and 2. Bilingualism without + bilingualism diglossia Bilingualism 3. Diglossia without 4. Neither diglossia nor - bilingualism bilingualism

Diglossia without bilingualism (quadrant 3) describes a situation where two or more speech communities are united under one single roof, but their sociocultural differences are still visible. Historically, the elites have spoken only the fashionable H, whereas the masses have used the L. In contemporary societies like Canada or Belgium, more than one language is buttressed at the institutional level, while most individuals remain basically monolingual. As these groups have never (or at least rarely) interacted with one another but minimally via translators or interpreters, they are considered not to form a single speech community (Fishman 1967: 33-4). Configurations where both diglossia and bilingualism exist (quadrant 1) are characterised by widespread bilingualism at both levels. This category indicates the prototypical diglossic situation as described by Ferguson (1959); a complex speech community whose members have available both a range of compartmentalised roles and ready access to them can be found (Fishman 1967: 31). In Paraguay, for example, Spanish is used to talk and to write about

70 According to Grosjean (1982: 143-4), Rubin’s (1968) decision tree model also takes into consideration factors coming from both the individualistic (e.g. participants, native language, or sex) and the societal dimension (e.g. function of interaction or location) in order to account for LC between Spanish and Guaraní in Paraguay. 71 Curiously enough, Fishman does not choose his own concept of domain. 80

government, education, religion, or high culture, whereas Guaraní is maintained for matters of group solidarity and intimacy (Rubin 1968). As shown, diglossia indicates relative linguistic stability; clear compartmentalisation prevents the competition between languages for use in the same domains and, consequently, promotes LM. As soon as diglossia decreases, languages come to compete with each other in every domain. This absence of language differentiation triggers the situation of bilingualism without diglossia (quadrant 2), which is transitional towards LS.72 Fishman (1967: 36) argues that

[w]ithout separate though complementary norms and values to establish and maintain functional separation of the speech varieties, that language or variety which is fortunate enough to be associated with the predominant drift of social forces tends to displace the other(s).73

Unlike Ferguson’s formulation, Fishman’s extended model does account for unstable situations where the preference for a particular language in some domains changes, and one of the languages is eventually displaced, even if one of Fishman’s conditions for diglossia is a relative stability during at least three generations. Ferguson’s original conception only focuses on the possibility of diglossic situations to persist stably for at least several centuries but offers no account of likely changes over time (Ferguson 1959: 330-1). The domain-based LS does not necessarily mean a total shift from one language to another in all domains at the same time; some domains may shift to the other language later than other domains. Diglossia is a very useful term at a mere descriptive stage but does not go beyond and does not explain the factors that respectively encourage LM and LS. Fishman (1964: 49) is quite pessimistic on this particular point: “It is currently impossible to specify in advance an invariant list of psychological, social, and cultural processes or variables that might be of universal importance for an understanding of language maintenance or language shift.” He further cites setting and prestige as two of the most popularly cited factors purportedly influencing LM and LS that have not had universal validity.

72 Pidginisation is another of the possibilities likely to appear especially among low-status speakers, who have limited access roles and rarely interact with members of the powerful classes (Fishman 1967: 36). 73 Examples of the fourth and last case (neither diglossia nor bilingualism) are hard to find since only very small and isolated communities are said to reveal this pattern (Fishman 1967: 36-7). 81

Regarding prestige, for instance, it has not been always the case that a language with lower prestige is replaced by one with higher prestige (e.g. French succumbing to English in medieval England) (Fishman 1964: 54). As hinted right above, to Fishman (1972: 115-6), LM is possible if and only if a clear separation of domains and a stable bilingualism are present:

A strict domain separation becomes institutionalised so that each language is associated with a number of important but distinct domains, bilingualism may well become both universal and stabilised even though an entire population consists of bilinguals interacting with other bilinguals.

II.2.1.3. Language maintenance and language shift

It has become clear so far that contacts between languages can result in important linguistic consequences for the speech communities involved as well as for the individuals within it. Different languages begin to coexist in specific spheres at a number of levels, and decisions concerning how to deal with the linguistic codes available are to be made on all these levels. Thus, a (group of) speaker(s) may decide (i) to keep the original native language (LM), (ii) to shift from the native language to the other one (LS), or (iii) to create a new code to enhance communication (language creation).74 The notions of LM and LS have traditionally been inseparable from each other and seen as pillars of a single field of inquiry (Fishman 1964); in fact, both can be said to represent the two sides of the same coin. LM with bilingualism has been viewed as a previous stage on the way to LS, but this does not mean that bilingualism automatically implies that one of the languages is going to disappear. For this to happen, a series of necessary conditions are to be in place. In spite of Fishman’s (1964: 49) original pessimism, a wide range of causes of LM and LS have been firmly suggested in the literature. There are lists of all types; those focusing more on micro-extralinguistic factors such as intermarriage, age, mobility, or educational background (e.g. Fasold 1984: 217; Romaine 1989: 39-40), others paying attention to macro-extralinguistic factors such as government policies, industrialisation, and labour market (e.g. Fishman

74 Despite the controversial conception of ME as a creole (e.g. Bailey and Maroldt 1977; Dor 1994), the emergence of contact languages falls beyond the scope of this dissertation. I focus exclusively on the process of LS from AF and BL to SE. 82

1991: 57-65), and others also taking into consideration intralinguistic factors such as standardisation, international status, or degree of similarity between the languages (e.g. Conklin and Lourie 1983: 174-5). The absence/presence of these factors exerts a simultaneous influence on LM and LS; what promotes retention, on the one side, discourages loss, on the other side, and vice versa. None of these factors explains in itself both retention and loss as a whole; it is rather a combination of circumstances that may speed them up or slow them down. The operative nature of LS at several levels of abstraction is mirrored by the different definitions of the term suggested. On the one hand, there are researchers who prefer to define LS from the perspective of the speakers: “gradual displacement of one language by another in the lives of the community members” (Dorian 1982: 44), or “[w]hen speakers abandon a language for an L2” (Myers-Scotton 1993a: 224). On the other hand, the focus is on the community as a whole: LS “means that a community gives up a language completely in favour of another one” (Fasold 1984: 213), and is also “the process whereby a speech community, which traditionally uses language B, gradually stops using it and turns to language A” (Grin 1993: 378). But there are also definitions of LS which take both dimensions into account: “speech communities whose native languages are threatened [...] with fewer and fewer users [...] or uses every generation” (Fishman 1991: 1). Furthermore, on some occasions, definitions of LM provided in the literature also depend directly on LS: “the absence of language shift” (de Vries 1992: 214). This is not all though; the conceptual delimitation of other processes is also sometimes constructed upon the notion of LS. This is the case of language death and language revitalisation. As for the former, language death is seen as the culmination of LS (e.g. Dressler 1988: 184; Romaine 2010: 320). Concerning the latter, Fishman (1991, 2001) terms “reversing language shift” the process whereby an endangered language is saved via the expansion of its use and users. As has been seen, terminological issues add complexity to the study of CS and LM and LS. If the term LS is taken as the basis for the definition of many others, in the case of CS, several different terms are used in order to refer to the same linguistic phenomenon. But this is not the only occasion when CS and LS (and LC) share underlying similarities.

83

II.2.2. SIMILARITY AND INTERDEPENDENCE

Apart from developing other commonalities between CS, LC, and LM and LS in a number of aspects, in this section I also discuss deeper theoretical interrelationships bringing these concepts together.

II.2.2.1. Common origin

Needless to say that, as language contact phenomena, CS, LC, and LM and LS would not occur, if two (or more) different languages did not come into contact. These three phenomena represent only a part of all the direct consequences any contact may have on each language involved. Countless lists of reasons for language contact have been proposed in the literature (e.g. Grosjean 1982: 30-6; Fasold 1984: 9-12; Appel and Muysken 1987/2005: 5-6; Thomason 2001: 15- 21). Even though in each subsequent classification new circumstances have been included, major factors do not differ substantially. These can be grouped into four broad categories: movement of peoples, spread of languages, geopolitical arrangements, and border areas. Throughout history, a potential source of language contact has been the movement of a group of people into another (normally neighbouring) area. Thomason (2001: 20) divides these migratory phenomena into sporadic and extended. Regarding the former, Thomason mentions the voyages of Europeans to coastal regions in Asia for specific purposes such as trade and commerce during the Age of Exploration. As for the latter, either a powerful group moves into another territory to take control over it (voluntary migration), or newcomers belong to disadvantaged groups in their homeland and migrate involuntarily for socioeconomic reasons (lack of food or work) or political and religious issues (persecution).75 Without implying a mass movement of people, a language may also spread because of certain advantages or symbolism associated with it. This can happen beyond or within the borders of a defined territory. Education, culture,

75 The British Isles constitute an excellent example of a territory where both kinds of extended migration have occurred. They have been host of a number of military invasions and conquests, from Romans to Normans, but also of the influx of workforce from former colonies in Southern Asia. 84

diplomacy, and international communication are areas where, independently of one’s place of residence, the use of a foreign language has been traditionally required in order to evolve professionally. Whereas in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, any educated person had to learn Latin, nowadays the most widespread language of communication is English. Regarding the second process, especially when the language of an ethnic group is excluded from practically all domains, speakers of this minority language can ask for conditions to preserve and to promote the knowledge of their local variety. This is what Myers-Scotton (2002: 33) calls “ethnic awareness” and of which Welsh and Gaelic in Britain and Basque, Galician, and Catalan in Spain are good examples (Appel and Muysken 1987/2005: 6). Two (or more) ethnic groups using different languages can also be artificially brought together through decisions made at the macro-geopolitical level. When these different socio-cultural and linguistic groups are united under the political control of one state, they become federated. Fasold (1984: 11) divides federation into two types: voluntary and forced. On the one hand, in 1848, Swiss population realised that the four linguistically divergent cantons would profit more if their interests were merged; this is the main reason why present-day Switzerland has four official languages: French, German, Italian, and Romansh. On the other hand, Bangladesh, formerly known as East Bengal, became a province of the newly founded Dominion of Pakistan in 1947 with the partition of the British Indian Empire. That federation did not work successfully though; mainly ethnic and linguistic discrimination by politically dominant West Pakistan led to an independence war in 1971.76 Areas around borders constitute an extremely interesting environment for linguistic study since they act as meeting points where speakers of different languages encounter every day. Unlike well defined geographical boundaries, ethnolinguistic borders are much fuzzier; near the borders between countries, it is easy to find people who are citizens of one country but members of a socio- cultural group in another. When relations between neighbouring groups of speakers last for an extended period of time and/or are intense (e.g. through

76 Although less prevalent, another type of arrangement also occurs when a powerful country seizes and takes control of one or more smaller countries. A clear example of annexation happened after the Second World War with the absorption of the Baltic republics into the Soviet Union and the subsequent contact between Russian and Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian (Thomason 2001: 24). 85

intermarriage), close cultural connections as well as linguistic influences may develop. Although resemblance between languages and peoples undoubtedly makes the transmission of features more likely to occur (e.g. OE and Old Norse [ON] during the Viking Age in England), it has been proved that for intense language contact to be originated, the varieties need not be genetically related. There are regions such as the Balkans which contain a group of several unrelated languages that share some structural features as a result of close long- time contact in a particular ecosphere and not as a result of inheritance from a common ancestor; these areas have been termed “linguistic archipelago[s]” (Appel and Muysken 1987/2005: 5) or, more generally, Sprachbund (Trubetzkoy 1928 in Thomason 2001: 99).

II.2.2.2. Negative attitudes

Terminology employed when dealing with LS inevitably introduces a nuance of negativity. “Loss”, “endangerment”, “displacement”, and especially “death” imply the worsening of the linguistic situation. Ultimately, the fact that a language is abandoned entails the loss of cultural richness in a territory. Furthermore, on some occasions, a sense of drama is even added to the death of a language, if the linguicide happens in extremely hostile conditions for the last speakers of a language (e.g. victims of genocide or casualties from natural disasters). In the same way as LS has been traditionally conceptualised as negative, referring always to loss of a community’s linguistic variety, CS has long been stigmatised for being considered (i) the result of lack of linguistic competence, and (ii) the cause of further negative effects on the speaker’s intellectual capacities. Popular enough is Bloomfield’s sketch of a Menominee Indian who mixes languages:

White Thunder, a man around 40, speaks less English than Menomini, and that is a strong indictment, for his Menomini is atrocious. His vocabulary is small, his inflections are often barbarous, he constructs sentences of a few threadbare models. He may be said to speak no language tolerably (Bloomfield 1927: 395 (sic) [437] in Li 2000: 19).77

77 Bloomfield’s characterisation implicitly introduces the notion of semilingualism, i.e. a speaker knowing neither of the two languages. Semilingualism, which has been largely debated in Hansegård (1968), Skutnabb-Kangas (1981), Martin-Jones and Romaine (1986), or Romaine 86

Stigma has even been emphasised by bilingual speakers themselves. Social pressures against the use of CS are exerted by both community and outside members. This linguistic phenomenon has been given a number of pejorative terms such as Franglais and Joual (French/English switching in France and Quebec respectively), or Tex-Mex (CS among Mexican Americans). Consequently, bilinguals either never switch or restrict it to situations where risk of stigmatisation is low. Negative attitudes towards CS do not remain constant over time though. CS can also be regarded positively as soon as linguistic ideology changes, and social prestige is attached to it. For instance, Pocho and Caló (both derogatory terms for the Spanish of Chicanos in Southwestern United States) have now become symbolic of Chicano values with the awakening of ethnic consciousness and with the growing pride in local folk traditions (Gumperz 1982a: 63). In a similar vein, linguists have recently ceased to view CS with suspicion. Instead, switching between languages has shown itself to be a rather complex component of the bilingual’s linguistic repertoire. The challenge of achieving a full explanation not only of this phenomenon but also of linguistic change conceived as the result of contact has given birth to countless publications in the last years (e.g. Winford 2003; Bhatia and Ritchie 2004; Bullock and Toribio 2009; Gardner-Chloros 2009a; Hickey 2010); a blossoming of which my dissertation is also a direct consequence. Exactly like oral CS in contemporary communities, written CS occurring in early times, which had been traditionally downplayed as a corrupted way of communication by researchers studying ancient texts, has also come to be viewed as a phenomenon with all its pragmatic and discourse load available for bilinguals. This parallel evolution also warranties some discussion in the following paragraphs.

(1989: 232-43), should not be confused with another similar term: semi(-)communication. Defined by Haugen (1966b: 281) as “the trickle of messages through a rather high level of ‘code noise’”, semicommunication refers to the fact that speakers without identical languages can communicate with each other as long as languages’ differences are overcome, and mutual comprehensibility is exploited by the speakers themselves (e.g. communication between Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians). Haugen’s (1966b) model has been successfully applied to Medieval Latin/Middle Low German merchant accounts (Braunmüller 1997) and to BL/ME archives of the London Bridge (L. Wright 2000/03). 87

II.2.2.2.1. Early code switching

In spite of the fact that Britain has been a multilingual territory during much of its history, only until very recently the mixing of different languages in the history of English has deserved to be analysed in depth. Whereas the results of language contacts on the linguistic system of English have been extensively studied, research into the dynamic phenomenon of CS is deemed to be still scarce (Schendl 200o/o3: 305). Scholars investigating historical manuscripts well into the twentieth century were still under the nineteenth-century belief that languages should be clearly separable entities. Schendl (2002b: 51-2) mentions R. Chambers’s (1932: 82) criticism of the corruptness of legal texts written in Britain during the late Middle Ages:

[R. Chambers] complains that after the Norman Conquest “the English people [...] began to conduct their legal business, first of all in the French language, and then in no language at all”. [...] What [R.] Chambers calls “no language at all” is “this jargon of ‘Law French’”, which he illustrates by the mixed French-English sentence “Il jecte un graund brickbat que narrowly mist”.

However, in the last decades, research on the history of written mixed- language data (and particularly on CS) on English soil has expanded greatly.78 Schendl (2002b: 56-66) cites four research traditions that have been particularly fruitful in enhancing it: literary, philological-medievalist, linguistic, and sociolinguistic. The following section is a summary of Schendl’s (2002b) collection.

II.2.2.2.1.1. Approaches to early code switching

Literary approaches have mainly focused on the aesthetic, poetic, and stylistic functions of mixing between languages in what Wehrle (1933) called “macaronic poetry” (e.g. Harvey 1978; Archibald 1992). Strong attention has been paid to a very specific phenomenon: BL insertions in the ME verse piece Piers Plowman (e.g. Sullivan 1932; Machan 1994). But poetry is not the only literary genre to be studied; for instance, Diller (1997-98) scrutinises the textual functions of CS in

78 Studies focusing exclusively on written CS in present-day communities have also been appearing in the last few years (e.g. Montes Alcalá 2005; Escamilla and Hopewell 2007; Laroussi 2011; Sebba et al. 2012; Sebba 2013). 88

medieval drama, and Davidson (2003) analyses patterns of language mixing in multilingual interactions in The Chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft, The Canterbury Tales, and Piers Plowman. Research in the philological-medievalist tradition has unveiled the high frequency of language mixing in texts other than literary, namely scientific and medical manuscripts (e.g. Ehrsam Voigts 1989, 1996; Taavitsainen and Pahta 1998, 2004; Pahta 2004), sermons and religious writings (e.g. Fletcher 1994; Wenzel 1994). These researchers provide taxonomies of their respective text types, which ground the basis for further linguistic study. As a natural consequence of adopting the uniformitarian principle (pp. 58-9), linguistic approaches have tested (not without modification) the applicability of modern theories to old data. Depending on the model applied, two kinds of study can be found: functional-pragmatic and syntactic- grammatical. Not very far from the two approaches reviewed right above, among the functional-pragmatic studies, one can find works dealing with different functions of CS, such as speaker characterisation in poetic texts (Machan 1994; Schendl 1997), identity construction and quotation marking in sermons (Fletcher 1994; Wenzel 1994), and also from a contrastive perspective in literary and non-literary texts (Davidson 2001). However, Schendl and L. Wright (2011b: 17-8) hold that the application of modern functional-pragmatic models has not been as useful as expected; they mention the increasing criticism of the application of modern theories exclusively based on spoken language to written data. Syntactic-grammatical studies, for their part, have especially concentrated on the search for structural constraints on CS. Relevant examples include Archan’s (2000) test of the validity of Myers-Scotton’s (1993a) matrix language frame model, Poplack’s (1979) equivalence constraint, and di Sciullo et al.’s (1986) government model in a medieval sermon and in an early modern medical text, Schendl’s (2000b) study of switching patterns in a small corpus of fifteenth-century poems and sermons, and Halmari and Adams’s (2002) application of the government model to BL insertions in Piers Plowman. Unlike the case of functional-pragmatic models, not only has the application of grammatical models arrived at interesting conclusions, but an extension of new models for further research is even encouraged (Schendl and L. Wright 2011b: 89

17). Recent work on corpus linguistics can be mentioned as a step in this direction. Modern computer corpora of historical English texts such as the HCET, the CEEC, and the Innsbruck Corpus have ceased to neglect the non- English material and to only indicate its omission (Schendl 2000/03: 311). Even though Nurmi and Pahta (2004) and Pahta and Nurmi (2006, 2011) constitute promising corpus-based studies on historical CS, purpose-built corpora of mixed-language texts are still needed (Schendl and L. Wright 2011c: 14). Recalling Halmari’s (1997: 2) warning about the necessity of a multi-level approach for a full explanation of CS, Schendl (2002b: 66) emphasises the potential explanatory power of social contexts in this kind of approaches. As a response, sociolinguistic approaches with extralinguistic variables influencing CS, LC, and LM and LS at their centre have emerged. Due to the absence of a comprehensive macro-linguistic analysis of early CS, micro-level research has monopolised this sociolinguistic approach (Schendl and L. Wright 2011c: 4-5). Even if these studies have also covered all the different periods into which the history of English is divided, the greater part of the research into early micro- level CS concentrates on the medieval period and the beginning of early modern Britain. Clear examples are Pahta and Nurmi (2009) and Nurmi and Pahta (2010), who analyse the correlation between the social roles of two late Modern English (lModE) letter-writers (Charles Burney and Thomas Twining, respectively) and their use of CS, and also Pahta et al.’s (2010) monograph. Schendl (1997: 54, 2004) is one of the first researchers to focus on CS in the so- far-neglected OE period and also to check it against a Labovian-type of analysis (Schendl 2011).

II.2.2.2.1.2. Advantages and limitations

Research on early CS both enjoys the same advantages and is inevitably affected by the same limitations as any historical investigation (§ 1.3.2.1). As far as advantages is concerned, Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003: 27) point to the possibility of undertaking studies in real time as the main perspective lacking in modern sociolinguistic research. In the case of mixed-language writing, depth in time may cast some light on the diachronic development and historical patterns of CS, LC, and LM and LS. This step has 90

been successfully taken in L. Wright’s (1994a, 1995a, 1998b, 2002, 2005) works on the evolution of mixed-language business accounts. Regarding limitations, the number of general and methodological problems for the study of early CS are listed in Schendl (2000b: 71). His division into four different shortcomings can be here grouped into two main categories: data problems and what Trotter (2006: 80-3) calls “the evidence problem”. As stated above (§ II.1.3.2.1.2), problems derived from scarcity of data are inherent to any historical study. Overall, the amount of mixed-language texts recovered from the past is considerably smaller than the already scanty number of monolingual texts (Schendl 2000b: 71). Furthermore, in the case of the OE period, there exists such scarce written evidence that the exact nature of language contact between OE, ON, and Celtic dialects is still debated (Dawson 2003; Filppula et al. 2008). Opprobrium casted upon ancient texts where CS occurs is to be added to the scantiness of data. Traditional prejudice against CS has contributed to the fact that most switched material still remains unedited. Editions of mixed- language manuscripts are gradually being published; however, when manuscripts have been edited, it has been done in an inappropriate way. The editors’ bigger interest in the content of the texts rather than in their form has led to the neglect of a salient feature of mixed-language texts and, in particular, of medieval business writing: the abbreviations and suspension system. As L. Wright (1996b: 8-9) explains, this system was used by medieval scribes (i) to write a word more quickly and to save parchment space and ink, (ii) as a means of facilitating comprehension for the reader, regardless of his origin or competence in foreign languages, and (iii) to exploit the overlap between BL, AF, and ME. Normally, only the root of a word was represented by letter graphs, while the suffix was indicated either by an abbreviation or by a suspension sign.79 Therefore, these signs served to background the Romance morphology and to foreground stems BL, AF, and ME had in common (L. Wright 2000a: 150). Through the silent expansion of the abbreviations and suspension signs into Romance morphology, the modern editor “impose[s] a

79 For example, candelæ could be simultaneously interpreted as both BL “candelarum” and ME “candle”, and carpent’ as BL “carpentarius” and ME “carpenter” (L. Wright 1996b: 9). 91

spurious uniformity on a medieval text” (L. Wright 2000a: 154) rather than enhance its full multilingual potential.80 Not only is the quantity of data scanty, but their quality is also poor. Texts’ audience, genesis, function and, more importantly, authors are often not fully known (Schendl 2000b: 71). This lack of information on extralinguistic variables makes any sociolinguistic approach very difficult to be applied. According to Trotter (2006: 75), the evidence problem consists of two more specific questions:

1. The terminology of a specific domain, shipbuilding [in Trotter’s article], and the interpretative difficulties which it causes in terms of language identification (and thus dating and etymology). 2. The lexicographical problem: when are words to be “labelled” English, or Anglo-Norman, or Latin, and how are dictionaries (traditionally dealing with each language in isolation) to represent them and the linguistic reality behind them?

This problem especially affects the lexicon of texts written during the ME period. Unlike the situation for modern languages, the linguistic systems involved in medieval mixed-language texts are relatively ill-described and less clearly separable (Schendl 2000b: 71). Furthermore, if the author of a text employs abbreviations and suspension signs, the clear assignment of a specific- language label to a word turns into a remarkably difficult endeavour. Arrived at that point, one should resort to the word’s etymology in order to solve the problem; however, lexicographers and historical linguists have long realised that an unambiguous etymological separation between words of different languages may also be difficult to make (Trotter 1996). L. Wright (2011a) argues that historical dictionaries are not infallible in determining the etymological origin of a word.

Table 2.3. First attestations of bagpipe in medieval dictionaries (from L. Wright 2011a)

Dictionary Headword Date of attestation DMLBS bagepipa 1288 MED bagge-pipe c. 1350 OED bagpipe c. 1356

80 Recent editors have at least remedied this neglect by indicating the expanded stretches via italics (e.g. Jefferson 2003, 2009). 92

Contrary to the underlying assumption that the earliest attestation of a word must appear in the etymological dictionary of this word’s his word’s original language, she clearly shows that this is not always the case. In Table 2.3 above, it can be seen how the earliest attestation of bagpipe occurs in 1288 in the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources (DMLBS), thus predating the other English dictionaries (c. 1350 in the Middle English Dictionary [MED] and c. 1356 in the Oxford English Dictionary [OED]). Nevertheless, common sense tells that bagpipe, from ON baggi “bag” + OE pipe “pipe”, comes from English and not from Latin. Therefore, just because bagepipa appears inflected and inserted into a BL text does not mean that bagepipa should be automatically regarded as a full member of BL’s lexical storage. Bagepipa is likely to have appeared in a multilingual text in the same way as shipping material terms in the following entry:

Et in cordis et cordulis emptis a diversis pro eadem galia xxiiii s. iii d. sicut continetur ibidem. Et in uno masto uno longspret et i Lof i Seilyierd Windas emptis pro eadem galia. “And for ropes and lines bought from various [vendors] for the same galley 24s. 3d. as is contained there. And for a mast, a (long?) bowsprit and a loof spar, a sail-yard, a windlass bought for the same galley” ([1294-95] Sandahl 1958: 52 in Trotter 2006: 81).

The italicised shipping terms (longspret, Lof, Seilyierd, Windas) are not part of the list of BL substantives but are indisputably ME words. Lexicographers have often overlooked the fact that a word in a text where several languages are used cannot be straightforwardly incorporated as a full item in one of these languages. Consequently, far from solving the problem, lexicographers’ policy on including foreign-origin lexical items regardless of the linguistic context where they are written has contributed to enmeshing even more the situation. Another problem in close relationship with this debate has arisen: the lexicographical problem. As stated right above, the lexicographical problem pivots around determining exactly when words enter other languages; in other words, when is a foreign word to be considered a loanword? The never-ending discussion on what differentiates CS from loanword then returns again (§ II.2.1.1.2). As proved in this section, no longer can historical linguists blindly rely on historical dictionaries’ datings as the criterion for the inclusion or exclusion of a 93

foreignism as a borrowed item. Neither are Poplack’s (1979) integration criteria completely reliable for such a distinction nor Myers-Scotton’s (1992) frequency criterion yields satisfactory results with ancient languages (Schendl 2000b: 86). Currently, there is a growing tendency to see CS and loanwords as situated on a continuum and, thus, as not being fundamentally distinct for bilinguals (Schendl and L. Wright 2011c: 12).81

II.2.2.3. Code switching and language shift: Theoretical bonds

Two main theoretical models explicitly view CS as a phenomenon heralding LS: A. Thomas’s (1982) conditions for language death and Myers-Scotton’s (1998) matrix language frame turnover hypothesis. It should be sadly recognised that the former had gone unnoticed in the literature until Deuchar and P. Davies (2009) rescued it from oblivion. In their study on the future of the Welsh language, Deuchar and P. Davies (2009) also relate A. Thomas’s (1982) ideas with Myers-Scotton’s (1998) hypothesis in order to determine whether the linguistic conditions favouring LS and language death are present in Bangor, Wales. According to Deuchar and P. Davies (2009: 19), the three-stage process from CS to language death implied by A. Thomas (1982) is remarkably similar to the matrix language turnover proposed by Myers-Scotton (1998). In Table 2.4, both diachronic models are summarised and contrasted:

Table 2.4. A. Thomas’s (1982) and Myers-Scotton’s (1998) views of stages in LS (from Deuchar and P. Davies 2009: 26)

Stages in LS A. Thomas (1982) Myers-Scotton (1998) Classic code switching: Welsh grammar but language A as matrix Stage 1 English words or phrases language and language B used as embedded language Composite code Both English and Welsh switching with A-B Stage 2 grammar composite matrix language Monolingualism in Stage 3 Only English language B

81 Trotter (2006: 83-7) proposes as a solution an experimental multilingual dictionary where entries should encompass all the principal meanings a word appears to have acquired historically in different languages. 94

But the similarity between both models does not end here obviously. The rest of commonalities are basically of a sociolinguistic nature. The two models are necessarily based on the premise that whereas CS is a necessary (and perhaps the most salient) condition for LS, this does not entail that it is a sufficient one. For LS to happen, both agree that additional external conditions must be in place, namely a change in the sociopolitical balance of the community via massive immigration or the takeover by a foreign power (Myers- Scotton 1998: 300), a situation of transitional bilingualism, and the rapid decline in the number of users of the receding language (A. Thomas 1982: 209 in Deuchar and P. Davies 2009: 16). Although it is true that, in essence, both models share a high number of features, they also differ significantly in their formulation. Myers-Scotton’s (1998) much more sophisticated development warrants some lines here.

II.2.2.3.1. Myers-Scotton and her matrix language frame turnover hypothesis

As a previous step in the explanation of Myers-Scotton’s (1998) turnover hypothesis, it makes sense to begin with what Myers-Scotton means by matrix language. Myers-Scotton (1993a: 35-8) reintroduces Joshi’s (1985) notion of asymmetry but conceptualises it differently. According to Joshi (1985: 190-1 original italics), “speakers and hearers generally agree on which language the mixed sentence is ‘coming from’. We can call this language the matrix language [ML] and the other language the embedded language [EL]”. He then claims the prevalence of a language over the other in terms of a constraint reading that “switching a category of the matrix grammar to a category of the embedded grammar is permitted, but not vice versa” (Joshi 1985: 192). Similarly, Myers-Scotton makes another crucial distinction between content and system morphemes.82 On the one hand, content morphemes express semantic and pragmatic aspects and assign or receive thematic roles (e.g. nouns, adjectives, adverbs, or verbs); on the other hand, system

82 Within their so-called 4-M model, Myers-Scotton and Jake (2000) further divide system morphemes into early (e.g. determiner and plural marker) and late system morphemes, with late system morphemes being also of two sub-types: bridge (e.g. expletive it and possessive of) and outsider late system morphemes (e.g. subject-verb agreement and case morphology). 95

morphemes are confined to expressing the relations between the content morphemes (e.g. function words and inflections). Based on these two oppositions, Myers-Scotton (1993a: 7) develops her own matrix language hypothesis: “The ML sets the morphosyntactic frame for ML+EL constituents”, which is identified via two testable principles:

1. The Morpheme-Order Principle: in ML+EL constituents consisting of singly-occurring EL lexemes and any number of ML morphemes, surface morpheme order [...] will be that of the ML. 2. The System Morpheme Principle: in ML+EL constituents, all system morphemes which have grammatical relations external to their head constituent [...] will come from the ML (Myers-Scotton 1993a: 83 original italics).

In other words, whereas all syntactically relevant system morphemes must come only from the matrix language, content morphemes can be taken from both the matrix language and the embedded language; in addition, morpheme order must not violate the morpheme order of the matrix language (Myers-Scotton 1993a: 7). Here is a couple of clear examples:

Anakula plate mbili. “He eats two plates” ([Swahili/English] Myers-Scotton 1993a: 86 italics supplied).

Ni-ka-maliza all the clothing. “And I have finished all the clothing” ([Swahili/English] Myers-Scotton 1993a: 78 italics supplied).

In both patterns, the embedded language (English) constituents are inserted in the frame of the matrix language (Swahili). In the second case, all the clothing represents an embedded language island. It is highly important to note that this clear-cut distinction between languages is only possible in cases of intrasentential CS, or what Myers-Scotton (2002: 54) refers to as classic CS “within the [bilingual] CP [projection of complementiser]”.83 Consequently, in classic CS, one of the two languages of the utterance can be clearly identified as the matrix language. Furthermore, as indicated above in Table 2.4, this kind of switching corresponds with the earliest stage of Myers-Scotton’s (1998) model.

83 The projection of complementiser as the unit of analysis is “the syntactic structure expressing the predicate-argument structure of a clause, plus any additional structures needed to encode discourse-relevant structure and the logical form of that clause” (Myers-Scotton 2002: 54). 96

The situation changes considerably in stage 2 with the emergence of another kind of switching: composite CS. At this stage, while the formerly considered matrix language loses its undisputed role, the embedded language gains strength, creating then a new matrix language which is “a composite of lexical structure from [these] two or more sources” (Myers-Scotton 1998: 292). A popular example that perfectly illustrates the composite matrix language is the following:

Odin byl pitcher. “One was a pitcher” ([Russian/English] Schmitt 2000: 24 in Myers- Scotton 2002: 226 italics supplied).

As Deuchar and P. Davies (2009: 22) explain, the sentence consists of both Russian (odin, byl) and English (pitcher) morphemes. In this last case, there is Ø-case marking on pitcher, where Russian morphology would have required the instrumental case marker –om, so that the word would have read pitcherom. However, the absence of the appropriate Russian case marker in a clause with Russian as the matrix language can be interpreted as involving a composite matrix language with elements from both Russian (inflected verb) and English (Ø-case marking). Composite CS constitutes the main evidence that the matrix language turnover is in progress. As its name suggests, the turnover implies a change in the language which sets the morphosyntactic frame and provides all of the system morphemes. Normally, the embedded language turns into the brand- new matrix language; that is to say, the turnover is accompanied by LS with speakers becoming monolingual in the new matrix language and not switching any more (Myers-Scotton 1998: 301). LS is the most common outcome, provided that the matrix language turnover goes to completion. However, this is not always the case. On many occasions, turnovers do not reach this final stage 3 because they have previously “stop[ped] along the way” (Myers-Scotton 2002: 249). One of the most relevant linguistic outcomes of this fossilisation is the split (or mixed) language, which can be considered as a L3 built on the combination of elements of both (or more) languages.84 Myers-Scotton (1998:

84 Other transitional models of mixed language genesis starting from CS and never completing LS have been equally introduced (e.g. Auer 1998b; Maschler 1998). See also Muysken (2007) for 97

303) suggests Ilwana, a Bantu language spoken in Kenya, as a possible example of split language, with a mixed morphosyntax coming from own Bantu and Orma (Cushitic language), that never went into completion.

II.2.2.4. Language choice: The integration of bilingual dimensions

Even though CS, LC, and LM and LS are linguistic phenomena widely assumed to occur in similar contact situations of many types and, as such, they can co- occur (Gardner-Chloros 2010: 188), they have been traditionally separated as distinct phenomena operating at different levels; while patterns of LC and of LM and LS are said to evolve at the community (or even national) level, the analysis of CS must be made at the interactional (or individual) level (L. Milroy 2001: 39-40). Nevertheless, statements calling for a theoretical apparatus where the different dimensions could become reunited have also emerged. In Li et al. (1992: 63), the following sentence is contained: “What seems generally to be lacking is a coherent social framework within which to interpret these [bilingual] data and analyses”. But perhaps, it is Gardner-Chloros (2009b: 112- 3) who puts it more explicitly:

Broadly, “sociolinguistic” approaches to CS are extremely varied and cover multiple levels of engagement with plurilingual data, from the societal to the intra-individual. Dividing these approaches up is a partly arbitrary exercise, since the societal level and the individual are in constant dynamic interaction. [...] CS embodies, or corresponds with, a wide range of sociolinguistic factors that interact or operate simultaneously. We should therefore be wary of ascribing particular “reasons” to particular instances of CS, as these are likely to present only a partial picture. Methodologically speaking, this dictates a pluralistic, interdisciplinary approach, in which, ideally, both quantitative and qualitative methods are combined, and the research is “triangulated”. CS is indeed a major sociolinguistic indicator, but we should not underestimate the complexity of its interaction with the numerous factors that allow individuals to produce discourse “in their own image”.

Several attempts at relating these dimensions have been made, and all of them have taken LC as their point of departure insofar as, as discussed above (§ II.2.1.2.3), LC operates at both micro- and macro-levels of abstraction.

a comprehensive review of the different typologies of mixed languages proposed in the literature. 98

Language maintenance and [language] shift are the long-term, collective consequences of consistent patterns of language choice (Fasold 1984: 239).

In the definition above, for example, Fasold attributes the possible linguistic changes taking place in the macro-societal level and on a diachronic basis to influences in action in a more micro-level and on a synchronic basis. But the interrelations proposed are not limited to mere aspects of conceptualisation. More sophisticated theorisations are also introduced by Grosjean (1982) and Myers-Scotton (1986); both are based on the reformulation of CS as one of the codes, together with the other foreign languages, at the bilingual speaker’s disposal. Grosjean (1982: 129) considers CS itself as part of the decision-making process which encompasses the phenomenon of LC. Once the speaker has decided which language to use in an interaction with another addressee, s/he has to choose whether or not switch in his/her utterance. Figure 2.2 sums it up very aptly:

Figure 2.2. Decision-making process of the bilingual speaker in LC and CS (from Grosjean 1982: 129)

This idea seems to be in line with part of Myers-Scotton’s (1983) markedness model. According to this theory, on most occasions, competent participants in bilingual communities intuitively know (markedness metric) what default variety (unmarked choice) to use in what social context and easily recognise the social meanings associated with the choice of each language.85 However, speakers may also use CS as an alternative code (i) depending on

85 For example, for bilinguals in England, the unmarked choice to use in a government office is English, and not any other languages they may speak. 99

social context or other conversational obligations and situational factors (sequence of unmarked choices), (ii) to negotiate two or more positively evaluated identities (unmarked choice), (iii) to increase on purpose the social distance between the participants (marked choice), and (iv) to make exploratory choices as candidates when the unmarked choice is not clear (exploratory choice) (Myers-Scotton 1993b: 113-43). Also starting from her (1983) markedness model, Myers-Scotton (1986) aims to compare the chances of occurrence of her four different types of CS in a diglossic community with those in other bilingual communities. In other words, she tries to explain how the societal allocation of languages has an influence on the social meaning of LC for the individuals. Myers-Scotton (1986: 414) concludes that narrow diglossic communities allow fewer types of CS than broad diglossic (and other bilingual) communities insofar as in the latter, there does not exist as strict a functional complementary between H and L as in narrow diglossia (i.e. H can also be used in domains traditionally reserved for L).

II.2.3. SOCIAL NETWORK APPROACHES TO MIXED-LANGUAGE ENVIRONMENTS

The network concept is proposed as the construct capable of providing a coherent account of the relationship between CS, LC, and LM and LS by individual speakers, and of their link with the broader social context (Li et al. 1992; L. Milroy and Li 1995; L. Milroy 2001). In the same way as SN have proved successful in explaining the relation between interactions at the micro- level and structure at the macro-level for the study of linguistic variation and change in bidialectal (but still monolingual) communities (§ II.1.2.2), Lesley Milroy, Li Wei, and Pong Sin Ching advocate the application of SN in order to illuminate patterns of mixed-language phenomena.86 Before reviewing the main works by L. Milroy with other co-workers, it is worth mentioning some relevant previous research employing the notion of network.

86 De Bot and Stoessel’s (2002) volume is a clear example of this post-Milroyian blossoming. 100

In sociolinguistic studies on CS carried out prior to the emergence of studies within the Milroyian mainstream, SN had been considered like any other of the traditional independent variables. For instance, in her research on CS behaviour of Puerto Ricans in El Barrio, New York City, Poplack (1979: 60-6) tries to determine which of the nine extralinguistic factors (sex, age of L2 acquisition and age of migration to the United States, reported bilingual ability, education, age, SN membership, ethnic identity, continued contact with Puerto Rico, and workplace) might have an influence on intrasentential CS. As for SN membership, Poplack (1979: 64) concludes in her analysis that “[it] is not a significant factor in predicting code-switch type”. Ethnolinguistics reveals itself as one of the first branches to give most prominence to SN as a qualitative construct capable of modelling habitual LC and far-reaching LS in bilingual speech communities.87

II.2.3.1. Gumperz in Austrian Carinthia

Gumperz’s (1976/82) study in the Gail Valley focuses on whether networks of social relationship act as determinants of the LS of Slovenians to the German language. The Gail Valley is an Austrian border community where German and Slovenian have long been in contact. Mountain villages have passed from sheltering exclusively Slovenian-speaking farmers to sheltering new generations of speakers whose Slovenian language no longer plays an important role in their verbal repertoire. Macro-societal changes in the extralinguistic environment (e.g. incorporation of farming communities into regional economies, rail networks and highways opening up, and compulsory education in German) have led to the gradual narrowing of the ingroup/outgroup gap between once hostile German and Slovenian communities. At the initial stage of the increasing currents of change, Slovenian- speaking population becomes bilingual, and CS is fully incorporated as one of their perfectly valid discourse strategies in order to, for instance, set itself apart from German monolinguals. CS emerges as a result of the persistence of the gap in the quality of ingroup/outgroup relationships; dense and multiple networks

87 Later ethnolinguistic studies in bilingual Canada, Allard and Landry (1992) and Landry and Allard (1992) also posit a correlation between SN and competence in L1, on the one hand, and components of ethnolinguistic vitality, on the other hand (Stoessel 2002). 101

where Slovenians’ occupational, kinship, or friendship relations are carried out with people of similar background are maintained (Gumperz 1976/82: 46-7). When the narrowing of the networks via the suburbanisation of the entire Carinthian region is accomplished, linguistic change happens; code distinctions and pragmatic conventions are affected by changes in the networks and, as a result, Slovenian begins to give way (Gumperz 1976/82: 50). As younger generations already see themselves as an integral part of the German-speaking community, norms of ingroup talk have changed towards the complete decay of Slovenian even in CS. Therefore, Gumperz’s (1976/82: 56) hypothesis that “Slovenian to German language shift is part of a general trend of integration of village culture into urban and suburban networks” is confirmed. LS mirrors alterations in the networks of interpersonal relationships and in processes of face-to-face interaction (Gumperz 1976/82: 57). Not far from there, in Oberwart, Gal (1979) adopts a similar perspective also in a scenario of LS to German. Hers is, however, a much more empirically solid approach than Gumperz’s qualitative research. It also deserves some discussion below.

II.2.3.2. Gal: The quantification of bilingual social networks

Gal’s (1979) study grows out of a one-year fieldwork in Oberwart, a town in eastern Austria where, after 400 years of Hungarian/German bilingualism, German was extending its domain. On the one hand, except for a short period of legitimacy under the policy of Magyarisation, Hungarian had never been the prestige language of the ruling elites but the language associated with the indigenous farmers; on the other hand, German had also come to be linked with the new world of workers in modern industries. Gal is not satisfied with arguing that LS in Oberwart is merely correlated with trends in industrialisation of the Austrian countryside since the end of Russian occupation. Rather, to her, “language shift shares the characteristics of other kinds of linguistic change: it arises out of synchronic heterogeneity; it is quantitative before it becomes categorical” (Gal 1979: 153). Her major thesis reads that

102

[i]t is through their effects on the shape of social networks, on the statuses speakers want to claim, and on the cultural associations between linguistic varieties and social groups that macrosociological factors can influence the language choices of speakers in everyday interactions (Gal 1979: 17).

The whole linguistic repertoire of the inhabitants in Oberwart is also accounted for; not only does Gal trace CS from Hungarian to German and vice versa but also style-shifting within each language and dialect. She finds that whereas monolinguals resort to style-shifting for expressive and rhetorical purposes, for bilinguals these same communicative functions are attained through CS.88 Thus, LC is invariable to German or Hungarian monolinguals but variable to bilinguals. In order to display patterns of variation in LC, Gal opts for Guttman’s (1941) implicational scales. In this kind of scale, a matrix is constructed with the informants being ranked along the vertical axis and their interlocutors being arranged along the horizontal axis. Across each row, the habitual language choices of a particular informant are indicated, while in the columns, the choices of all informants with a particular interlocutor can be seen. The closer an informant is to the top of the scale, the more situations in which s/he uses German. In addition, the closer an interlocutor is to the right of the scale, the more an informant is likely to speak German with him/her. Given this, Gal further specifies that the two factors that determine the place of an informant on the scale, i.e. the degree to which an informant uses Hungarian as opposed to German: age and SN.89 Scales indicate an ongoing LS where more Hungarian is used by older people and new generations introduce more and more German into their speech (Gal 1979: 152). However, age alone is shown not to be infallible enough in accounting for the whole patterns of LS; for instance, old informants ranking higher than younger speakers can be found in the scales. Gal concludes that predictability would improve if individual’s involvement in the traditional world of peasantness life were known.

88 This idea follows Gumperz’s (1972) suggestion that CS in bilinguals can act as a communicative option on much the same basis as shifting between styles or dialects in monolinguals. Romaine (1989: 170-2) even proposes the term monolingual CS instead of style- shifting. 89 Gal (1979: 14) defines SN as “the networks of informal social interaction in which speakers are enmeshed and through which, by pressure and inducements, participants impose linguistic norms on each other”. 103

Gal then further designs a peasant/urbanite continuum consisting of eleven criteria of peasantness (e.g. ownership of livestock, possession of an inside toilet, or wearing of traditional clothes). This degree of peasantness proves to be more informative in understanding LC when applied to the speaker’s SN rather than to his/her own peasant rank score; this is the case of two men of similar age, status, and peasantness but different language use. Speaker B uses more Hungarian than speaker A since the former interacts mainly with peasants; in other words, “[t]he more peasants the individual has in [his/her] social network, the greater the number of social situations in which that individual uses H[ungarian]” (Gal 1978: 8). Results corroborate that Hungarian is the language of preference for members of closed peasant networks, whereas German prevails in loose urban networks. Qualitatively as Gumperz’s research or of a more quantitative nature as Gal’s work, both network studies focus more importantly on LC and LS and leave aside a deeper account of CS practices. In a similar vein, Li’s (1994) research on the Chinese community in Tyneside is also mainly concerned with network patterns of LC and LS at a communal level.90 As the main precursor of SN as an analytic tool with predictive force, L. Milroy could not stay on the sidelines of the progress made beyond monolingual contexts. She firstly expresses her interest in mixed-language environments at a micro-interactional level and then moves on to more comprehensive models. L. Milroy’s work in bilingual settings deserves a review in the section below.

II.2.3.3. L. Milroy and co-workers: The network concept and bilingualism

Together with a number of collaborators, L. Milroy herself participates mainly in studies of bilingual conversations in school settings. These projects merely apply interactionist models, such as Auer’s (1995) sequential approach, to L2 acquisition environments. Both in the study of Panjabi and Bengali immigrant pupils in a preschool from Newcastle upon Tyne (Moffatt and L. Milroy 1992) and in an analysis of CS among Korean/English bilinguals in a New York City

90 As a matter of fact, CS makes up no more than 50 minutes out of the 23 hours recorded in Li’s corpus (Li 1994: 151). 104

classroom (Shin and L. Milroy 1999, 2000), it is found that children gradually acquire the norms of LC as a part of their whole communicative competence. Bilingual pupils converge readily to another speaker’s language and perform CS to communicate successfully with other bilinguals. L. Milroy and Li (1995) attempt to link interpersonal perspectives of CS with broader societal patterns via the concept of SN. These researchers take as a starting point the assumption that “variation in the structure of different individuals’ personal social networks will, for a number of reasons, systematically affect the way they use the two languages in the community repertoire” (L. Milroy and Li 1995: 138). As demonstrated in L. Milroy’s (1980/87) Belfast research (§ II.1.2.2.1), networks act as mechanisms of linguistic conservatism, as long as they are close-knit, and unless disruption happens and linguistic innovations enter. Thus, network structures can also offer insights into the procedures underlying LM and LS in bilingual communities. Members of the Chinese community of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, are the group of speakers with whom L. Milroy and Li work in their examination of the relationship between micro- and macro-level. In order to distinguish between strong and weak ties, Milardo’s (1988) notions of exchange and interactive networks are introduced. On the one hand, an exchange network is built among people with whom ego exchanges aid, advice, criticism, and support; on the other hand, an interactive network consists of people with whom ego interacts regularly but on whom s/he does not rely. The former corresponds roughly to a close-knit network, whereas the latter corresponds to a loose-knit network. Additionally, a third type of network is also recognised; ties in a passive network entail an absence of regular contact but are valued as a source of moral support (e.g. relationship with physically distant friends and relatives). As L. Milroy and Li (1995: 138) clarify, socio-centric NSS cannot help to illuminate the network patterns of the Tyneside Chinese community due to its geographical dispersion. Instead, they design an ethnic index, where the proportion of exchange, interactive, and passive ties the individual maintains with other Chinese people is compiled. Milardo’s (1988) networks in that community partly correspond to social divisions derived from generation, occupation, and gender: 105

Most first-generation migrants and those sponsored immigrants who are actively involved in the food trade have contracted network ties with mainly Chinese non-kin who are associated with their business and professional activities. However, the sponsored immigrants, mostly women and the elderly, more or less confine themselves to the household and family. The British-born generation differs from both these groups in having developed extensive network ties outside the family and often outside the Chinese community also (L. Milroy and Li 1995: 141-2 original italics).

Data elicited in spontaneous conversations are examined within a general conversation analysis framework (Auer 1995; Li and L. Milroy 1995). Previously, speakers have been arranged in implicational scales, according to their customary LC with different addressees. Information concerning addressers’ age, generation, gender, and ethnic index scores are included as well. Similar to Gal’s (1979) conclusions, the extralinguistic variables of generation and age cannot account entirely for LC patterns in the Tyneside community; not all speakers of the same generation share the same patterns, some being ranked either lower or higher than other members of their same generation on the scale (L. Milroy and Li 1995: 145). It is precisely the variable of SN which is a more accurate predictor of LC in this case. On the one hand, more Chinese-oriented patterns of LC and CS are found in speakers who are embedded in close-knit networks; generally, these patterns correspond to speakers of the parent and grandparent generations whose contacts are also mainly of Chinese-origin. On the other hand, for speakers enmeshed in loose-knit networks, English-oriented patterns prevail; this is the case of the British-born generation who, by participating in life outside the community, contract ties with non-Chinese peers (L. Milroy and Li 1995: 153). After tracing the link between individual level and community level, L. Milroy and Li (1995: 153) underline the necessity of relating community networks to large-scale social and economic structures. As in L. Milroy and J. Milroy (1992), the model proposed is Højrup’s (1983) theory of life-modes (pp. 47-8).91 In a nutshell, L. Milroy and Li (1995: 154) briefly predict that speakers fully engaged in family catering businesses (life-mode 1 of the self-employed) should show a more Chinese-oriented pattern; conversely, employed by

91 Although another model is mentioned (Giddens’s [1984] theory of structuration), Højrup’s (1983) framework is considered particularly helpful in this case. 106

companies outside the Chinese community, wage-earners (life-mode 2) would have far better command of English than the other life-mode 1 Chinese.92 In a later article, Li and L. Milroy (2003) add a new framework to those capable of reconciling micro- and macro-perspectives: the market, hierarchy, and network model (Frances et al. 1991). The application of this model to the sociolinguistic reality of Singapore is seen as a further attempt to comprehend the processes of LM and LS in conjunction with the accompanying processes of sociocultural changes of the society (Li and L. Milroy 2003: 129). Their study demonstrates that the forces competing at the three dimensions (economy, politics, and society) help to account for the gradual LS from ethnic Chinese languages to Mandarin Chinese and English insofar as bilingualism in these two languages has become associated with rapid economic growth, higher prestige, and possibilities of further expansion for Singapore’s population; and as such, the government of Singapore, contrary to what happens in other countries where bilingualism is associated with the minorities and/or immigrant population, promotes it through highly interventionist language policies (Li and L. Milroy 2003: 138-9).

92 Life-mode 3 Chinese are not mentioned since at the period of the study nobody from the Tyneside community led an executive lifestyle. Probably, members of the British-born generation will seek this high-powered life-mode in the future.

Chapter III SOCIOLINGUISTIC BACKGROUND

111

III.1. LANGUAGES IN LATE MEDIEVAL LONDON

One of the most changing periods in the sociolinguistic history of England, the Middle Ages have received considerable attention. In this sub-chapter, two different kinds of approaches to the study of this linguistic period will be cited and analysed more in depth: (i) the traditional monolingual approach, which apprehends the medieval linguistic background of each language in isolation, and (ii) the newer multilingual approach, which handles all languages in their interrelated complexity.

III.1.1. MONOLINGUAL APPROACH: LANGUAGES IN ISOLATION

When William I was crowned at Westminster Abbey on the 25th of December 1066, it was hard to imagine that his accession to the English throne would carry such major consequences for the sociolinguistic evolution of Britain. From that Christmas day, (i) French was fully declared an official language in the country alongside Latin and English,93 (ii) England was annexed to the Norman possessions in Northern France, and (iii) a French-origin ruling class sized the superstructure of political and economic power to the detriment of Anglo-Saxon lords. Traditional scholarship on French and English in medieval England has tended to focus chiefly on particular topics of their respective languages without paying special attention to potential influences from other linguistic systems. The next sub-sections deal with topics on French and English separately.

III.1.1.1. Anglo-French: The verai franceis of England

Kibbee (1991: 4) addresses a number of questions in order to summarise the problematic of French in England, most of which will be studied in depth below:

a) For what purposes was French necessary? b) How many people spoke French? Who were the French speakers? What type of French did they speak?

93 Not only was post-Conquest England multilingual. Before the Norman Conquest, other languages had already been spoken alongside OE: Welsh, Gaelic, and Cornish in western and northern areas, or Hebrew in Jewish communities (Nurmi and Pahta 2004: 420). 112

c) Who needed to learn French as a second language? How do the pedagogical material relate to these needs?

III.1.1.1.1. Its nature

Any scholar that decides to study the variety of French used in England encounters a wide range of debates from the very beginning. As a matter of fact, there is even no agreement on which name the language must be given; leading researchers such as Trotter (2003a) and Rothwell (2005) discard the name “Anglo-Norman”, frequently used in handbooks, for considering it a misnomer, and prefer “Anglo-French” instead since “the specifically Norman traits of the language found in England are neither overwhelmingly dominant, nor are they the only dialectal elements which are discernible in documents written in French in England” (Trotter 2003a).94 Furthermore, Rothwell (2000a), Trotter (2003b, 2003c), and Ingham (2005, 2006b) have also debated the conception of AF as an isolated variety with the full status of language. Rothwell (2005) maintains that AF must be viewed as a language of civilisation in its own right throughout the whole period it is used on English soil. To him, AF is a linguistic variety to be comparable to Continental French (CF), firstly as a literary language of considerable importance and later as an official language of record widely used in a developing nation (Rothwell 1985: 47). Rothwell (1991) also alludes to the fact that from the mid-thirteenth century onwards, and especially following the loss of Normandy in 1204, AF moves some way from the CF norm with its own peculiar features, and progressively grows further apart. Lexis is pointed as the linguistic level where AF and CF differ considerably; in Rothwell (1998), he cites lots of examples of French-origin words developing a semantic content in Britain which is not recorded in the Continent (e.g. faux amis in English). Trotter (2003b), in turn, undermines the idea that AF is completely cut off from its continental roots after John Lackland’s (1204) defeat. He questions the notion of AF being a langue à part; to him, it is rather a dialect. Trotter’s conclusions are based on textual evidence. Departures from CF forms identified in AF texts can also be found in documents written in mainland France, if

94 In this dissertation, I agree with Trotter (2003a) and Rothwell (2005) and also prefer “Anglo- French” (already abbreviated as AF) to “Anglo-Norman”. 113

comparable texts are analysed. The practice of comparing formal written CF with highly colloquial AF texts (e.g. fifteenth-century Leicester records) is not valid since they belong to different registers; however, when both insular and continental building accounts are compared, the same “errors” are widespread (Trotter 2003c: 430). Ingham (2005, 2006b) reaches the similar conclusion of dialect continuum as Trotter but focuses on the syntactic level. He manages to prove that AF syntactic developments such as the syntax of object pronouns and the word order are in line with CF changes (Ingham 2006a); what is more, Ingham (2006b: 20) even affirms that AF grammar is essentially the grammar of CF. Despite their opposing views, the three scholars base their research on the same premise: Late AF period deserves to be analysed in all its depth. Importantly, this contrasts with the traditional views inherited from the “reconstructionist movement” (Rothwell 1996). Neogrammarians such as Paris (1881), Tanquerey (1915), Vising (1923), and Pope (1934) distinguish between two different periods in the history of AF with mid-thirteenth century as the demarcating line: (i) an earlier period with AF as a lively spoken vernacular as well as a written language of certain splendour (Legge 1941), and (ii) a later period of degeneracy or decay where AF turns into “a risible jargon” (Kibbee 1991: 13). Neogrammarian postulates that the French of Paris should be the only valid norm for Middle French, and that any departure from the line of evolution from Classical Latin to Modern French should be regarded as aberrant have not helped the position of AF, with all its vagaries of spelling and morphological variety, and have traditionally hampered its study (Rothwell 1993b). Although an increased interest in the study of AF as a legitimate subject begins to appear in the 1970s thanks to a transformation of the textual scene (Rothwell 1993b: 324-6), the weight of the past is still heavy and has influenced current debates. Rothwell (1996), for instance, complains about the perpetuated misrepresentation of AF due to pious repetitions of the views of past scholars.

III.1.1.1.2. Its status and penetration

Both the sociolinguistic status and the extent to which AF is used in Britain in the centuries following the Conquest have received a lot of attention in the 114

literature. As for the extent of bilingualism, the first scholar to propose a picture of bilingual England is Vising (1923: 18):

[There is] a very strong proof of the complete dominance of the Anglo- Norman language during the second half of the twelfth and most of the thirteenth century in nearly all conditions of life, and of its penetration even into the lower strata of society.

Vising’s assertion of wholesale bilingualism has received adhesions from, for instance, Suggett (1946), Orr (1948), Legge (1950, 1963), and Iglesias Rábade (1987, 1992); some evidence which supports their position is the borrowing of AF-origin colloquialisms into the discourse of ME (Iglesias Rábade 1991). However, Vising’s sweeping statement has mainly attracted negative reactions. Important cautions have been expressed by Wilson (1943) and Short (1980). Short (1980: 467) considers that Vising’s conclusions of AF penetrating through into the lower strata of the indigenous population is contradicted by the metalinguistic statements on the French spoken in twelfth-century England. He provides a number of contemporary statements by significant authors (e.g. Giraldus Cambrensis, John Blund, or Gervase of Tilbury) to conclude that bilingualism was not as widespread a phenomenon in that period as has been assumed (Short 1980: 479). Wilson (1943: 42-60) also provides a list of examples which not only runs counter to the belief that AF was commonly used amongst the lower classes but also to the Norman Conquest having an important effect on the language of the lower classes. In line with Baugh (1935: 135-6), Wilson (1943: 60) ends up depicting a diglossic picture of post-Conquest England (until 1300) insofar as ME probably remains the sole language of the lower classes, whereas many of the middle and upper classes, and the lower clergy are probably bilingual speakers of ME as well as AF or BL. It is this picture of diglossia, or even triglossia (Leith 1983: 27), in medieval Britain with AF and BL as languages of the upper classes and ME as that of the lower classes that has been widely instaurated in the literature (Görlach 1986: 338; Lodge 1992: 81; Kristol 2000: 39). In Table 3.1 below, Crespo García (2000: 24) exposes an idealised distribution of the languages in contact in medieval Britain: 115

Table 3.1. Distribution of the languages in contact in medieval Britain (Crespo García 2000: 24)

LANGUAGE Register Medium Status Latin Formal-Official Written High French Formal-Official Written/Spoken High English Informal-Colloquial Spoken Low

The status and the social functions of the three main languages are different from each other and also change over the centuries (Berndt 1965), as Table 3.2 shows:

Table 3.2. Linguistic evolution of the languages in contact in medieval Britain (Crespo García 2000: 25)

ENGLAND Languages Linguistic Situation Early Middle Ages Latin-French-English TRILINGUAL 14th-15th centuries French-English BILINGUAL 15th-16th c. onwards English MONOLINGUAL

Overall, BL loses ground to AF as the official language of record by the fourteenth century; ME flourishes later as the national language first in spoken and then in writing to the detriment of AF. This simplistic summary hides a more complex situation that warrants some discussion here. Unlike the certain degree of consensus on diglossia, there is no such an agreement on when, how, and why the original distribution of the three languages in early medieval England is later modified. The Norman Conquest had introduced new rulers of French speech into England; although they occupied key offices of government and power, foreigners remained a small minority of the population.95 Despite the scattered evidence on the period following the Conquest, all signs point to the fact that members of the new ruling class used their own native language for nearly 200 years p. 1066. The main circumstance for this retention of AF seems to be the attachment of the kings of England to the Dukedom of Normandy (Baugh 1935: 135-7); as a matter of fact, English monarchs spent the first 150 years “commuting” between their

95 Berndt (1965: 151-2 in Kibbee 1991: 4) estimates the total number of Norman immigrants as 1.3% of the total population. 116

possessions on both sides of the Channel (Leith 1983: 27).96 The loss of Normandy accelerated the process of decline of AF as a spoken vernacular in England; this decline had already been gradually developing through intermarriage with non-French women, who transmitted their ME native language to their offspring. According to Rothwell (1968, 1976, 1978), by the 1250s, AF must have already assumed the role of an artificial language of record and culture. The proliferation of teaching materials of French such as grammars (e.g. Tractatus Orthographiae and Orthographia Gallica), manuals (e.g. Femina), word-lists (e.g. Le Tretiz de Langage), and books of conversation (e.g. Manieres de Langage) around the middle of the thirteenth century appears to support that thesis. Therefore, the initial situation of diglossia without bilingualism gives way to a more complex picture of diglossia with bilingualism (pp. 79-80). AF loses ground as a spoken vernacular but gains it as a written variety in close competition and often in replacement of BL; with BL’s restriction, AF is called upon to cover a much wider range of domains than before (Rothwell 1985: 50). On the other side of the coin, i.e. the emergence of ME, the vernacular regains access to most of the written linguistic domains by the early fifteenth century. It is clear then that ME is not completely outstripped but only displaced by AF (Wilson 1943: 58); ME was once again the native language of the whole population and the language of most everyday spoken exchanges by c. 1300.97 H and L domains continue to exist, but now in some domains of use, speakers will stop using either only one language or the other and start to find domains where two (or even three) languages can overlap (e.g. AF and BL in religion and learning) and even be virtually interchangeable for every function. Nonetheless, far from being maximal bilinguals, individuals evolving in domains where more than one language may appear must necessarily have developed at least some kind of functional bilingualism (Burnley 1992: 424-5).

96 According to Baugh (1935: 151), although England also retained large possessions in the south of France (Gascony) apart from Normandy, that territory had never been so intimately connected by ties of language, blood, and property; see Trotter (1997, 1998) for a divergent position on this issue. Baugh (1935: 154-7) also mentions a wholesale enrichment of ME lexis from CF by the arrival of foreign aristocrats following the marriage of Henry III to Eleanor of Provence in 1236; this idea is completely discarded by Rothwell (1998). 97 Miller (2002: 147-9) collects the factors that have been adduced in the literature for the survival of English in medieval England. 117

Furthermore, particular circumstances may have caused a language to live longer in some domains than in others. In order to compose a complete account of the process of distribution of the three languages in medieval England, it seems advisable to focus on a domain-based study of multilingualism. A brief sketch of all those multilingual domains which are significant for this dissertation and where enough materials have survived is described in the following sub-sections.

III.1.1.1.3. A domain-based study of multilingual England: The process of Anglicisation

Before starting, it is important to notice the existence of a marked distinction between the oral and the written sphere in some domains. In historical sociolinguistics, “an inevitable temporal gap between the introduction of new forms in speech and their first recordings in written texts” (Raumolin-Brunberg 1996: 17) has been widely assumed. Hundreds of words would have been in daily spoken use for generations without necessarily being committed to parchment (Rothwell 1991: 183). In other words, these two spheres evolve at different rate and have their own strategies. Therefore, one must remain cautious about drawing general conclusions embracing both spheres from evidence of only one of them (Kristol 2000: 38).

III.1.1.1.3.1. Law

In the case of the domain of law, legal proceedings consist of two stages: pleading (oral) and recording (written); the three languages of medieval England have played a different role at different times in these stages. As for the legal records, the main controversy concerns when exactly AF is adopted as the official language. Despite earlier assertions that AF does not acquire a legal dimension until the thirteenth century (Vising 1923: 33; Kibbee 1991: 28; Iglesias Rábade 1992: 161), it is now clear that by the date of composition of Leis Willelme (c. 1150) the rise of AF as a legal language seems complete (Rothwell 1983: 262); in fact, twelfth-century legal glossaries and pre-1265 legal literature could not possibly have begun without any legal tradition in AF before these 118

dates (Rothwell 2000b: 27-8, 2005; Brand 2000: 70). Furthermore, law is the domain where high languages persist longer as matrix languages; for instance, BL is only banished from the records of the Common Law in 1733 (Latham 1960: 158). It is in the oral sphere where much controversy arises, especially concerning the role of ME. On the one hand, some researchers have emphasised the role of spoken ME as the language in which court proceedings were conducted from the beginning of William I’s reign to the middle of the thirteenth century, when both AF and ME were used (Woodbine 1943; Mellinkoff 1963: 67-70 in Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 267-8). On the other hand, other scholars maintain that AF had been the language of all legal proceedings from a date soon after the Conquest down to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (Pollock and Maitland 1895/1911: 80-7 in Latham 1960: 158). Brand (2000: 66) also argues that AF must have been the official language of royal courts, since it was the first language of men appointed as royal justices and of many litigants. The other point of dispute has to do with the date when ME re-emerged as the oral language in legal proceedings. 1362 has been acclaimed as the year when AF is banned from royal and seigneurial courts in England through the Statute of Pleading. An English translation from AF of the most relevant extracts of the statute reads as follows:

Because it is often shewed to the king by the prelates, dukes, earls, barons, and all the commonalty, of the great mischiefs which have happened to divers of the realm, because the laws, customs, and statutes of this realm be not commonly known in the same realm; for that they be pleaded, shewed, and judged in the French tongue, which is much unknown in the said realm; so that the people which do implead, or be impleaded, in the king’s court, and in the courts of others, have no knowledge nor understanding of that which is said for them or against them by their serjeants and other pleaders; and that reasonably the said laws and customs shall be most quickly learned and known, and better understood in the tongue used in the said realm, [...] the king, desiring the good governance and tranquillity of his people, and to put out and eschew the harms and mischiefs which do or may happen in this behalf by the occasions aforesaid, that all pleas which shall be pleaded in his courts whatsoever, before any of his justices whatsoever, or in his other places, or before any of his other ministers whatsoever, or in the courts and places of any other lords whatsoever within the realm, shall be pleaded, shewed, defended, answered, debated, and judged in the English tongue, and that they be entered and enrolled in Latin (Baugh 1935: 177-8). 119

This decision takes place in the same period as the re-emergence of ME; in fact, in 1356 the proceedings in the Sheriffs’ Court of the City of London should henceforth be held in ME (Ormrod 2003: 752). In spite of 1362 being widely proposed in the literature as the beginning of a period of Anglicisation in law, (Baker 1979), Rothwell (2001a), and Ormrod (2003) have minimised the consequences of the statute. Indeed, as Rothwell (2001a: 541) argues, the ban is to apply only to the spoken and not to the written variety. In turn, Ormrod (2003: 781-7) concludes that oral procedures may have been in ME well before this date, but AF law reporting continues long after this supposed demise.

III.1.1.1.3.2. Education

Another domain where speaking and writing go separately is education, particularly in such issues as the medium of instruction. There is no such a clear correspondence between the language taught and the language through which grammar is transmitted. Accounts of the time even reveal different pictures. On the one hand, Ranulph Higden in his Polychronicon (c. 1327) maintains that AF was the language of education for every educative matter and level, teaching of BL included (Baugh 1935: 178). On the other hand, John of Trevisa, in his (a. 1387) translation into ME of Higden’s original BL manuscript, personally observes that by 1345 in all grammar schools, ME was generally employed (Sisam 1921/59: 149).98 According to modern statements, from school to university, Latin grammar information was transmitted via AF until the middle of the fourteenth century (Pope 1934; Hunt 1991). Rothwell (1968) suggests that the opposite situation, i.e. BL being the language of transmission of AF, may have also been possible; he depicts a picture where the medium seems BL, while AF is only used to check pupils’ comprehension (Rothwell 1968: 44). Ingham (2007) goes further and takes the role of AF as the vehicle language in church schools as a point of departure to defend that AF as a vernacular was still in use by the 1350s. Psycholinguistically speaking, the fact that AF speakers follow CF in certain morphological and phonological features

98 Apparently, one of the main reasons behind the decline of AF is the Black Death; in many schools, dead teacher monks were replaced by men who knew no other language than ME (Ingham 2007; Burnley 1992: 427). 120

which are likely to be lost in non-natives points to native-like acquisition still in the fourteenth century. Church schools children intended for clerks attended seem to be the responsible for transmitting AF.99 In fact, since 1066 Church as an institution always acts as the main provider of education and is particularly concerned with bilingualism (Iglesias Rábade 1996). As well as teaching missions, psalters and sermons are also written in all three languages (Wenzel 1994). As a result of the separation Church/State in the Reformation, schools attached to cathedrals, churches, and monasteries where the education of the young took place were dissolved (Barron 1996). Therefore, there is a close sociolinguistic relationship between the domain of education and that of religion. Although religion is the only domain where BL may have remained as a fully fledged spoken variety after the Conquest, the main duty of the clergy was to preach comprehensively to their congregation (Burnley 1992: 425-6). Since the clergy had to accommodate their speech to their audience (pp. 74-5), ME appears not to have been completely abandoned in the domain of religion but, quite on the contrary, it has been present throughout the whole period, at least, orally. In the course of the fifteenth century, Church also gave response to the increasing demand for elementary teaching of the English vernacular (Barron 1996: 220).

III.1.1.1.3.3. Government and administration

The different organisms composing the governmental framework of medieval Britain evolve at a different rate than the rest of domains. From c. 1250 to the latter half of the fifteenth century, AF is the well established language of government (Rothwell 1983: 262); this is demonstrated by its appearance in the Magna Carta (1215), the Statutes of the Realm (1235), or the Rolls of Parliament (1272). Nevertheless, throughout this period, attempts are made by the rising middle classes to promote the use of English in administration. One clear example is the Provisions of Oxford (1258). In the 1250s, English barons rebel against the coming of foreigners to Henry III’s court after his marriage to Eleanor of Provence. They demand that fief-holders in England

99 AF continued to be crucial to clerk duties as well until the fifteenth century, as the work of dictatores like Thomas Sampson and William Kingsmill in Oxford shows (Rothwell 2005). 121

should command ME, otherwise they should be disposed of their holdings (Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 269). As a result, Henry III issues a proclamation in 1258 in the three languages of the realm,100 in what constitutes both the first recognition of the existence of an English vernacular and the first collective defence of ME against being wiped out by aliens (Rothwell 1968: 62). Since this proclamation does not probably affect the written sphere, the results do not fulfil the nobility expectations, and the Second Barons’ War (1264-67) breaks out (Crespo García 2000: 25). It is not until the mid-fifteenth century that English finally begins to replace AF and BL as the parliamentary language of record.101 English entries play a minor part until c. 1430, with only four English documents preceding the death of Chaucer in 1400 (Burnley 1986: 598). In turn, Fisher (1979: 138-9) lists the parliamentary petitions in English as follows:

Before 1400, there are two petitions in English; 1400-10 none; 1411-20 eight; 1421-30 sixty-three; 1431-40 one hundred and thirty-two; 1441-50 one hundred and thirty-five; 1451-60 one hundred and forty-two. But after 1455 the collection begins to dwindle as the judicial functions of Chancery become more independent of Parliament (between 1451-55 there are one hundred and twenty-six English petitions; 1456-60 only sixteen).

AF overall dominance starts to be questioned after the first quarter of the fifteenth century,102 a period when English had already been introduced in different branches of the government such as the Signet Office in 1417 (Otway- Ruthven 1939) or the Privy Seal in 1422 (Suggett 1946). The emergence of English as a language of record in the governmental circles has been widely attributed to the deliberate adoption of the vernacular tongue by Henry V in his Signet Letters since 1417. Until 1415, the Signet Office, the itinerant office which dealt with the king’s personal correspondence written under the Signet Seal, had produced correspondence only in AF and BL; but upon Henry V’s (1417) second invasion of France, the king decides to communicate in English with the officers

100 Ellis (1868) edits the English proclamation, the first issued by any Norman king in England. 101 Although the parliamentary sessions of 1362, 1363, 1364, and 1381 were opened in ME (Fisher 1979: 137), these openings seem to be more a patriotic gesture without special long-term linguistic implications. 102 Rothwell (1983) casts doubts on AF overall dominance in the domain of administration by introducing the topic of diatopic variation to the debate. He argues that distance from the centre of government and culture must also have been a determining factor in the diffusion of BL and AF. The further a place from London and Westminster, the lower the penetration of acrolectal varieties is said to have been (Rothwell 1983: 258-9). 122

of his government, the City of London corporation, and other institutions until his death in 1422 (Fisher 1996: 122; Galbraith 1941: 125). Conjectures have been made about the main motivation behind this LS (Otway-Ruthven 1939: 28-9; McFarlane 1945/81: 90-1); Richardson (1980a: 740) suggests that the king’s motive for using the vernacular is

to draw support for his increasingly expensive war. The use of English would probably not elicit much support from the upper class, but it would seem a patriotic gesture to the middle class, who largely paid for the war and to whom the continued use of Latin and French was something of an inconvenience. The middle class had little love of anything foreign, and there was continued agitation to expel foreigners (including the Welsh) from English soil.

Government and administration is not a simple domain but, according to the literature, quite representative of the linguistic evolution, since the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary powers reside in it. The consequences of any linguistic gesture coming from authoritative figures have been not only analysed for this domain but also extrapolated to the linguistic situation in toto. The influence (either direct or indirect) of Henry V’s symbolic decision of shifting to English has been acknowledged in a series of domains such as literature (Baugh 1935: 184-8), technology, medicine, and science (e.g. Taavitsainen and Pahta 1998, 2004), and business (§ III.1.2.2.1). Henry V’s role has been emphasised since, according to Fisher (1996) and Richardson (1980a), the English used in his Signet Office serves as a model for the SE that arises in the fifteenth century. The prestige associated to Henry V’s English may explain its later spread outside the domain of government and administration.

III.1.1.1.4. Middle English and Standard English

When ME re-emerged as a written variety at an increasing rate, it was an extremely dialectally fragmented language; its plethora of dialects falls into five main groups: Northern, East Midland, West Midland, Southeastern, and Southwestern (Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 269, 336; J. Milroy 1992c). Authors were used to writing in the dialect of that part of the country to which either the writer or the text belonged until, towards the end of the fourteenth century, a standard written language started to be generally adopted for the 123

whole country (Fisher 1996);103 from then on, regional varieties of ME were modified by the influence of SE, so that spellings and forms tended to greater uniformity and stability (N. Davis 1959). The standardisation of English is one of the topics most intensely studied by English language historians focusing on medieval monolingualism (Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 2005: 40). Three main strands of research on the origins and development of the SE in late medieval England are currently recognised by L. Wright (2000b): London English, Chancery norm, and multiple ancestry. These strands, which propose divergent theories on the selection, codification, elaboration, and acceptance (Haugen 1966a) of SE, deserve some attention here.

III.1.1.1.4.1. London English

Following a similar course as other European countries, the dialect of the most important area in England would become the prevailing dialect for the whole country (Fisher 1986). In this sense, London English, as the political, commercial, and cultural centre of England (Keene 2000), emerged as the socially unmarked dialect. Couched in this centralisation around London, Neogrammarians assume that the rising official language essentially consists of features from the Essex dialect and is created merely as a consensus among literate classes (Wyld 1920; R. Chambers and Daunt 1931; Dobson 1955). However, other studies cast doubt on these conclusions. Mackenzie (1928), for instance, reaffirms a change that had already been noticed by Morsbach (1888) and Heuser (1914): London dialect turns from being an essentially Southern dialect to an East Midland one in the fourteenth century (Blake 1992a: 12-3); Mackenzie proposes a distinction between Westminster, where the Southwestern dialect is still used by the fourteenth century, and London, where a blend of the early City of London, and Suffolk and Middlesex dialects takes place.

103 To be noticed that when referring to only-English texts written p. 1400, the term “ME” is not employed in my dissertation; instead, “SE” or simply “English” are used. Following Fisher’s postulates and the group of researchers defending the idea of SE’s multiple ancestry, this is because post-1400 English texts are considered to play already a role in the configuration of future SE. 124

Ekwall (1951, 1956) corroborates the existence of Midland traits on the configuration of the London Standard,104 and tries to explain why this Northern influence appears.105 Ekwall (1951) bases his investigation on the tax rolls of Londoners dwelling in the City between 1270 and 1350; he notes down every Londoner with a place name as a surname, and charts these places on a map of England to check people’s places of origin. According to his results, he is of the opinion that “the Midland influence [...] is mainly due to immigration” (Ekwall 1956: xxx). Ekwall’s (1944, 1947) onomastic and toponimic works on England have also been of immense importance, influencing most research in the field. One of his followers is Michael Samuels.

III.1.1.1.4.2. Chancery norm

In his (1963) seminal work, Samuels tries to cast light on the development of the fifteenth-century SE. Inspired by his previous work on the spelling practices of Southern England and the Midlands in the Linguistic Atlas of Late Medieval English (LALME) (McIntosh et al. 1986), Samuels’s results do not appear to be in line with Ekwall’s conclusions; hence, Samuels (1963: 89) rejects the East Midland influence on SE in preference for the Central Midlands:

The theory of East Midland (and particularly East Anglian) influence has been popular hitherto, but it is not borne out by an examination of either the Cambridgeshire or the Norfolk and Suffolk dialects of the time. The dialect of the Central Midlands, on the other hand, was the only one that had achieved the status of a literary standard, and this alone suggests that we should look to that region as the source of new influences on London English.

As a matter of fact, the Central Midland dialect is one of the four types of language (Type I) that, according to Samuels (1963: 84-9), cast light on the probable sources of the written SE appearing in the fifteenth century.

104 Among others, Northern relevant features are (i) –s as third person singular present tense indicative marker, (ii) –ing as present participle marker, and (iii) loss of affixes (y– and –en) in past participle forms. 105 Baugh (1935: 231-3) also mentions several causes that, according to him, contributed to the influence of the East Midland type of English on SE. Among them, (i) the middle position of the Midland dialect between the extreme divergences of the north and south, (ii) to be the largest and most populous of the major dialect areas, and (iii) the presence of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, are to be highlighted. 125

Based on the dialects of the Central Midland counties, Type I is referred to by Samuels as “standard literary language” insofar as it is the language of the majority of Wycliffite bibles, sermons, and tracts. The Lollards’ powerful influence in spreading this written language makes it have a wide currency until 1430 and survive unchanged until late fifteenth century. Type II is the language found in manuscripts written in different parts of London and its surroundings from a. 1370. Overall, features in these manuscripts belong to the Essex-type of London English. The nature of texts where Type II appears includes mainly literary works. Type III, “the Chaucerian language”, is the language of the best Chaucer, Gower, and Hoccleve manuscripts as well as other post-1370 civic documents. Although also written in the London area, Type II and Type III diverge from each other enormously due to the above-mentioned immigration from the Central Midlands in the fourteenth century; this same trend may also explain further changes from Type III to Type IV (Samuels 1963: 91). Type IV, which Samuels (1963: 88) terms “Chancery Standard”, consists of the flood of government documents starting p. 1430. To him, it is this type, not its predecessors in London English, that constitutes the basis of modern written English.106 Following in Samuels’s footsteps, Fisher mainly focuses on the diffusion of Type IV’s proto-standard until it becomes the basis of eModE. His research is in line with those works that put the emphasis on the standardisation of modern English as a by-product of the standardisation of administrative procedures by fifteenth-century clerks of Chancery (e.g. Tout 1920-33 in Fisher 1979: 139). According to Tout, Chancery clerks lived together in houses, provided a system of highly supervised training through apprenticeship, and enjoyed a monopoly of all writing flowing into or out of Chancery or Parliament (Fisher 1979: 139). Richardson (1980a) elaborates a picture of Henry V’s Signet Office’s clerks (e.g. John Stopyndon) perhaps influencing the infusion of English, firstly, into the Chancery, and later into the records of other corporations such as the Guildhall (Hughes 1980) and the London Bridge (Christianson 1989). Fisher (1992, 1996: 7-8) also maintains that SE is the consequence of deliberate planning and management from Lancastrian institutions from Henry

106 Fisher et al. (1984) present an anthology of 241 texts that illustrate the Chancery Standard. 126

IV’s and Henry V’s reigns. In other studies, the process of standardisation of Chancery English has been described as the result of (i) decreasing variation and variability in forms, and the growing deregionalisation and decontextualisation of the written varieties of English used by the London administration (Sandved 1981; Benskin 1992), and (ii) its progressive diffusion and acceptance throughout the country (Hernández Campoy and Conde Silvestre 1999, 2005; Conde Silvestre and Hernández Campoy 2004).

III.1.1.1.4.3. Multiple ancestry

The introduction of the variationist approach in the discussion of the nature of SE has recently questioned Chancery English’s stability of variant forms as well as its position as the single ancestor of modern written standard (L. Wright 2000b, 2000c). On the one hand, traditional studies have merely concentrated on the decreasing variation at just one level: spelling. However, when research has been extended to grammar and lexis, as Nordic researchers have done, the picture becomes much more complex (e.g. Rissanen 1999; Heikkonen 1996). L. Wright (1994b, 1996a) has also come to criticise the contradictory handbook accounts that describe the phenomenon of standardisation, since they are based on pious repetitions of the views of the past scholars such as Ekwall, Samuels, and Fisher. According to L. Wright (1996a: 105-8), contradiction is due to the misinterpretation of Ekwall’s initial results; Ekwall’s conclusions on the population shift have turned into fact, even though Ekwall (1956: xii-xiii) himself is aware of his findings’ inconclusiveness and incomprehensiveness. Based on sociolinguistic findings, L. Wright (1996a: 111) argues that for a feature typical of dialect area A (Midlands) to appear in dialect area B (Greater London), it is not necessary to posit a migration of speakers any more. She prefers to talk about a percolation southwards of Northern features due to the closeness of a Norse-influenced population to London influential area (L. Wright 1996a: 113). Furthermore, a group of scholars have recently revised the prevailing versions of SE as coming from only one source: Chancery English (L. Wright 2000c). To them, Chancery English is just one of many functional varieties of 127

written English; their approach seeks to locate the source for SE in the interaction between different registers of London English, not just in a single text type (L. Wright 1996b: 3).

III.1.2. MULTILINGUAL APPROACH: LANGUAGES IN CONTACT

The multilingual approach starts from the programmatic premise that

[t]he study of the linguistic situation of medieval Britain cannot be carried out by specialists working in isolation, but requires a convergence of attention, and a determined refusal to hide behind the artificial barriers of either allegedly separate languages (Trotter 2000a: 1).

Linguistic accounts on this period have been straitjacketed by the modern, not medieval, thinking that “people [in medieval Britain] could have in their minds neat and tidy pigeonholes for each language” (Rothwell 1994: 66). To put it simply, to divorce the vernacular from Latin and French material is to get a false idea of the period (Hudson 1977). As ME progressively covers a much wider range of functions, all three languages of medieval Britain begin to co-occur in more and more domains. This coexistence of languages in different social contexts brings about special consequences for the three languages in contact. Two relevant processes have been the scope of study of multilingual approach to medieval England: cross- linguistic influence and CS.

III.1.2.1. Cross-linguistic influence

During the Middle Ages, with AF, BL, and ME (and SE) in close contact on English soil, each language is influenced by the other to an extent that has not been traditionally recognised; scholars have tended to remain within the boundaries of their linguistic specialities. For its special status in pre- and post- Conquest Britain, BL is paradigmatic in being both source and target of cross- linguistic influences. Firstly, I pay attention to influences where BL is the centre; secondly, influences between AF and ME are analysed.

128

III.1.2.1.1. British Latin

In the medieval world, the official language throughout Western Europe was Latin. It had been inherited as the institutionalised language of culture acquired through education and used in more formal domains. Primarily a written language of record, it was nonetheless spoken in ecclesiastical circles and served as an international lingua franca (Crespo García 2000: 24). As R. Wright (1991: 109-11 in L. Wright 1996b: 5) claims, BL is not simply a direct descendant of Classical Latin as spoken by the descendants of Romans, but a constructed version or sociolect of Latin perhaps invented to standardise its forms.107 Focusing on the variety used on English soil, BL remains as the only language of scholarly learning and official writing until the thirteenth century, when AF begins to compete with it. Unlike AF, BL never functions as a vernacular in the sense of being spoken naturally from childhood by English inhabitants. In other words, more than a language sensu stricto, BL constitutes a fossilised vehicle through which knowledge is transmitted (Rothwell 1975, 1985). As a framework of long tradition, BL enriched, polished, and lent clarity to the written forms of both AF and ME (Catto 2003; Burnley 1992); through the work of translators, styles, conventions, and features of Latin writing are transferred into AF and ME. Calqued structures would show later a marked degree of independence in practice in each language though (Burnley 1986). Furthermore, Latin has also left its mark on English through loanwords. The Norman Conquest brought about a change in the process of borrowing; whereas a. 1066 direct borrowing from Latin to English prevailed, with the arrival to Britain of AF, most Latin-origin words were introduced via AF (Baugh 1935: 222-3). Rothwell (1993a: 590-2) argues that linguistic borrowing between BL, AF, and ME is a two-way process; many entries in the dictionaries of Latin are clearly derived from or simply calqued on French and English. Rothwell (1994: 51) explains the reason:

No longer an evolving vernacular, Latin, unlike French or English, could not develop its own genuine new terminology to reflect the changing

107 R. Wright actually employs the term “Medieval Latin” in order to refer to the variety of Latin used in medieval England. Other terms employed in the literature are “Anglo-Latin” (e.g. Rothwell 2001a: 553, 559) and “British Latin” (e.g. Trotter 2006: 74). I follow Trotter’s (2006) choice and abbreviate it as “BL”. 129

societies in which it continued to be used for official purposes, and vernacular terms had to be introduced to fill the gaps. [...] Only a living and evolving vernacular is capable of responding adequately to the lexicological demands of a changing society.

Vernacular-origin words, toponyms, and personal names are normally masked by a Latinate graphic decorum in order to comply with the BL matrix (Clark 1992b: 549); strategies to satisfy textual convention can be found since (at least) the Domesday Book (L. Wright 1998b: 101). Seen more deeply later (§ IV.1.2), researchers in the brand-new multilingual approach do not consider this vernacular-origin material as completely borrowed into BL (Schendl and L. Wright 2011b: 24); rather, they argue that behind a Latin façade, switched items are underlying and can be exploited as earlier attestations of these words. Therefore, in medieval England, it is very difficult to know to which language a lexeme or a morpheme should formally be assigned; the reality is that a cut- and-dried divide between languages does not exist (Rothwell 1980, 2000a). Even though it has long been recognised that BL is constantly reflecting the vernacular (Collas and Plucknett 1953; Collas 1964 in Rothwell 1983: 265- 6), scholars have traditionally kicked against this language mixture and BL’s divergence in orthography, morphology, and syntax from Classical Latin (Cobb 1990 in L. Wright 1994b: 108). This phenomenon has been deemed the result of scribal ineptitude;108 “Dog Latin”, “Low Latin”, or “monkish Latinity” are some of the pejorative terms used to refer to BL. Now, BL is no longer regarded as a mere degenerate form of Classical Latin (Rothwell 1985: 45).

III.1.2.1.2. Anglo-French and Middle English contact

There have existed divergent opinions on the degree of influence of French on English in medieval times. On the one hand, it has been hypothesised that AF is in a situation of pidginisation and creolisation (Dor 1994), and that ME is a French-based creole; function words, prosody, and word order remain OE, while syntax, lexis and morphology become French (Bailey and Maroldt 1977:

108 Clark (1992a), in turn, questions the academic tradition of ascribing all non-traditional orthographic usages found in English forms to the widespread scribal ignorance of English language. To her, they are the result of textual constraints; in French or Latin matrices, scribes are required by convention to Gallicise or Latinise any vernacular usage. 130

51-3).109 On the other hand, Thomason and Kaufman (1988: 264-5) downplay any extensive contact-induced change on ME at the hands of AF. According to them, AF influence on ME does not appear to have exceeded normal lexical borrowing by a lower language in a situation of occasional bilingualism. Not so extreme positions are found in most of the literature. ME handbooks and English language histories have acknowledged the importance of AF/ME contact, but they have been narrowed to the lexical level and the one- way process from AF to ME (e.g. Baugh 1935: 200-21; Mossé 1950/52; Strang 1970: 250-9; Blake 1992b; Burrow and Turville-Petre 1992; Horobin and J. Smith 2002).110 It has been widely attested that French influence on English vocabulary was massive during the Middle Ages. As a direct result of extensive and intimate contact between these two languages, words from AF to ME were transferred considerably. Baugh (1935: 215) estimates that slightly over 10,000 AF words might have poured into ME between 1150 and 1400. Baugh (1935: 201) also observes two stages in this borrowing process:

(i) a. 1250 loanwords were less numerous, of an AF nature, and lower-class related terms.

(ii) p. 1250 the full tide set in, reaching a peak c. 1400 (and a slacking off later), and words were of a more cultivated nature due to the LS occurring in the upper classes and the cultural contact with CF.

One of Rothwell’s lines of research raises substantial doubts on the process through which French vocabulary enters English. According to him, the overwhelming majority of French lexicon in English has its origin in AF rather than in CF. Rothwell (1998) then discards the idea that ME owes the richness of its lexis to large-scale importations of French terminology from the Continent by Englishmen. Rather, it is the consequence of the myriad daily contacts between AF and ME in the minds and under the pens of a whole literate class in

109 Based on their own studies’ results, new researches have rejected both pidginisation and creolisation hypotheses (e.g. Poussa 1973; Görlach 1986; Dalton-Puffer 1992). 110 Dalton-Puffer (1996) represents one of the few exceptions insofar as in this work, she deals with the French influence on one aspect of ME morphology: derivation. 131

England; “generations of educated Englishmen passed daily from English into French and back again in the course of their work” (Rothwell 1991: 174). The fact that a word has a similar form and meaning in English as in French does not necessarily mean that it is taken directly from CF; for instance, the word ambage(s) meaning “circumventing, avoidance, ambiguity” is attested in BL and AF before CF (Rothwell 1998). In other cases, the form of the French word is taken into English, but a change of meaning takes place on English soil. This is the case of the faux amis:

(i) Non-specialised CF words may acquire an additional shade of meaning without further specialisation.

(ii) A word may be given specialised senses in AF often accompanied by the formation of new terms in the same area of meaning coined from the same source (Rothwell 1993c).

Since the facile assumption of a direct borrowing from CF to ME cannot be warranted, Rothwell (1991: 180, 2001b: 196) prefers to call this lexical process absorption. At a wider scope, the changeover of languages from AF to ME in texts is not simply that of a replacement of a Romance language by a Germanic one; the articles, prepositions, verbal, substantival suffixes and so on (i.e. function or closed-class words) become obviously English-origin, but most vocabulary remains French-origin since the bulk of vocabulary cannot be replaced by Anglo-Saxon-origin words (Rothwell 1992: 24). In other words, AF does not die out, but it is merged into ME (Rothwell 2006: 536; cf. Miller 2002). Other ME areas where AF influence has been fairly relevant have been much more neglected. Syntax is one of them; in fact, Blake (1992a: 4, 14) complains that syntactic studies remain the Cinderella of ME linguistic studies. ME handbooks mainly concentrate on those primary grammatical changes from OE to ME that are not the result of direct contact with AF: the loss of grammatical gender, the simplification of gender-number-case agreement on adjectives, or the loss of the genitive plural and dative cases. The decay of inflections and confusion of forms were the result of the Norman Conquest only 132

insofar as that major event brought about conditions favourable to such changes (Baugh 1935: 200). Recent researchers have taken this issue further by investigating the influence of AF on other ME categories. Syntactic aspects are now well studied (e.g. Ingham 2005, 2006a, 2006b; Haeberli 2010), as well as prosody (Markus 1994), spelling (Kniezsa 1994), or style and pragmatics (Burnley 2000/03).111

III.1.2.2. Code switching

As the statuses and relations between the three languages involved change through time, multilingualism favours a progressive increase of mixed-language texts in medieval England; and these written texts are also characterised by the frequent use of CS. CS in medieval England occurs across genres, domains, and text types, both literary and non-literary, verse and prose, mirroring so the linguistic situation of this period. In most cases, manuscripts illustrate different degrees of mixture between either BL or AF (or even both), considered high languages, and ME, the low language (L. Wright 1994b, 1998b). Nevertheless, Schendl (2000a) points out that CS in medieval Britain is not a universal phenomenon, but a widespread specific mode of discourse of certain text types, genres, and domains. There exist different switching patterns and conventions of language mixing in different texts and genres; in some cases, CS may have also fulfilled a number of different functions such as structuring a text or providing quotations. These switching strategies are subject to evolve as the functions of the three languages do as well (Schendl 1996: 60-1). Schendl (1996: 53-60) (i) provides a short overview of mixed-language texts in a number of text categories, and (ii) exemplifies the variety of switching typologies in such texts. Based on his results, Table 3.3 below illustrates the typologies of both medieval mixed texts and genres and of CS in them.112 All mixed-language texts in the list have attracted growing attention among historical linguists: drama (e.g. Diller 1997-98), macaronic poetry (e.g.

111 According to Rothwell (2001a: 551), in England the influence of AF on ME is lexical, that of ME on AF, syntactical. 112 L. Wright (1996b: 11) also proposes a threefold distinction of medieval text types based on syntactic criteria: (i) over large syntactic units such as the sentence or verse couplet (e.g. carols or letters), (ii) over units greater than the word (e.g. sermons), and (iii) over units less than the word (e.g. business records). 133

Schendl 1997, 2000/03), religious prose and verse texts (e.g. Machan 1994; Halmari and Adams 2002), sermons (e.g. Wenzel 1994; Iglesias Rábade 1996), private letters (e.g. Schendl 2002a; Nurmi and Pahta 2004), legal texts (e.g. Davidson 2005), medical and scientific texts (e.g. Ehrsam Voigts 1996; Hunt 2000; Pahta 2004), and business accounts (e.g. Rothwell 1992, 1999, 2000a; Jefferson and Rothwell 1997; L. Wright 1992, 1995a, 1997, 1998b, 2000a, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2011b; Jefferson 2000).

Table 3.3. Mixed text types and types of CS (from Schendl 1996: 53-60)

Text type Intrasentential Intersentential Drama X X Literary Religious verse pieces X Macaronic poems X X Religious prose texts X Sermons X X Non- Legal texts X X literary Medical texts X Business accounts X X Private prose X X

Business accounts are one of the text types where the two main switching typologies occur, then constituting themselves as an interesting category to be studied.

III.1.2.2.1. Business writing

This text type covers such documents as accounts, inventories, proclamations, inquisitions, custumals, or repositories (L. Wright 1996b: 1, 2011b: 191; Trotter 2011: 155). Business writing has been analysed by three of the most prominent researchers in the multilingual approach to medieval Britain: William Rothwell, David Trotter, and particularly Laura Wright. Needless to say, these researchers no longer dismiss the phenomenon of CS as the result of linguistically incompetent scribes or as a quasi-pidgin; rather, CS is regarded as an extensively used resource among bilinguals (L. Wright 1994b: 109). Former printed editions of this kind of manuscripts have also been more concerned with the content of the texts than with the form. Historians editing medieval texts 134

would simply add one or two lines about language (Gras 1918: 561; Cobb 1961: 56-7 in L. Wright 1997: 340) or, at the most, devote a superficial chapter to the languages (e.g. Ekwall 1951: 25-34). It is especially to be regretted the translation into English of records left by livery companies without the original AF or BL (Rothwell 2005), since mixing in these documents is both pervasive and enduring (L. Wright 1996b: 6). Rothwell and Trotter have paid special attention to the lexical level in mixed documents. Trotter (2003d) focuses on ship-building records in the Port Books of Southampton to demonstrate that words belonging to shipping terminology are impossible to be invariably attributed to a specific language. By definition, the sea in medieval times is not a barrier but a place of contact where multilingualism is the norm rather than the exception. Shipping-related lexical roots function at an international level and can move freely across language boundaries, but its morphological structure and orthographic representation are determined by the matrix language, AF in the case of Southampton’s records (Rothwell 1999). Within the comprehensive examination of multilingual business accounts for their research on the Anglo-Norman Dictionary (AND), Rothwell (1992), Jefferson and Rothwell (1997), and Jefferson (2000) list a number of French- origin words occurring in guilds’ records with new senses that are unrecorded in CF. Besides semantics, Rothwell (2000a) is also interested in the different types of morphosyntactical mixing of the three languages in the York Memorandum Book. In her research on multilingualism in business writing, L. Wright (1994a) has gone further by arguing that British medieval business accounts are a strictly controlled text type with both a diatopic and a diachronic dimension. She also wonders why some terms appear in the matrix language (BL and/or AF) and others in the vernacular (ME). In fact, CS in business writing is a rule- governed practice but not in a word-predictable fashion; two main rules have been identified:

(i) Hyponym/hyperonym rule. A noun is rendered in ME, if and only if a superordinate of that noun appears in a Romance language 135

(BL or AF) in close proximity. This is clearly exemplified as follows:

Et caratores ligni qui habent iiii panes bisos cum cervisia. Et iii servientes aquarum habent in vi ebdomadis iii sallops de mancordia [...]. Et in corredio monachorum in singulis ebdomadis in pane xii achersetos de frumento. Et viii achersetos de brasio et iiii de grud. “And carters of wood who have 4 brown loaves with beer. And 3 servers of water have in 6 weeks 3 [slops?, scale-leavings?] of mixed? grain [...] And in monk’s food-allowance in a single week in bread 12 acre- measurements? of wheat. And 8 acre-measurements? of malt and 4 of grout” ([1125-28] Stapleton 1849: 167-8 in L. Wright 1995a: 312).

Brasio, which signifies “malt”, is the superordinate term insofar as grud is a type of malt, but malt is not a type of grout. Therefore, the superordinate term is in BL, whereas the hyponym is in ME.

(ii) Optionality rule. Content words (nouns, adjectives, stems of verbs, and –ing forms) may optionally appear in ME, whereas BL or AF are compulsorily used for function words (prepositions, conjunctions, and pronouns), and variably for all other parts of speech. A clear example follows:

Se pleynt Willam Bukyngham qe Geffrey Waldern Draper et Cecile sa feme a tort luy deteignent c’teins biens cestasau’ vn lit entier’oue lyncheux et blaunkes i celur’ viii verges de Caneuas i baceon gant vi lauor iii bordclothes iiii tuales i gant huche iiii peluwes dont les beres de soi ii pot3 daressme i bone paiel et gant lie3 de fere i petit paiel i skilet paiel i demy de3ene garnises de peutr’uessele i gant gredire ii stokaxes i weeg de fer’ i table ii salars de peutr’ i chalon ii chaundelers de laton [...] “Plaint of William Buckingham against Geoffrey Waldern draper and Cecily his wife: that they wrongfully withhold from him certain goods, namely: a complete bed with bedsheets and blankets; 1 canopy; 8 yards of canvas; 1 large basin; 6 waterjugs; 3 tablecloths; 4 towels; 1 large chest; 4 pillows with silk pillowcases; 2 brass pots; 1 good large pan bound with iron; 1 little pan; 1 skillet pan; 1 half-dozen set of pewter vessels; 1 large grill; 2 stockaxes; 1 wey of iron; 1 table; 2 pewter saltcellers; 1 coverlet; 2 latton candlesticks [...]” ([c. 1363] L. Wright 1998b: 103-4).

While in this extract all function words (e.g. sa, luy, vn, de) and most content words appear in AF, ME is limited to some content words (e.g. bordclothes, peluwes, stokaxes, weeg).

136

As mentioned right above, both rules are subject to a diatopic and a diachronic dimension (L. Wright 1995a: 309). The mixed structure of business writing occurs nationwide, turning into a supra-regional proto-standard variety free from regional variation; apart from in London, macaronic variety also appears in Northern England accounts as well as in Western Europe (L. Wright 1998b: 114-5). Mixed-language business writing has a redoubtable history; at least, it exists from the eleventh-century Billingsgate Tolls of London (Gras 1918) to the mid-sixteenth-century inventory of Wynkyn de Worde’s printing shop (Moran 1960/76: 45 in L. Wright 1996b: 11). As an (only written) functional variety in existence for about 500 years, its syntactic rules undergo an evolution. During the fifteenth century, exceptions to the initial structural distribution of AF and/or BL and ME begin to occur. Until the structure is completely obscured by the late fifteenth century, the tendency is to incorporate more and more ME, making the optionality rule no longer operative:

Item, payé for a man for to ride on to my master Estfeld pur John Wareyn – ii s. Item, a Richard Lyndesey for writyng of diverses suertez for John Wareyn – ii s. Item, pur corettyng de le masboke and amendyng – v s. “And paid for a man to ride on to my Master Estfeld for John Warren – 2s. And to Richard Lyndsey for writing of diverse sureties for John Warren – 2s. And for correcting of the Mass book and amending – 5s.” ([1433-34] L. Wright 2002: 477).

L. Wright (1998b: 101-9) also divides macaronic writing into three broad stages:

(i) In youthful macaronic writing, it is mainly stems of nouns and verbs which surface in ME. The frequency of vernacular words to acrolectal (AF and BL) words is low.

(ii) In mature macaronic writing, the frequency of vernacular to acrolectal words will be higher. The noun phrase may contain more than one vernacular word. Adjectives and substantival –ing forms may surface in ME.

137

(iii) In moribund macaronic writing, word order is overwhelmingly English. As the last stage before convention no. 2 (i.e. an archive shifts completely to SE matrix) appears, macaronic business writing seems to undergo a kind of death throe (L. Wright 1994a: 453). In this agony, the switch-point ceases to observe the boundary of the nominal group or verbal root, and short runs of text entirely in ME intersperse among AF- and BL-matrix entries.

Not only does business writing consist of switching between languages, but it also exploits language overlap. Languages in medieval England are mixed in such a way that, in practice, a clear-cut distinction between AF and BL and ME is blurred, and on many occasions, it is even impossible to say where the switch-point exactly begins (L. Wright 2002: 473). Two main factors contribute to this blurring:113

(i) Common matter. French, Latin, and English are related languages descending from a common Indo-European ancestor and, therefore, some of the word-stock is shared (L. Wright 2002: 484). In addition, by the end of the Middle Ages, ME had borrowed a considerable amount of BL and AF vocabulary; consequently, it is not uncommon to have material that cannot be categorised with certainty as wholly AF, BL, or ME but that belongs to all languages simultaneously (L. Wright 2002: 486).

(ii) Abbreviation and suspension system. As has been anticipated above (pp. 90-1), this system is borrowed from Classical Latin into mixed-language texts as an integral mechanism mainly to visually hide contrasting material that can hamper textual comprehensibility. In her comparison with Haugen’s (1966b) semicommunication model, L. Wright (2000/03: 370-4) argues that in both cases, speakers surrender their own linguistic identity in order to enhance communication and understanding between

113 Both strategies recall Woolard’s concept of bivalency: “the use by a bilingual of words or segments that could ‘belong’ equally, descriptively and even prescriptively, to both codes” (Woolard 1999: 7). 138

scribe and auditor by creating a mapping of linguistic codes. One of the most fruitful strategies consists of suppressing alien grammatical markers and highlighting common roots; it is up to the auditor to supply mentally the missing functional morphology with, basically, prefixes and suffixes from his own native language.

L. Wright’s explanation of the structure and mechanisms of the medieval business writing relies purely on intralinguistic factors. However, the reasons why this mixed-language text type emerges, exists for so long, and eventually dies out have to be looked for in the sociolinguistic dimension (L. Wright 2002: 487). L. Wright (1998b: 99) argues that macaronic business writing is invented to serve a particular need: a language to keep journals and accounts not only in Britain but also wherever merchants need to bill each other. She speculates that a macaronic vehicle comes into existence because BL and AF are regarded as acrolects and ME as a basilect, and that a mixture of both would provide a mesolect, suitable for recording the mercantile activities of the middle classes (L. Wright 1996b: 12). L. Wright (2002: 484-5) puts it simply: “The whole phenomenon of the mixed-language business varieties [comes] about as the result of that intense social incentive for contact outside the speech community, trade”. While AF variety becomes moribund around the middle of the fifteenth century, the BL variety becomes moribund around the 1550s (L. Wright 1998b: 115). According to L. Wright (2002: 483), the determining indicator for moribundity is only when function words surface in ME. This stage corresponds to what Dorian (1981) calls “the tip”, i.e. a stable language undergoes a sudden change immediately before it dies out altogether (L. Wright 2002: 476). Code- intermediate phenomena such as visual merging, morphological accommodation, drift towards analycity, and bare forms indicate neither moribundity nor presage death, but they are an essential component of mixed- language business texts (L. Wright 2002: 487). Variability constitutes a hallmark of this text type; consistency is not the goal. The ultimate predominance of early SE as the matrix language in business writing is due to socioeconomic reasons rather than linguistic ones (L. Wright 2002: 487). The triggering factor appears to be a change in speakers’ 139

attitude towards the vernacular (L. Wright 1998b: 115). During the fifteenth century, the newly emerging standardised dialect of English begins to be regarded as appropriate for the function of keeping records. To L. Wright (2000b, 2000c), this mixed-language business variety is one of the many contributors to the rise and shaping of early SE. As a matter of fact, the role played by the language of London merchants trading with merchants from provinces and abroad in the diffusion of SE has been emphasised; rather than resorting to traditional one-way immigration to London to explain changes, L. Wright (2001: 199-204, 2005: 393-6) turns to the work survey of Derek Keene, James Galloway, and Margaret Murphy on metropolitan market networks (e.g. Galloway 1999, 2000; Keene 2000 in L. Wright 2001: 200). By sampling debts incurred by Londoners across the country, these researchers find that by 1424, Londoners had passed from interacting mainly with people from Southeastern England and Southeastern Midlands to being in routine contact with much of the rest of England. As the dominant market and centre of distribution within Britain, the supra-regional written dialect in London, firstly, is based on northern and eastern morphology and, secondly, is easily disseminated for the prestige associated to it (L. Wright 2005: 395-6). The process by which the moribund mixed-language business writing gives way to incipient SE is by no means a straightforward shift; for instance, in the MWA, one can find texts with SE matrix in 1449-50, then accounts go back to the orderly kind of AF + ME variety in 1452-53, and finally they shift to SE again in 1458-59 for good thereafter. Nor does the changeover take place at the same time everywhere; for example, the archives of the London Bridge do not shift to English matrix until 1479-80, 20 years later than the MWA (Harding and L. Wright 1995). 140

III.2. THE MERCERS’ COMPANY OF LONDON

The term mercery originally covers a twofold identity: (i) the group of people trading in a specific range of goods, and (ii) the area where this business is carried out.114 In this sub-chapter, an account of the development of the MC from its origins as a commonalty of traders of small wares to its consolidation as the premier London livery company is offered. An emphasis on its evolution both in the City of London and beyond the English territory, this in partnership with the MAC, is also placed. The issue of how the MC deals with multilingualism in medieval England is finally presented.

III.2.1. ORIGINS, EVOLUTION, AND CONSOLIDATION

Hardly does the MC which ranks first in the Order of Precedence of 1422 (Burrage and Corry 1981) resemble the commonalty of mercers of London which is first recorded as acting in a corporate fashion in 1304. From its genesis to its consolidation as the premier livery company, the MC and everything around it changed to a great extent. As mentioned right above, the earliest reference to a communitatem de merceria occurs in a lawsuit of 1304 trying to protect the rights and privileges of London citizenship (Veale 1991: 259; Sutton 1998). It seems then clear that there are no references to any fully articulate and organised association of mercers before the fourteenth century (Sutton 2005: 19).115 Nevertheless, the term mercery does occur in trading regulations from the 1130s onwards, but only to refer to the business in a general way (Sutton 1997: 101). Furthermore, individuals with mercenarius, mercerus, or (le) Mercer as their occupational byname are visible in civic records of London such as the Pipe Rolls and other cartularies; this is the case of Stephanus mercer, a witness to a London deed somewhere between 1120 and 1133, or Serlo le Mercer, Mayor in 1215 and a man of eminence in London (Sutton 1995: 304-5). The lack of data impedes a complete picture of the evolution of the MC from these first mentions to its consolidation as a livery company in the

114 When referring to the geographical area, the term “Mercery” is capitalised. 115 Herbert (1834-36: 231-2) and Hazlitt (1892: 169) argue that the antiquity of the MC as a guild may be traced as far back at least as to 1142 in connection with its role as patroness in the foundation of the Hospital of St Thomas of Acon. 141

fourteenth century. Nineteenth-century historians have tried to fill in the gaps by resorting to the concept of religious fraternity. Herbert (1834-36), Hazlitt (1892), Pooley (1947), and Unwin (1908) maintain that twelfth-century parish and religious fraternities are felt to be nucleus of most livery companies.116 Companies are said to have grown up around a church or monastery to which they attached themselves, and which their members used as a meeting place and whose saint was adopted as their patron. Clear examples are, among others, the Drapers’ Company, whose formal name remains “The Brethren and Sisters of the Fraternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary”, the Tailors’ Fraternity of St John of the Baptist, or the Skinners’ Fraternity of Corpus Christi. As for the MC, Keene (1991: 4) relates its origins to the cult of God, of the Virgin Mary, and of St Thomas Becket of Canterbury in the site of St Thomas’s birthplace. However, recent researches have disposed of early religious fraternities as the core of later livery companies. Veale (1991) does not find any evidence suggesting that the MC originated as a fraternity in the twelfth century. It is certain that many mercers are recorded to have been seated near the spot of the church in the heart of the Mercery and worshipped in the church of the hospital during the fourteenth century but, to her, it is too far-fetched to conclude that they had assembled there long before the 1350s. Neither does Sutton (2005: 19) see that any parish fraternity has ever been the core foundation of the MC.117

III.2.1.1. The three stages in the development of the Mercers’ Company

Seen the failure to pinpoint with certainty the date and circumstances in the constitution of the livery companies, especially the MC, Sutton (2005: 54) prefers to look elsewhere and proposes three stages in the formal organisation of the MC.

116 Arundell (1869: 28) takes things a stage further when he states that almost all the principal London livery companies may claim an antiquity coeval with the Anglo-Saxon period, they having uninterruptedly cohered as fraternities to the present time. 117 Sutton (1992) alludes to the thirteenth-century literary fraternity of the Puy but not as a possible origin of the MC. A focus of interest for many mercers, its members belonged to a wide range of crafts. 142

In the earliest period, mercers handled whatever became profitable, from various textiles, robes, or bedding to associated miscellaneous piece goods such as orphreys and other works of embroidery (brades, laces, ribbons, girdles and so on) (Sutton 1997: 103, 115). Herbert (1834-36: 230) describes in a nutshell the main characteristics of the original mercer:

Mercer, in ancient times, was the name for a dealer in small wares, and not, as afterwards, a vender of silks. Merceries then comprehended all things sold retail by the little balance [...] and included not only toys, together with haberdashery, and various other articles connected with dress, but also spices and drugs; in short, what at present constitutes the stock of a general country shopkeeper. The Mercers, in these periods of simplicity, chiefly kept the fairs and markets. [...] Merceries meant nearly the same as pedlery.

Trading practices were dominated by the husband-wife pattern; the simplest mercery unit was the household, with all family members pursuing the same trade (Sutton 2001). When the husband travelled to sell the goods manufactured in his workshop and to buy additional stock at provincial fairs, he left his artisan wife, children, and employees to run the workshop and counter in his absence. This specialisation gradually marginalised the mercer-pedlar, i.e. the errant self-created mercer who dealt with hawked goods that he carried on his back (Sutton 2005: 91). In the second stage, the mercer became rather smarter and more concerned with wholesale trade and less with manufacturing. That new concern is best illustrated by a series of transformations taking place at the end of the thirteenth century. Of the two dimensions that constituted the nature of the mercery occupation, the mercantile aspect eventually dominated the company over the artisan one (Sutton 1995: 315); the dealer-mercer managed to control subsidiary mercery-affiliated crafts such as shepsters, vestmentmakers, embroiderers, cappers, hurers and so on (Sutton 2005: 32). The shop became the new basic unit of the London mercery where the mercers sold their enlarged retail stock. Under the title of mercery, luxury items began to appear. After noticing as lucrative a business as supplier for the Great Wardrobe carried out by relevant silkwomen (Matilda of London and Mabel of Bury St Edmunds), male entrepreneurs took over the profits of selling rarer silks and rich cloths to the kings (Sutton 2001: 17). 143

These early stages gave way to a period when the mercers set a high value on the qualities of dignity, decency, and courtesy, but also on habits of ostentation and luxury. Most mercers moved into full mercantile status engaging in the import and export trade of various luxury commodities like, for instance, silk, linen, and fustian (Sutton 1998: 124). Pride in their guild led them on, and snobbery flourished among them. After an early phase where mercers had been anxious to throw their ranks wide open, the MC became a quite exclusive group with the passage of time (Thrupp 1942: 169). Status was a major preoccupation throughout the whole medieval era, fuelled by the mercers’ association with the dubious character of the itinerant pedlar (Sutton 2005: 13). In order to get rid of that condemned image and anything which could hamper their social aspirations, it was the MC’s elite who guided policies and drafted several purposeful ordinances. Anyone aspiring to mercantile status was advised to reject any nomenclature that linked him with a manual craft or hinted at a lowly origin; in their place, place names were desirable as bynames or surnames (Sutton 1995: 171). Another aspect of their original trade to be rejected by the MC was the business in miscellaneous small wares of the mercer’s pack like pins, buttons, or laces; this variety of goods constituted the hallmark of the itinerant mercer (Sutton 2005: 118).

Item, qe chescun qe prendra apprentys payera a le dite mistere ii s. al comencement del terme du dit apprentys, et l’apprentys payera ii s. al dite mistere al issue de soun terme. Et qe nul du dite mistere prendra apprentys qe eyt apporté packes en paijs appellés pedders; ne fitz de vileyn. “Item, that each person who takes on an apprentice shall pay to the said mistery 2s. at the start of the said apprentice’s terms, and the apprentice shall pay 2s. to the said mistery at his issue from terms. And that no one of the said mistery shall take on an apprentice who has carried packs around the country and been one of those called pedlars, nor one who is the son of a villain.” (MWA 1347-48: f. 1r).

Through this ordinance, the MC began to insist on good birth of apprentices from the first moment of its foundation. Mercers tried to hide their low birth as much as they could since they wanted to feel safe from the insult of being son of a pedlar (Sutton 2005: 16).

144

Qe desoreenavant nul compaignon du dite mistere hauntera nule feire ne marchee dehors la Citee de Loundres pur vendre illoeqes ascune manere de marchandise par luy mesmes ne par ascun autre mesné. “That from henceforth no companion of the said mistery shall attend any fair or market outside the City of London for the purpose of selling any manner of merchandise either by himself or by any other household.” (MWA 1376-77: f. A2r).

Attendance at provincial fairs was institutionally discouraged. Rather than selling goods itinerantly all over Britain, the MC’s determination was to control all the country’s trade to the advantage of London (Sutton 2005: 202). Provincial chapmen (or brokers) would come to London as clients to distribute later goods to the rest of the country. The MC’s focus became the overseas trade.

III.2.1.2. The hierarchisation of the membership

The ordinances of 1347-48 and 1376-77 constitute the first records that show how the MC was governed at that time. Both sets of manuscripts organise the status of mercers by introducing a hierarchisation of the MC’s members. Firstly, the different ways and costs of a person joining the Company and obtaining the freedom are established. Hazlitt (1892: 75) details that the freedom is obtainable in four ways:

(i) by apprenticeship or servitude [to a citizen master], (ii) by patrimony [as the son of a citizen born in the city], (iii) by redemption [or purchase of the privilege], and (iv) by gift [to a person of eminence].

Whereas the fourth means is purely honorary (probably, the most significant case is that of Richard II), admissions by patrimony are not recorded in the MWA until c. 1459; apparently, this idea seems to have been a later development as an offshoot of apprenticeship (Parker 1980: 42). Unlike patrimony, redemption and apprenticeship are as old as the MC; in the ordinances of 1347-48, there is original provision for these two means. In the case of redemption, the MC sold the freedom to persons of rank and quality likely to be useful to the company and willing to pay for the favour. Nonetheless, the strangers should always be admitted by mutual consent (Imray 1969: 162-7). By far, the MC depended on replenishment by apprentices. According to Imray’s (1969: 159) figures, out of the 1,047 entries recorded in the MWA only 69 are not admitted by apprenticeship. On average during these years, between 145

10 and 30 apprentices are enrolled annually and between 5 and 20 complete their apprenticeship each year (Imray 1969: 167). Apprentices join at the age of 16 for a period of 7 years and at a 2s. cost. In 1448-49, the term is lengthened to 10 years, and the entry fee is raised to 20s.; in 1457-8, the fee is put up again to £3 6s. 8d. While at his entry it is the master who should pay for the fee to the mistery, at his issue the apprentice himself is to pay a similar fee. However, since not always the date at which members had to pay for their fees was respected, the MWA have their limits as a record of membership (Blake 1966). Neither did masters follow the procedure for taking apprentices as laid down in the ordinances. Even though masters were limited to 4 apprentices in an ordinance of 1448-49, there were freemen who took more than 5 apprentices (Imray 1969: 171). The reason why an apprentice chose to be bound to a particular master is not fully detailed, but it seems that family ties or same geographical origin may have been decisive factors (Imray 1969: 169). As F. Scott (1912: 180) explains, the success of the apprenticeship system in the Middle Ages is largely due to (i) the close personal relationship between master and apprentice, and (ii) the supervision of that relationship by the guilds.118 Once in the MC, the apprentice found himself at the bottom of the company. The status of the apprentice was lowly, but it was the first step on a ladder to the freedom of the City; it consisted of several different levels: apprentice, freeman, bachelor or shopholder or liveryman, master, warden, and assistant. When the apprentice had completed his term, he underwent the procedure for issue. After paying the issue fee and taking the Oath for Issue (f.A4r), the apprentice would proceed to the Guildhall where he used to be made free of the City by the Chamberlain of London (Parker 1980: 58-9). At that stage, the brand-new freeman could either become a bachelor or advance further in the company by purchasing the livery. Should he decide the former, he would enrol in that subordinate group of non-liverymen who remained journeymen, small traders, or servants of their old masters all their careers (Parker 1980: 60).119 During the fifteenth century, the bachelors developed as a

118 The failure to attain citizenship by nearly 50% of enrolled apprentices reveals that the apprenticeship system is not as successful as claimed (Imray 1969: 168). 119 In the period 1390-1464, about 50% of mercer-freemen did not progress in the Company beyond this rank (Parker 1980: 60). 146

separate social organisation within the MC having their own system of government with eight masters elected annually, their own feasts, and their own livery (Creaton 1976: 34). A. 1456-57, advancement in the MC could only mean admission to the livery. But from that date onwards, the group of shopholders made its appearance. Men in that intermediary rank held a shop, run their business independently, and were allowed to attend general courts. If their business was successful, it could eventually be the key to enter the livery (Sutton 2005: 210). Beyond any doubt, the establishment of a separate livery class drew a social line across the ranks of the company and marked a significant dichotomy between the members of the MC. By the livery fee of 20s. payable in three instalments of 6s. 8d., the MC split its ranks into two groups: (i) an elite group of affluent merchants dominating everything, and below, (ii) a group of non- liverymen (apprentices, bachelors, and shopholders) without the same privileges as the superior ranks (Sutton 2005: 201). Although there is no evidence, admission to the livery seems not to have been easy. Out of the 1,047 members recorded, only about 50% of freemen of the MC become liverymen (Imray 1969: 173). The powerful and privileged elite exercised tight control on the livery, and access was strictly limited in both number and quality (Parker 1980: 29). In 1463, another layer of authority within the company was erected: the Court of Assistants. This body was a standing committee of 12 persons, mainly aldermen and former wardens, designed to deal with those internal and political matters and to make binding decisions which so far had been reserved for a mercer-advisers’ meeting on an ad hoc basis (M. Davies 2004: 138). Last but not least, the highest rank in the company was that of the wardens. In 1347-48, the MC agreed that four wardens were to be elected every fiscal year, and everybody had to be obedient to them. If access to livery was difficult, as mentioned right above, the number of men who served the office of warden was even smaller. Out of the 1,047 freemen, only 171 serve as wardens (Imray 1969: 176). At the annual congregation on Midsummer’s Day, each set of four wardens was elected by the predecessors, each man selecting one man not necessarily for his own place (Sutton 2005: 176). Even though Creaton (1976: 36) sees no evidence of nepotism, this method of election may have led to 147

exclusiveness and self-perpetuation in the office of warden. Imray (1969: 177) also points to a safeguard constraining oligarchy: “A period of [at least] 5 years must elapse before a man could serve a second year as warden”; nonetheless, the inherent “inbreeding” made wardens reappear more often than stipulated. At the same meeting of the MC, the four outgoing wardens were also (i) to render an account of the company’s financial affairs for audit, and (ii) to hand over the cash in hand to the incoming wardens. Overall, primary duties of the wardens were strictly executive since legislative power resided in the whole company (Parker 1980: 79). In the early years, the four wardens’ responsibilities were equally shared, and duties were interchangeable; none of them had a superior status (Jefferson 2009: 38). After some time, more particular tasks for each warden developed. Whereas no mention is made of any specific duties for the first and the second wardens, the duties of the third and the fourth wardens were well defined during the fifteenth century (Jefferson 2009: 40). In an undated ordinance and an Act of Court of 1465, it is stated that the third warden’s job was to look after the books and records of the MC (Parker 1980: 82, 248-9). As for the fourth warden, evidence shows that it was from 1455-56 that the collection of rents and the management of property were allotted to him (Jefferson 2009: 40). Additional administrative staff was employed by the MC: the keeper of the Small Beam, the meter of linen cloth, the rent-collector (or rentgatherer), and the beadle (Creaton 1976: 45-53; Parker 1980: 89-95). This does not mean that people unconnected with the company were engaged; decayed members were usually appointed to these offices. More significant for this research are the last two positions, the beadle’s role being analysed later (§ III.2.4.1.1). The full-time office of rent-collector was created in 1407-08. His duties were rent collecting and oversight of property repairs. When the money was collected, it was passed to the renter-warden. This office was sometimes combined with that of the beadle (e.g. John Bele [1419-20], Robert Colwell [1424-26], Robert Trenerth [1431-34], or William Rumbold [1439-44]) but it seems that the former carried less prestige than the latter. In the second half of the fourteenth century, the MC had no landed property, and its income was derived from three basic sources: subscriptions, apprentice fees, and fines. In turn, the ordinary expenses appear to have been 148

employees’ wages and allowances to poor pensioners (J. Watney 1914: 37). The situation changed radically in the 1390s. With a furious row between Richard II and the City over the monarchy’s finances as a background, the Statute of Mortmain of 1391 which required property to be duly licensed was passed. The MC then decided that the safest action for their future was to purchase their first royal Charter of Incorporation in 1393-94 (Sutton 1994b). This charter conferred on the MC corporate status and legal recognition in the City, and the right to hold land to a certain value. This purchase is considered the final stage in the establishment of the MC as a powerful guild (Keene 1991: 12). From then on, the MC and the rest of livery companies began to reinforce their own power base and became a valuable means of governing the City (Sutton 1998: 136). The legislators became increasingly aware of the companies’ growing relevance, as mirrored by their visibility in the civic records, and understood that in order to rule the City with a common sense, it seemed compulsory to count on them. This charter and further confirmations also enhanced the MC’s finances. Income from property rented out became a new, important, and healthy source. Money flow in the comune boxe was high throughout the fifteenth century; the surplus income was then invested in various foreyn expenses ranging from trade to more purchases of property (Creaton 1976: 59-66). Other items of expenditure in the MWA such as alms payments, the maintenance of a chapel, and salary for a priest reveal that the MC had developed an important fraternal side and a profound sense of brotherhood; the MC was especially concerned with those members who had fallen on hard times, old, or ill (Parker 1980: 144- 5). Between 1390-91 and 1463-64, 22 priests were employed by the MC and their labour took place in the chapel of St Thomas of Acon (Creaton 1976: 79). The MC’s concern about its members was extended till their death; attendance at the funeral and chantries provided constituted the last services the Company rendered to its members, and the rest of mercers were expected to attend the funeral ceremonies of fellows or the annual obit for less relevant members (Sutton 2005: 197). As mentioned above (pp. 140-1), it must be remembered that the fraternal side of the MC does not appear to be the origin of the Company; quite on the contrary, it seems to be a later development (Creaton 1976: 145-52; Veale 1991: 260). 149

The fifteenth century is considered to be a golden age to the MC of London (Sutton 2005: 161). All ranks grasped an unprecedented level of prosperity and power since most members of the company had engaged in the highly lucrative import and export trade of luxury clothes and exotic commodities. The MC was now a solidly wealthy group buttressed on the work of the merchant mercer. His influence can be seen within and outside the company. On the one hand, the fifteenth-century ordinances are said to have been designed by the wealthier merchants with the primary goal of establishing their own authority over the lesser members (Parker 1980: 26). On the other hand, during the same century, the MC produces more aldermen and chamberlains than any other London livery company (p.157).

III.2.2. THE MERCERS’ COMPANY AND THE CITY OF LONDON

In its so-far-discovered earliest occurrence in the above-mentioned trading regulations of c. 1130, the term “Mercery” also points to an area in London where this business could have been particularised to a surprising degree (Sutton 1997: 101). This first market may have been in the parish of All Hallows Honey Lane, opposite the church of St Mary le Bow and extending north to the parish of St Lawrence Jewry, wrapping round part of the cemetery and church of All Hallows (Sutton 2005: 17). A transfer of property to a wealthy mercer in the same parish of All Hallows Honey Lane in 1202-03 where four mercers acted as witnesses seems to bear witness to this (Sutton 1998: 125). Later in the thirteenth century, the Mercery appears to be reoriented to the southern side of West Cheap, east of St Mary le Bow, and particularly focusing between Friday Street and the parish of Colechurch (Sutton 2005: 24). This redefinition of the Mercery area lies behind a rental transaction of 1235; a deed shows that Serlo le Mercer acquired that year an extensive property on the south side of Cheapside and makes clear that this area was not new at all to the MC (Sutton 1998: 125). At the heart of this district stands the Church and Hospital of St Thomas of Acon; this major building was founded in 1227 on the site of St Thomas Becket’s birthplace. The fact that St Thomas’s father, Gilbert Becket, might have been a mercer of London (Keene 1991: 3) reinforces the idea of a mercery spot in this area long time ago (J. Watney 1892/1906; Creaton 150

1976: 75). But the MC’s intimate connection with this building does not stop here. Members of the MC are known to have assembled in the Hospital’s hall and worshipped in the church somewhere between 1347 and 1390 (Keene 1991: 3; Veale 1991: 258). The MC’s practice to meet at its premises happened so often that members considered useful to buy a hall (la sale del mercerie) and a chapel for their own use in 1407 (Creaton 1976: 74-6; Veale 1991: 8), as well as one other room, and a chest for keeping records (Keene 1991: 13).120 In Map 3.1, the above-mentioned evolution of the Mercery area from the twelfth to the fifteenth century is depicted:

Map 3.1. The Mercery area from the twelfth to the fifteenth century (from Unwin 1908: 35)

As the centre of the luxury trade and of an impressive network of markets, Cheap became one of the wealthiest wards in the City due to the high number of well-off men residing in the Mercery during the Middle Ages (Hobhouse 1964). The MC’s wealth is demonstrated by the acquisition of estates individually in and near the Mercery (Sutton 2005: 83). As a collectivity, the

120 Veale (1991: 258) and Sutton (2005: 72) maintain that the hall was not bought but only hired. According to them, it is in the sixteenth century when they bought land and built their own Hall in that property. 151

Royal Charter of 1393-94 allowed the MC to start acquiring property and acting as a landlord. In 1396-97, the MC bought three messuages and eight shops in St Martin Outwich just off Bishopsgate Street (The Pye), and in 1410-11 the MC purchased a collection of shops and stalls and living accommodation in West Cheap (The Crown Seld).121 As the attractive core of a thriving commercial metropolis, Cheapside turned into a tightly overbooked area packed with selds, shops, and dwellings along its narrow thoroughfare. Important properties dominated by the MC were, for example, The Hose, The Painted Seld, The Arras’s Seld, or St Martin’s Seld (Sutton 1995: 227-66). The hall in St Thomas of Acon was at times too small for the MC’s own ceremonies. Actually, the hospital used to be the place of meeting of different livery companies not only on many solemn occasions during the civic year (J. Watney 1892/1906: 16) but also for more secular business (Keene 1991: 6). Mercers met then in other premises; their favourite places were taverns like The Mitre, The Mayd on the Hoop (both next door to the church) and The Tumbling Bear (in Popkirtle Lane), great hostelries like The Prince’s Wardrobe (in the Old Jewry at the other end of Ironmonger Lane), and even the house of one of the wardens (J. Watney 1914). From the fifteenth century, the wealthier mercers preferred to focus outside the Mercery and gradually moved their dwellings elsewhere (Sutton 2005: 58). Properties with more spacious storage capacity in less central areas of the City were chosen to the detriment of the overcrowded Mercery (Nightingale 1995: 208). This moving was perhaps connected with the fact that more and more mercery- related practices were developed outside Cheapside. In fact, during this period, the Small Beam fell completely under the control of the MC, and the Blackwell Hall, a covered market for the sale of woollen cloth by the Guildhall, was created in the thirteen-nineties (Barron 2004a: 53-7). The fiscal year 1442-43 marked a watershed in the MC’s transition from concentration in the Mercery to expansion elsewhere. In that year, John Mortham, rent-collector of John Carpenter, Town Clerk of London, handed over Richard Whittington’s estate to the MC, as stipulated in the latter’s will. In Whittington’s testament, it was agreed that when the last of his executors died,

121 Jefferson (2009) publishes for the first time a document that provides evidence of the MC’s earlier income from rental property (MWA 1343-44: f. A1r). By the 1st of April 1344, the MC owned de facto both properties and amounts were paid as quit-rents. 152

the MC would come into possession of the two pieces of property in St Michael Paternoster that Whittington had generously funded throughout his life: the Almshouse and the College of Priests (Imray 1968). The MC’s involvement in each of the institutions was different though. Whereas the MC directly run the landed estate, found tenants, collected rents, and paid over the funds of the Almshouse for taking care of poor freemen who were no longer able to carry out their duties, the MC merely handed over the College’s income in a more lightly way, the direct supervision being interested to the master elected by the chaplain (Imray 1968: 31; Sutton 2005: 162-3). The charitable and honourable acts of Whittington, a mercer who turned into a myth (Barron 1969), went further with, for example, the foundation of the Guildhall Library. This significant inheritance made the MC a landlord enjoying massive revenues which would be absorbed in the future in buying more landed property (Lyell 1936: x).

III.2.2.1. The Mercers’ Company and the power relationships

The City of London suffered from a substantial population decline throughout the whole late medieval period. Even if all estimates of the City’s population in this period have been deemed unrealistic (Thrupp 1969: 251), it is generally agreed that by 1300 London had a population of around 80,000 inhabitants, in 1400 it did not exceed 40,000, and c. 1500 the population reached 50,000. The major reason behind that dramatic drop was the Black Death. The bubonic plague may have killed between 1348 and 1350 (and its later outbreak in 1361- 62) as much as three quarters of the total population (Barron 2004a: 239).122 The population recovered 100 years later through initiatives to improve civic hygiene and the capacity of London to attract immigrants from other parts of England (foreigns). In 1300, 1.5% of the English population lived in London; in 1500, this percent had risen to 2% (Barron 2004a: 45). Late medieval London can be considered a metropolis in closer resemblance to European cities than to any English town (Thrupp 1962: 1); the City of London may have been at least twice as big as competitors like Norwich, York, or Bristol. The growing demographic concentration in quantity but also in

122 According to Sutton (2005: 93), the Black Death killed a third of the MC and their families. 153

quality and its geographical closeness both to the royal site of Westminster and to the North Sea made London an appealing place for the relocation of goods, resources, and people. As a consequence, London needed to develop an effective administrative structure; it is in this construction that competing interests between the City and the Crown emerged, and their conflict extended to the next two centuries. On the one hand, the Crown sought to maintain ready access to the money of its subjects for financing, especially, their war campaigns in France without badly affecting the preservation of order. On the other hand, the City, with the MC in one of the leading factions, aimed to secure the privileges of its citizens’ freedom throughout England in face of an increasing commercial competition from foreign immigrants (aliens) and against possible royal inherencies. Both sides were, however, condemned to understand each other because one side’s goals were strongly dependent upon the other side’s support. A recurrent source of tension was epitomised by the Lombard merchants.123 The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries saw a steady increase in the feeling against aliens in the London merchant class. Animadversion might have been originated by the usual tendency of monarchs to favour Italians’ interests (and indirectly their own) at the expense of their own subjects. One clear example was the Carta Mercatoria granted by Edward I from 1303 to 1311, and reintroduced by successive kings; this carta allowed aliens to trade wholesale freely, also gave them the right to retail mercery and spices, and outdated the obligation of a citizen to supervise a transaction involving an alien (Sutton 2005: 31). Detrimental to the interests of the MC as it was, in the Carta’s reintroduction from 1351 to 1376 (together with the “One man one trade” Parliament Act), feelings run so high that some members of the MC made violent attacks on several Italians in 1357 and 1368 (Sutton 2005: 115-7). The relationship between the English Crown and Italians was an enduring one; before going bankrupt in 1344, Westminster mostly relied on Italian bankers for funding (Nightingale 1989: 8). Later and at any time, the Crown also sold special licenses to Italian merchants to export and import goods avoiding staples (Barron 2004a: 15). Once again, a king’s policy gave a fresh impetus to the anti-Italian movement in

123 Using data extracted from the records of the subsidy on aliens (1441-84) and wills proved in the Court of the Commissary of London, Thrupp (1969) estimates that around the 1440s the City had about 1,500 aliens. 154

1456; riots and hurlynges were so serious that the Venetian State ordered its citizens to withdraw from London and Southampton (Haward 1933: 310). In both conflicts, the MC was well to the fore because in both periods it had to cope with Italian competition. While in the fifteenth century both groups competed for the import trade in linen and silk, in the fourteenth century both competed for being the major royal supplier to the Great Wardrobe (Sutton 2005: 155, 230). The Great Wardrobe was the royal department whose administrators were responsible for purchasing and upkeeping the monarch’s commodities (robes, jewels, coffers, and ornaments). Located at the heart of the City (in Castle Baynard Ward) since 1360, the Great Wardrobe’s Accounts bear testimony to the growing supremacy of London’s role in the cloth trade supply (Sutton 1995: 158). Drapers and mainly mercers participated in the provision of cloth to the Great Wardrobe, but Italians always had the edge in this trade, what caused irritation (Sutton 2005: 230). The restrictive attitude of the MC in the fifteenth century sought to exclude competition from the areas seen as its own (Parker 1980: 128). The fact that a number of mercers could afford to regard monarchs’ takes with some indulgence makes clear that by the end of the fourteenth century, there was some sort of collaboration between the MC (and the City) and the Crown. Monarchy and nobility represented the upper end of the Mercers’ market as usual purchasers of silk, linen, and fustian (Sutton 2005: 1). On the other direction, the MC had traditionally been generous when called upon by the sovereign to find money for imperial wars and civic purposes like coronations, burials, and pageantries. From their first loan to Edward III (Sutton 2005: 102) to the (1488) massive contribution to Henry VII’s demand to prosecute his war with France (J. Watney 1914: 128), the MC financed a number of various kings. This prominence in its relation with the Crown can be considered a great achievement for the MC since in previous decades it had had to cope with the stigma of being subject to instincts of greed and avarice (Sutton 2005: 126), hence its efforts to exclude everything related to pedlary. The ultimate event which evidenced that the affairs of the MC and the City and the Crown were closely intertwined was the priceless work that Richard Whittington, leading mercer and close servant of Richard II, carried out in the reconciliation between the king and the citizens of London after their (1392-97) 155

quarrel, putting also an end to three decades of intense political turmoil in England (Barron 1971; Sutton 1994b: 5). Citizenry’s unease was not new. Initially, low-rank craft artisans complained about the oligarchic ward-based system of election to the Common Council. So far, wards had been an administrative unit of London governed by an alderman, who was supplied by the powerful mercantile companies. Lesser companies were unlikely to provide with aldermen since only the richer men of the ward, usually members of the “Great Twelve” (Veale 1991), used to be always elected; that inevitably produced a weight in favour of mercantile interest (Barron 2004b: 129). In the wake of the Good Parliament of 1376, a change in the election system was decided. In the future, councillors would be supplied from the guilds, the greater companies providing not more than six members each and the lesser as many as four men (Goodall 1981: 286). Furthermore, the Court of Aldermen was also reformed; aldermen were not eligible for life any longer but their membership changed completely from year to year (Barron 1981: 19). The guilds then reached their full political recognition as instruments of order (Sutton 2005: 63); the artisan crafts led by John de Northampton ensured (i) a more democratic-like governmental body with an expansion of the ruling class, and (ii) to have a say in civic affairs (Barron 1981: 19). Following these reforms, a series of further constitutional changes and new ordinances compiled in the Jubilee Book led to an era of instability with several factions in dispute. The sacking of the Savoy Palace in 1377 was just an appetiser to what would happen later (Barron 1981: 19). With a fifteen-year-old king replacing a senile and corrupt reign, a notorious increase in poll taxes, and a crisis of the economical system in all Europe as a background (Nightingale 1989: 3), what began as a mere peasants’ revolt in Kent and Essex in June 1381 turned into a march on London to find the king and to redress their resentment. As the rebels approached the City suburbs, the common people of London joined in them, and Londoners’ objectives were added to the Home Counties’ grievances. Later, the march degenerated into a mob whose only aim was the planned destruction of strategic buildings and texts. In spite of their initial division and incompetence, the City authorities 156

ended up coping with the mob and executing the leading rebels (Barron 1981).124 In the aftermath of the Peasants’ Revolt, to regain control and to maintain peace were sought through a gradual return to the old status quo. In 1384, the Common Council election was again based on the wards (Barron 2004a: 232). The re-establishment of the previous system did not go unsound though; the election as the new Mayor of London of Nicholas Brembre, whose mandate meant a back to the past, was accompanied by protests by the partisans of his fiercest opponent (John de Northampton). Brembre’s way of exercising power cannot be deemed satisfactory for the MC either; this is proved by the “Petition of the Folk of Mercerye of London” (R. Chambers and Daunt 1931: 33-7). Presented to the Parliament in the 138os,125 this worded petition accuses Brembre and his supporters of engineering his election in place of the preferred John de Northampton, and of repressing opponents the whole year (Sutton 2005: 110-1).126 The king’s government and the Parliament were also alarmed by the lack of information about the subversive guilds. Not as far as Commons’ petition that “all guilds and fraternities and their common chests shall be abolished and done away”, on the 1st of November 1388 Richard II ordered all guilds to make returns to the Chancery informing about their activities, properties, and common boxes (Sutton 1994b: 3). Of the over 500 that have survived, a number are for London but, unfortunately for this dissertation, none of them belongs to the MC.127 The last part in the process of the seizure of the City’s liberties by Richard II was characterised by the restoration of aldermen’s office for life again; nevertheless, wisely advised by Richard Whittington, in this regained control, the monarch bore in mind that the City government should be in the interest of many (Barron 1981: 20).128 Whittington emerged then as a man of standing with

124 For further information on the Peasants’ Revolt, see also Oman (1906) or Wilkinson (1940). 125 There exist some doubts on when exactly the text is dated: 1386 to R. Chambers and Daunt (1931: 33-7), 1387 to Connolly and Mooney (2008: 3), and 1388 to Giancarlo (2007: 73). 126 Linguistically speaking, this document is relevant for being one of the earliest petitions, and especially the first text by the MC, written in English. 127 Toulmin Smith et al. (1870) collect some of the returned ordinances. In a similar vein, Barron and L. Wright (1995) present both a historical account and an edition of the texts written in English; L. Wright (1998a) herself also studies sociolinguistic variation occurring in the latter. 128 According to Sutton’s (2005: 182) figures, out of the 3,000 men having the citizenship of London by the early fifteenth century, the 150-180 common councilmen, the 25 aldermen, the 157

the king as well as an excellent ambassador of the City’s concerns; his work was rewarded a few years later with his appointment as Mayor of London (1397-98) despite his civic career being still at the beginning (Sutton 1994b: 5). Whittington’s office was just the beginning of a period when members of the MC would abound in civic offices: Mayors, aldermen, and chamberlains. As for Beaven’s (1908-13) calculations, whereas a. 1350 only 4 mercers served the office of Mayor, between 1350 and 1450 this number was doubled. In the office of alderman, the MC had 41 during the fifteenth century compared to 33 drapers and 31 grocers (Sutton 2005: 184). As far as the office of chamberlain is concerned, 7 were mercers compared to 9 grocers, 4 fishmongers and 3 goldsmiths (Masters 1988: 21). Presence in Parliament was also important for mercantile companies; 37 of the 53 men returned as MP between 1422 and 1460 were from just three companies: the MC, the Grocers and the Drapers (M. Davies 2004: 143). Furthermore, in the fifteenth century, the MC took an active interest in lobbying Parliament in order to promote their interests, where they were remarkably successful (M. Davies 2004: 136). Another episode when the relations between the king’s government and the City of London deteriorated occurred during the 1450s with the Wars of the Roses. Since the MC was more concerned with the fact that the government should provide a stable background for their business dealings than with which party was in power (Creaton 1976: 10), at the beginning of the conflict, the MC did their best to give its allegiance to the winning side (Lyell 1936: xviii). However, after suffering under the government of Henry VI’s (1460) council, the MC was determined to ditch the Lancastrian House; it may well have contributed funds to the Yorkist cause in the 1460s (Sutton 2005: 187, 231, 238). The efforts made for the replacement of Henry VI with Edward IV were soon responded by the new monarch. The affairs of Edward IV were to a large extent focused on protecting the trade of the merchants who were helping to support the Crown (Sutton and Visser-Fuchs 2009: v). For instance, as soon as Edward IV came to the throne, an Act of Parliament was passed enacting that all liberties and privileges granted by the previous monarchs to the MC (and to

wardens of the companies, and the officers of the parishes and other bodies make up about 75% of the citizen body. 158

other bodies) should be of like strength and virtue as if they had been lawfully granted by any king lawfully reigning (J. Watney 1914: 43).

The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were a critical period in the history of London marked not only by political strife but also by far-reaching economic changes. As a strategic point close to the North Sea, London as a port through which export and inland trade were filtered had always been decisive in the English economy. Up till the first half of the fourteenth century, the London port and the River Thames essentially provided the centre of a distributive network along which large quantities of goods were taken to (and from) provincial towns (Keene 2000; Barron 2004a: 46, 76). Situation changed with the gradual discouragement of the great regional fairs; goods were no longer taken to the customer but provincial merchants used to come to London to purchase supplies. Owing to the advantage granted, London emerged both as a manufacturing town, in or near which different industries were practiced with much success, and as the main depot for imported mercery (Hazlitt 1892: 71). London then contributed to the proliferation of new cloth-making towns around the metropolis whose primary role was to supply London markets; as a matter of fact, evidence proves that from the second half of the fourteenth century, the areas where main increases in wealth took place were the cloth-making areas of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, Essex and Suffolk, part of the West Riding, London and much of the countryside around, and the Southern Fenland (Darby et al. 1979). By the second half of the fifteenth century, the MC benefited from that London prominence to such an extent that it managed to monitor most of the foreign trade in England (Parker 1980: 116).

III.2.3. THE MERCERS’ COMPANY OVERSEAS

Barron (2004a: 115-6) discerns two phases in the development of the London overseas trade during the late Middle Ages. By the second half of the fourteenth century, Londoners controlled the sale of alien imports and the distributive trade within England. From the 1350s onwards, Londoners succeeded in dominating the export of wool and, with the later rise of English cloth industry, that of the native manufactured cloth. 159

There are few countries London merchants engaged in foreign trade did not visit; their impressive geographical spread reached nearly every corner of the European continent (Sutton 2005: 217). Postan (1933: 151-2) identifies three main groups of English merchants trading abroad: (i) those trading to the Low Countries and Northern France, (ii) those going to Scandinavia, and (iii) those trading to the Baltic Sea. The involvement of members of the MC in the last two groups was not relevant since the nature of these territories made them more appetising to victualling guilds such as the fishmongers. The MC was exclusively concerned with the wool and cloth trade in the Low Countries and France (Carus-Wilson 1933: 147-8). Map 3.2 depicts some of the places abroad the MC used to frequent for trading:

Map 3.2. Main trading areas of English merchants in the Low Countries and Northern France (from Sutton 2005: 130-1)

Trading connections between England and these regions go back to the thirteenth century, when merchants from the Low Countries visited English fairs to buy wool for their native textile industries and to sell in return the finished product and goods from areas beyond (Harding 1995). Links were so closely interwoven that even Barron (1995: 1) talks about “a coherent region”. According to her, England was truly a part of Northern Europe bound by language, culture, religion, and a common market economy. Similarities between the two peoples made the cross-channel trade an enduring one 160

(Harding 1995: 163). Two main trading companies controlled the cross-channel trade: the Company of Merchants of the Staple of England and the MAC.

III.2.3.1. The Merchant Adventurers’ Company

The term merchant adventurer is applied to any merchant engaged in overseas trade whose business consisted of exporting the native English cloth; in turn, the stapler was a merchant focusing on the regulated export of raw wool. Whereas the staplers went regularly to the port of Calais in France, the adventurers voyaged far afield (Carus-Wilson 1933: 147). Since there has been a long-standing debate about the origins, similarities, and differences of both umbrella companies, it seems then sensible to dedicate some discussion in the following section. Even though it has been acknowledged that the Adventurers and the Staplers sprang from a common root (e.g. Obreen 1911; van Brakel 1907 in Sutton and Visser-Fuchs 2009: 49), there is no agreement on what exactly that root resembled. While some nineteenth-century researchers maintain that these two bodies were an offshoot of the MC (Arundell 1869: 23-4; J. Watney 1914: 21), later investigations prove that this connection must be looked for elsewhere (Carus-Wilson 1933; Sutton 2002). The role played by the MC, especially in the development of the MAC, has been deemed crucial; a series of common features have led researchers to think of a stronger link between the MC and the MAC than it actually was: hall, records, officials, and feast day. The MAC used the MC’s Hall in the Hospital of St Thomas of Acon as its London headquarters and also as the repository of its treasures and of its private records (Creaton 1976: 99). The MAC is also mentioned in several fiscal years of the MWA, where compilers appear to regard the MAC’s businesses as nothing separate from the MC’s own concerns; Carus-Wilson (1933) even discovers the MAC’s early records within the MC’s Acts of Court.129 Nor had the MAC any official responsible for keeping their own records; it was the MC’s clerk who made up the MAC’s accounts and minutes jointly with the MC’s concerns (Carus-Wilson 1933: 160). In the second half of the fifteenth century, election and feast day in

129 This discovery opened up the possibility for an exhaustive study of the MAC’s history that Lingelbach (1902: 21) had urged so emphatically. 161

the MC was also moved from the Sunday before the Nativity of St John the Baptist to coincide with that of the MAC: the Monday following the feast of St Thomas Becket (Sutton 2005: 89). These similarities are explained by the increasing dominant position of the MC in the MAC over other livery companies from other cities by c. 1400 (Sutton 2005: 176). The MAC was a complex organism consisting of an elected governor and a number of establishments in the Low Countries, and different branches in London and in several provincial cities like, for instance, York (Sellers 1918; Palliser 1985). The whole MAC seems to have pivoted on the powerful London branch, which, in turn, had the MC at its headship (Carus- Wilson 1933: 152). Members of both overseas companies were not completely detached from their original livery companies but intimately bound up with them (Carus-Wilson 1933: 161). Particularly, members of the MC identified themselves so closely with the MAC that they saw no need to distinguish their double identity (Parker 1980: 123). Sutton (2002) discounts the researchers that tend to study the history of medieval English overseas merchants from the grant of privileges by the fourteenth- and fifteenth-century English kings. Cunningham (1890: 623) referred to an Edward III’s (1353) charter as the earliest reference to an organisation of English merchants abroad; Henry IV’s (1407) Charter of Recognition and, especially, the Civic Act of 1486 were also normally considered the first official recognitions of the MAC (Carus-Wilson 1933: 159). Sutton (2002: 28), in turn, prefers to look back to earlier privileges granted by foreign rulers such as the dukes of Brabant in 1296 and 1315 (de Sturler 1936; Obreen 1911) to support that by these dates, all merchants trading from England had already combined under a sort of grouping to protect each other from the risks of the sea.130 This grouping appears to be a fraternity dedicated to St Thomas Becket, hence the MAC’s close bond with the original site of the Mercery (Sutton 2005: 29; Sutton and Visser-Fuchs 2009). From this original fraternity, Staplers and Adventurers’ roles seem to have specialised and gone their separate ways. The Staplers’ Company, as merchants enrolled in the long-lasting wool trade to St Omer and Bruges,

130 Even if Sutton (2002: 32) cites an earlier privilege granted to the Staplers in 1282, this Company considers a grant of 1341 in Bruges its first recognition. 162

became a completely distinct body by the half of the fourteenth century with the final withdrawal of the wool staple to Calais in 1363 (Carus-Wilson 1933: 152; Rich 1937: 5). Merchants who preferred to stick with the Low Countries’ trade became interested in the newer export of cloth. With the passage of time, their interests also began to diverge, and even episodes of mutual hostility occurred such as, for instance, the Calais Ordinances of 1429 (Sutton 2005: 257) or the jurisdiction crisis of 1455 (Haward 1933: 315). Despite this rivalry, collaboration remained important. In fact, some mercers acquired membership of both overseas companies (e.g. Richard Whittington and William Estfeld), and even many staplers also transferred to the MAC because of the latter’s higher economic prosperity. Nonetheless, such a combination of both roles was uncommon (Power 1933: 55) since the MC’s relationship with the Staplers was not as close as that with the MAC (Parker 1980: 124). Compared with the high proportion of mercers in the cloth trade, the MC did not play a major role in the wool trade either (Sutton 2005: 141).

Like their counterparts more focused on inland trade, mercers engaged in high-profile foreign trade were also at the mercy of the policies of government. From decades of expansion in foreign trade during the early Middle Ages to a period where protectionist policies prevailed, it was the rulers who could prevent London-origin mercers from trading in long-frequented territories by raising artificial barriers, temporary bans, or boycotts (e.g. Edward III in 1336, or Philip of Burgundy’s [1436-39] ban); so did constant wars and piracy attacks indirectly damage the whole trade routes. As a consequence, merchants’ public complaints such as “The Libel of English Policy” (T. Wright 1861: 157-205) and John Stodeley’s letter to John Paston (Gairdner 1872/1910: 263-8) were recurrent. Furthermore, the situation of overseas merchants was even worse, since they were subject to additional fluctuations in a period full of economic hardships and commercial ups and downs. Well-known studies in medieval England’s overseas trade point to an economic background characterised by a gradual decline in activity (e.g. Carus-Wilson and Coleman 1963; Postan 1972). A period of relatively steady expansion of trade and market activity until the fourteenth century gave way to an era of contraction of the volume of trade 163

which ultimately ended up in a monetary crisis and a trade recession by the 1450s (Thrupp 1963: 230; Britnell 1993). Commercial difficulties began during the years of famine and murrain (1315-18) and were perpetuated by a growing monetary crisis and an urban population decline (Nightingale 1997). Despite a remarkable urban and commercial growth and rising living standards after the Black Death, a substantial recovery was not detected until the 1470s, when bullion credit began to circulate again (Nightingale 1989, 1990). Focusing specifically on the development of wool and cloth exports, nature and volume also fluctuated. At the beginning of the fourteenth century, trade was dominated by the export of English raw wool to the cloth manufacturing cities of the Low Countries. Before the 1350s, wool accounted for 92% of the value of the export trade of England, whereas cloth a mere 8% (Sutton 2005: 139). From the 1360s onwards, a boom of both English wool and cloth export took place to gather momentum at the end of the fourteenth century (Sutton 2005: 149). In the fifteenth century, wool exports plummeted steadily since more and more wool was going into the new domestic cloth production rather than into the weaving industries in the Low Countries, and brand-new English cloth eventually took off (Sutton and Visser-Fuchs 2009: 2). The English cloth industry expanded its exports from about 2,000 cloths a year in the early 1350s to over 40,000 at the beginning of the fifteenth century (Carus-Wilson and Coleman 1963: 138). The rise in the cloth trade was so important that by the 1420s it took the place of wool as the basis of England’s overseas commercial activities, and became the predominant export commodity of most English merchants (Bolton 1980: 268). This fact led (i) many staplers to transfer to the MAC by redemption (Power 1933: 70), and (ii) overseas fishmongers and grocers to leave their collapsing trades in Scandinavia and Prussia and to embrace the lucrative Low Countries’ trade (Postan 1933: 150- 1).131 Therefore, it could be said that the MAC stood as the overseas group par excellence in the fifteenth century, the “golden age” for the MC as well (Postan 1933: 153; Sutton 2005: 235). Finally, it seems sensible to highlight the know-how of the London merchant community to lay the foundations of a prosperous trading system

131 This would explain the dispute between the Fishmongers’ Company’s and the MC’s candidates for the position of the MAC’s governor: William Overey versus William Caxton (Sutton 2002: 35-6). 164

despite the generalised economic contraction. Merchants did not simply take advantage of the privileged position of London within Britain; it was rather the building of an effective market infrastructure around London in which the whole society came to rely that enhanced the economic prosperity (Britnell 1993), a building in which the MC played more than a significant role.

III.2.4. THE MERCERS’ COMPANY AND THE WRITTEN SPHERE

The relationship of the MC with the medieval intellectual sphere was enduring and reciprocal. On the one hand, a number of medieval literary works have often evoked portraits of mercers. Chaucerian pieces such as The Canterbury Tales have received special attention from scholars interested in London traders and their multilingual world (Goodall 1981; Harwood 1988; Rothwell 1994). Furthermore, in other pictures like The King’s Mirror or the “Dit du Mercier”, the good merchant is described as a brave, polite, and agreeable person who knows languages and must be wary in trade, check his goods, and set a just price (Sutton 2005: 15). On the other hand, the MC was always interested in the necessity of transmitting knowledge not only to its members but especially to the City of London as a whole. Thirteenth-century mercers had already been flocking around the Puy of London, a fraternity dedicated to the worship of God, of the Virgin Mary, and of All Saints where educated guildsmen, and among them lots of mercers, met for the declination of poetry, the composition of songs, and literary gatherings (Sutton 1992); and although there is no direct evidence of it, they might also have been well informed about the latest romances and religious lyrics from a very early time (Sutton 2005: 71). Eminent mercer-wardens such as Martin Kelom and Robert Scrayningham certainly owned books of grammar, philosophy, and theology; and many others may have also taken part in literary circles (Sutton 2005: 168-9). Apart from owning a wide range of texts, mercers were also engaged in the dissemination of books throughout the City. According to Scase (1992), books are unique items of priceless value in the medieval period. This is the main reason why the broad framework for their circulation was that of testamentary charity; through this scheme prevailing in England during the 165

fourteenth century,132 common-profit books were financed from the estates of the donors, and the recipients were instructed to pray for their souls (Scase 1992: 262). Deanesly’s (1920) study of book-ownership in the 7,600 medieval wills reflects the extreme booklessness of the population in general and the rarity of vernacular books as opposed to Latin a. 1400 in particular; p. 1400, society became more and more cultivated and, consequently, English books were much more common than Latin and French ones (Deanesly 1920: 351-2). Behind Richard Whittington’s estate, a charitable provision of books for the City emerged under the control of Reginald Peacock, John Colop, and especially John Carpenter (Scase 1992; Sutton 2005: 164-5). Common Clerk of London and Whittington’s executor together with William Bury, John White, and William Grove, Carpenter was interested in books and was popular for appreciating the true value of education; as such, he appears to have been the principal supporter of the Guildhall Library as well as its practical supervisor till his death in 1442 (Barron 1974: 33-5). Built between March 1423 and September 1425 and claimed to be the first public library in England, it was not, however, the only library promoted by Whittington’s network; the Greyfriars Library was also projected in Whittington’s lifetime (R. Smith 1952). Libraries were not the only academic institutions sponsored by members of the MC; schools played an important role too. As Barron (1996: 219) argues, the education of the young in medieval England takes place in elementary and grammar schools attached to cathedrals and churches; monastic orders are the main providers of learning skills (Barron 1996: 220-1). This seems to be the case of the Mercers’ grammar school founded within the precincts of the Hospital of St Thomas of Acon by John Neel and three other clergymen after a parliamentary petition of 1447, where they state that

there is great number of learners and few teachers, and all the learners be compelled to go to the same few teachers, and to none other, the masters wax rich in money and the learners poor in cunning, as experience openly sheweth, against all virtue and order of the public weal (J. Watney 1892/1906: 13).133

132 According to Chivers (2004: 13), the establishment of the Guild of Stationers in 1403 reveals (i) the growing commercialism of the book trade, and (ii) the end of the improvised network of book suppliers hitherto operating in London. 133 J. Watney (1914: 78) maintains that this grammar school was the successor of one of the schools kept by the Masters and Brethren of the Hospital of St Thomas of Acon from 1190. 166

Nonetheless, education was neither exclusively religiously funded nor necessarily charitable. In the course of the fifteenth century, the educational opportunities multiplied (Barron 1996: 225); different types of school emerged: song schools, formal and informal grammar schools, and writing schools (Barron 1996: 237). For instance, in 1444 John Abbot, four-time mercer- warden, established in Northamptonshire his chantry and placed in the care of the MC the first grammar school to be attached to a London livery company (Sutton 2005: 169). St Paul’s School, founded later by John Colet, was also placed under the administrative control of the MC (Lyell 1936: xxiv). Seen the MC’s involvement in everything related to the dissemination of knowledge, it does not seem coincidental that William Caxton, introducer of the printing press in England, was a member of the MC (Blake 1966; Sutton 1994a). The high incidence of book-ownership and lay education confirms the growing literacy of London society. According to Graff’s (1987: 97) estimates, the literacy rate in fourteenth-century London reached around 40% of male population, an impressive figure for that time (Chivers 2004: 1-2). Before that date, literacy had been limited to the upper layers of society, and learning skills were not balanced; whereas the ability to read was more widespread, the level of education in the skill of writing was much lower (Taavitsainen and Pahta 1998: 160). But from the fifteenth century onwards, the provision of learning skills increased in London and England. In Clanchy’s (1979/93) view, the spread of literacy and scribal culture came from the initiative in using written documents by kings, making so its way down the social scale, i.e. a change from above. The reduction of much royal business to writing demanded an ever-increasing body of literate officials, which later produced a more literate public. As literacy reached the lower ranks of society, there existed a pressure from below to make English a language used more widely as a medium for written communication (Barron 1996: 221). Overall, not only did the progressive expansion of literacy through urban England during these centuries permit the use of written English; it also promoted it. The teaching of skills in the vernacular language began to be demanded for the syllabi of most academic institutions (Cressy 1980). In the case of the livery companies, guildsmen obviously needed to can read and write, to be well trained in account-keeping, and an additional knowledge of legal 167

skills and foreign languages was also required (Sutton 2005: 169). Any mercer willing to go overseas should improve his French and Latin, the two main lingua francas of international commerce and trade (Bischoff 1961), as well as learn basic Dutch if enrolling in the Low Countries. London livery companies were particularly concerned with instructing their members properly; some of them “required that apprentices be able to read and write, at least in the vernacular, and some even sent illiterate apprentices to school” (Graff 1987: 97). In some cases, access to apprenticeship was made dependent on the ability to read and write at least in English; in others, the skills of reading and writing were acquired during the course of the apprenticeship (Barron 1996: 221). Therefore, masters could act as teachers guiding their apprentices’ process of learning. These future generations of mercers and guildsmen who would be recording official documents including the records of the influential mercantile companies were also required to attend institutions where the art of composing a wide range of documents in French and Latin was taught, namely in Oxford with dictatores such as Thomas Sampson and William Kingsmill; in the same vein, religious houses still fostered the teaching of French in the fifteenth century, and many Oxford students were connected with them (Rothwell 2001a, 2001b).

The simultaneous spread of English both as an administrative and as a literary language was mainly due to the fuzzy border between these two domains. To write literary pieces and to work in the City were part of a continuum; medieval writers crossed discursive boundaries easily, particularly the barrier between legal and literary forms (Lindenbaum 1999: 286; Turner 2007b: 260). Probably, the most relevant case of a writer who was at the same time a literary practitioner and a product of the world of bureaucracy is Geoffrey Chaucer; considered now to be the Father of English literature, in 1374 Chaucer was appointed by Edward III as controller of customs levied on wool, sheepskin, and leather in the Port of London (Rothwell 2006). Interconnections between civil service and literature in late medieval London were actually unlimited. Two other examples are Thomas Hoccleve, both author of The Regiment of Princes and clerk in the Office of the Privy Seal from c. 1387 to c. 1425, and Thomas Usk, author of The Testament of Love and identified by Barron (2005: 175) as clerk and account-keeper to the Goldsmiths’ Company of London. 168

However, there is no agreement on which domain was more relevant for the establishment of the basic conditions for the later development of written English. Whereas Catto (2003: 38) maintains that the English of public business was adapted from a literary medium, to Kerby-Fulton and Justice (1997: 59), it was the reverse process insofar as the bureaucratic service in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was a first home of the vernacular literary culture.134

III.2.4.1. Clerical staff in the Mercers’ Company

During the late medieval period, a slow process of substitution of written evidence for oral tradition took place. Initially, transactions were primarily oral, but from the thirteenth century onwards, written modes of evidence and records became the primary basis for daily businesses (Clanchy 1979/93). This more document-minded nature of late medieval London society was mirrored in the livery companies and, particularly, in the MC’s recruitment of additional staff to deal with documentation. The number of paid staff gradually grew not only with the increased documentary responsibilities but also with the increased landed estates.

III.2.4.1.1. The beadle and the clerk

A common servant (John Elsyng) was probably enough to summon fellow mercers to meetings and to copy up accounts in 1347-48 (Sutton 2005: 179). In 1390-91, the figure of the account-keeper appears in the MWA with the MC’s whole clerical work given out to him.135 In turn, the beadle seems to have assumed more menial tasks, but despite this downgrading, he kept on being indispensable for the running of the MC thanks to his adaptability (Unwin 1908: 187-8). He had to summon the fellowship to feasts and funerals, acting so as the bond between the officer and the members, to distribute alms and attend searches, to superintend building operations in the Hall, sometimes to collect

134 Mooney and Stubbs’s (2013) research supports this second hypothesis. It reveals that the London Guidhall served as the cradle of late ME literature insofar as it was home to a number of civil servants who copied and disseminated the first manuscripts of works by eminent authors. 135 This figure was very probably in existence a. 1390-91. 169

rents, and even to perform business journeys as the MC’s agent (Herbert 1834- 36: 52-3; McRee 1993: 221). Although the common servant was the forerunner of the official known as beadle in fifteenth century and as clerk in the sixteenth century, some inconsistencies on the use of the term have been found by Parker (1980) when describing this official. Following the example of the Book of Ordinances where the word used is normally “clerk”, Parker prefers to call him this way even if in the MWA the word “bedel” is massively employed. The only time the term “clerke” appears in the MWA occurs in 1436-37 (f. 125r), when William Haxay occupies this office and that of rent-collector (also during 1437-38), and at the same time William Rumbold occupies that of beadle.

III.2.4.1.2. The third warden

Creaton (1976: 11-2) maintains that the mercer named each year in the third position of the list of wardens was responsible for everything related to clerical duties. According to her, the third mercer-warden was put in charge of entering new ordinances, looking after the books, and collating the required accounting information such as receipts and payments for later instructing a scrivener to enter it in the account book. As mentioned before (p. 147), the third warden’s duties are not explicitly recorded and defined until well into the latter part of the fifteenth century both in an undated ordinance of the MC’s Book of Ordinances:

Also, it is ordeyned and stablisshid that hereaftir, for þe goode polletike rule and welefare of the Mercerie, that aftir the oolde custome of þe eleccion of the custoses for the yere, that the persone chosen and named for the iiide custose shall have þe charge, the rule, and oversyght of alle suche goodis, mynumentis and bokes as be withynne þe halle of the mistere of þe mercere, with alle maner of writinges and acomptes longyng to þe hole bodie of the same [...] (Jefferson 2009: 39).

and in the Acts of Court of the MC under a date of 1465:

[...] alle maner writynges and accomptes, aswell tho[s] that longen to the hole body of the felishipp as thoos that be and shalbe brought yn by the rule of the Wardens or the felyshipp for the weall of any membre of the same, also for to entre the ordenances made in his tyme and other maters which must remean in the house as mater of recorde, with all 170

other charges & attendaunce to hym belongyng of tyme passed accustumed (Jefferson 2009: 39).

This information has important implications for this research in two aspects. Firstly, the fact that the third mercer-warden always dealt with issues concerning clerical work can contribute enormously to the suggestion of authorship of mixed extracts developed in § V.2.6. And secondly, the idea of the mercer-wardens as the actual authors of the MWA and, consequently, of all the mixed extracts seems to be corroborated. The scrivener responsible for entering information in the MWA seems to have limited himself to copying it from scattered slips of paper written by the four mercer-wardens in office during the fiscal year. As a matter of fact, on many occasions, the scribe appears to have copied the accounts long after the fiscal year in question has finished:

The date at which [Richard Box] actually wrote all [his] accounts is very debatable. In 1454-55, payment is recorded for his writing up both books (f. 181v), giving an assignable date for the accounts of the wardens from 1452-53 until those up to June 1455 being written sometime after this (the accounts were never rendered until some time after the end of the accounting year, and the engrossing into the official record book was only done after the auditors had given full approval of a set of accounts, and was then written up from other paper notes). We know from much internal evidence that the Renter Wardens’ accounts were written up into the official book with very considerable delays, everything before 1449 being certainly a later copy as the book was not in existence until then (Jefferson 2009: 14).

III.2.4.1.3. Scribes and scriveners

A variety of hands have been identified in the MWA, but many of them still remain unknown. Creaton (1976), Jefferson (2009), and Sutton (2009) provide some names of the scribes these hands belong to. Jefferson’s is the most comprehensive list and is reproduced in Table 3.4 below. The MC shows a preference for employing its own members to copy up the MWA and the RWA (Parker 1980: 132; Sutton 2009: 49); examples from the list in Table 3.4 below are Martin Kelom, Thomas Raston, William Piryman, William Rumbold, and Richard Box. As already mentioned (pp. 166-7), mercers were well trained in account-keeping during their apprenticeship, and most of them obtained the required skills to excel as scriveners. One of the main reasons behind these appointments of mercer-scriveners resided in the MC’s paranoid- 171

like obsession with the confidentiality of its affairs (Parker 1980: 132); to the MC, secrecy was capital, and they would do anything to avoid its affairs becoming common knowledge. Nevertheless, the increase in bureaucracy and business along the years made necessary the employment of scriveners from outside.

Table 3.4. List of scribes of the MWA (from Jefferson 2009: 10-5)

MWA (1390-1464)136 Possible author MWA (1390-91, 1392-1414, 1415-1418, and 1424- Martin Kelom or Adam 26) Pinkhurst MWA (1391-92) Adam Pinkhurst MWA (1414-15) Unidentified (Scribe A) MWA (1418-21) Thomas Raston MWA (1421-22) Unidentified (Scribe B) MWA (1422-23) Unidentified (Scribe C) MWA (1423-24)137 Thomas Raston MWA (1426-31) William Piryman MWA (1431-32) Unidentified (Scribe D) MWA (1432-33) Unidentified (Scribe E) MWA (1433-34) Unidentified (Scribe F) MWA (1434-35) Unidentified (Scribe G) MWA (1435-37) Unidentified (Scribe H) MWA (1437-39) William Rumbold MWA (1439-42) John Stodeley MWA (1442-49) Robert Bale MWA (1449-50) Unidentified (Scribe I) MWA (1450-52) Unidentified (Scribe J) MWA (1452-64)138 Richard Box

From Table 3.4, particularly relevant is the account-keeping work performed by important members of the Scriveners’ Company such as Adam Pinkhurst, John Stodeley, and Robert Bale. But mentions to clerical and bureaucratic work other than account-keeping carried out by writers who did not belong to the MC are also recurrent. To give a few examples, Gervase Le Vulre, one of Henry VI’s French secretaries, is recorded as the writer of three letters to cities in the Low Countries (MWA 1450-51: f. 170v), and Thomas Kent,

136 Only accounts kept within the period covered by this dissertation have been taken into consideration. 137 Raston’s hand seems to have also re-copied the ordinances of 1407-08 in 1423-24 (Jefferson 2009: 12). 138 Box is also the scribe engrossing the RWA (1442-64) (Jefferson 2009: 14). 172

clerk of Henry VI’s council, is also paid for the copy of the MC’s treaty agreements (MWA 1446-47: 153v), among many others. By the middle of the fourteenth century, England had reached a high level of economic and administrative sophistication. Record-keeping became essential to many involved in business. A class of professional scribes and notaries grew in order to meet this need, and reunited under a guild (Richardson 1980b: 20). The earliest mention of the Guild of Writers of the Court and Text Letter surviving in the City records dates from the 20th of May 1357 when Henry Pykard, then Mayor of London, and the aldermen passed an ordinance freeing professional members writing either on the Court Letter or on the Text Letter, as well as illuminators and barbers, from service on sheriff’s inquests (Steer 1973: 1). Already by that time, a distinction based on their forms of writing had been made between legal and business writers, on the one hand, and writers working on the book trade, on the other (Christianson 1990: 22). That distinction was strengthened on the 26th of September 1373, when the Writers of the Court Letter presented a petition for recognition as a separate company from the Writers of the Text Letter. This group of legal writers became the direct forebear of the later Scriveners’ Company, and by the half of the fifteenth century, they were synonymous with notaries (Steer 1968; Brooks and Humphery-Smith 2001: 3).

III.2.4.2. The records of the Mercers’ Company

In his comprehensive study of the archives of the City of London livery companies and other related organisations, Cooper (1984) divides the companies’ administrative records into six different categories: (i) records relating to trade and craft regulation, (ii) records relating to apprenticeship and membership, (iii) records relating to estates and charities, (iv) records of constitution and operation, (v) records of the Company’s governing bodies, and (vi) records relating to finances. In this section, I determine which of them have survived in the case of the MC. Regarding those relating to trade and craft regulation, wardens compiled cases of inferior produce and dishonest weights and measures, checked that there were no foreigns practising the company’s trade, and ensured that 173

apprentices were properly enrolled. As Cooper (1984: 346) himself clarifies, these records are small in the MC’s archive since it never really had a definable craft to supervise. The rest of the records have survived and are clearly identifiable, despite the muddle in the MC’s archives during the fourteenth century (Parker 1980: 12). At that time, the different types of records of the MC were mixed up in a variety of books and documents; for instance, the MWA contain several series of ordinances as well as charters and deeds. During the fifteenth century, the MC sorted out this muddle. According to Parker (1980: 13), two main factors brought about this arrangement. Firstly, the enormous burden after assuming Richard Whittington’s estate in 1442-43 asked for an orderly and clear administration. And secondly, the leading members of the most powerful livery companies seem to have desired to regularise the control, status, and dignity of the ruling merchant elite through a movement for the codification of old ordinances and the creation of new ones. As a result, four main separate records emerged from this process, and one of them became more specialised:

(i) Records of constitution and operation. Royal charters and ordinances (or by-laws) are included in this kind of records. Broadly speaking, ordinances define what the companies are, what they do, how they are constituted, and what rights and privileges and obligations their members have. The MC’s Book of Ordinances, edited by Parker (1980), dates from the 1430s, probably from 1436-37. It does not contain some of the earlier ordinances, namely those dating from 1347-48 and entered at the beginning of the MWA.139 Of the groups of ordinances kept in 1376-77, 1404-05, and 1410-11, many are restated in the Book of Ordinances; others appear in a different form and version in the fifteenth-century review of ordinances carried out by the MC (Parker 1980: 14). Although the first nine ordinances in the Book

139 Sutton (2005: 87-93) has re-dated these ordinances to 1348. Jefferson (2009: 4), however, prefers to accept the year 1347 as accurate for the moment in which they were made. 174

of Ordinances are undated, Parker (1980: 10) suggests the date of 1448-49, and the next ordinance is dated from 1456-57.

(ii) Records relating to estates and charities. These records were produced for managing the companies’ own property or estates held in trust for charitable purposes. As desired by Richard Whittington in his will, the inheritance of these new properties by the MC in 1442-43 meant that the compilation of the RWA should have begun that year (Sutton 2005: 175); John Abbot’s and William Estfeld’s estates were bequeathed later (1444-45 and 1446-47 respectively). Jefferson (2009) constitutes the first edition of the RWA ever.140 A new ledger for a fair copy was instituted in 1449-50 (eight fiscal years later), raising doubts on when exactly the first years of these estates’ accounts were actually kept (§ V.2.6.3.16.1).

(iii) Records of the companies’ governing bodies. The minutes and repertoires compiled by the Court of Assistants in the Acts of Court represent the central record of the MC’s executive and legislative policies and activities. First edited by Lyell and F. Watney (1936), these records cover the period 1453-1527, but were compiled about the end of the first quarter of the sixteenth century from “sondry bokes belongyng to the felyship” by William Newbold, then clerk of the MC (Sutton 2002: 38); hence, the volume is not too reliable chronologically speaking (Sutton and Hammond 1978). The volume, nevertheless, is of exceptional importance as it also contains the earliest minutes of the MAC from 1457, throwing so light on the activities of this company (Carus-Wilson 1933; Lyell 1935; Imray 1964). However, these are not the only extant records belonging to the MAC; Sutton and Visser-Fuchs (2009) have recently published the Book of Privileges, a collection of some of the most important documents of this Company: the privileges

140 In his history of the Whittington’s charity, Imray (1968) also transcribes (i) the ordinances for Whittington’s Almshouse (107-21), and (ii) the rental of the Whittington’s estate (122-27). 175

granted to them between 1296 and 1483 by the princes of the Low Countries. The MAC owned many more records kept both in England’s repositories and houses overseas, most of which have unfortunately disappeared (Sutton and Visser-Fuchs 2009: 39).

(iv) Records relating to finances. The central financial records are the accounts kept by the company officers in carrying out their duties. In most companies, there is one main series of accounts normally kept by the wardens but sometimes also by the master and wardens altogether. This kind of accounts stands as the most interesting group of manuscripts to study for two reasons: (i) its comprehensiveness, and (ii) its linguistic relevance. As for the first reason, the financial records of a number of major livery companies (apart from the MC) such as the Grocers, the Goldsmiths, or the Merchant Taylors begin in the fourteenth century and about a dozen more in the fifteenth century (e.g. the Drapers, the Carpenters, or the Skinners); they usually cover the financial activities from several decades to nearly one century, providing so a fairly clear picture of the companies. In the case of the MC, the MWA expand from the fiscal year 1347-48 to 1463-64. Nevertheless, not all the MWA have survived; there is actually a gap from 1348-49 to 1389-90, during which no information on the MC’s affairs is provided. The scribe himself explains that because all the MC’s accounts between 1348 and 1390 were entered in the veile paper rouge and to engross them again in this book would require too much work, it had been (wrongly, if I may say so) agreed by common assent that no more accounts should be entered until 1390-91 (MWA 1390-91: f. 4v). As far as the second reason is concerned, the MWA were compiled during the late Middle Ages, a period of enormous linguistic agitation in London. In all the different kinds of records listed here, the three languages of medieval Britain are used, but in the MWA their mixing is especially intricate, giving rise to the linguistic phenomena of CS, LC, and LM and LS. 176

Two modern editions of the MWA have been produced: Creaton (1976) and Jefferson (2009). Since the former is still an unpublished MPhil dissertation, the latter seems to have attracted much more attention from the academic world.

During the period covered by my dissertation (1390-1464), no records relating to apprenticeship and membership exist for the MC. These records were kept to provide with a reliable registration of apprentices and freemen of every livery company. In turn, information concerning membership to the MC can be gleaned from the MWA until John Coke, member of the MC and clerk to the MAC, creates c. 1527-28 a separate register with the names of all freemen of the MC from 1347, probably from scattered lists (Hardy and Page 1915).

III.2.4.2.1. The Mercers’ Company and multilingualism

During the second half of the fourteenth century, English came to be used more widely as the medium for written communication among the once oppressed and illiterate lower classes. As a consequence, by the 1380s English texts had become the key site where protest and self-belief were expressed. Many events bear witness to this practice: the burning of official archives by the rebels of 1381 (Justice 1994; Lindenbaum 1999), the Lollards’ Bible translations into the vernacular (Hudson 1978), English bill-posting in public places such as churches (Turner 2007a, 2007b), or parliamentary petitions. In this last respect, Ormrod (2003: 783) details the following:

It is particularly to be noted how frequently English tends to crop up in written submissions to the Crown of the 1380s, 1390s, and 1400s that themselves deal with criticism, opposition, and outright treason against church and state: such cases demonstrate how a vernacular deployed by polemicists as a means of articulating the authenticity of their complaint could also, ironically, be exposed by juries and manipulated by courts to emphasize the subversive nature of such sentiments.

Within this environment of textual conflict and social antagonism, “The Folk of Mercerye” can be placed. Entered into the Rolls of Parliament in the second half of the 1380s,141 this petition represents the first surviving document

141 As specified above (p. 156 fn. 125), its exact dating is problematic. 177

entirely written in English (and also known to have been written by the MC) (Fisher 1996: 45). Although the petition seems to showcase a voice of opposition and resistance to the dominant discourse, Turner (2007a: 11) explains that the use of English to voice their complaints was a strategy by the members of the MC to present themselves as oppressed victims, eliding so their powerful position both as a rich guild and as supporters of the ascendant side. With the passage of time, English acquired new functions and entered new domains, developing so into a strong and supple medium for business transactions, accounts, ordinances, oaths, and record-keeping. This process of Anglicisation can also be visible in every single record of the MC which has been mentioned above. As for the MC’s ordinances, seven series are recorded in the MWA: 1347- 48 (ff. 1r-2v),142 1376-77 (ff. A2r-A3v),143 1404-05 (f. A4r), 1407-08 (ff. A4v- A5v),144 1409-10 (f. 50r), 1410-11 (ff. 55v-56r), and 1416-17 (f. 71v). Two of them are written completely in English: the (1407-08) and the (1416-17) groups; the rest are kept in French. Although many are restated verbatim in the Book of Ordinances, the rest were either partly modified or directly did not find their way into this new ledger. The Book of Ordinances appears to have been made for the MC c. 1436- 37, when William Haxay, then rent-collector, paid for 12 quires of parchment (f. 126r). However, the fact that Parker (1980: 10) suggests 1448-49 as the possible date for the first nine undated ordinances makes everything more difficult. This leads Parker (1980: 16) to believe that the ledger probably lay unused in the MC’s Hall for several years. At all events, the Book of Ordinances is completely written in English; in addition, several oaths appearing in its preliminary pages are kept in the vernacular. Some of these English oaths also appear in the MWA (ff. A1-6r),145 in what seems to be drafts written out in scrap paper (Jefferson 2009: 1027); others are exclusively found in the MWA (f. A1r, ff. A2r-A4r).146 The fact that their dates are unknown impedes any further implications.

142 They are copied up p. 1390-91. 143 They are copied up c. 1404-05. 144 They are copied up c. 1423-24. 145 The Oaths of Apprentices, the Oath of Issue and Admission by Patrimony, the Oath of Shopholders, the Oath of Strangers on Admittance, and the Oath of the Meter of Linen Cloth. 146 The Oath of Carpenters, the Oath of Rent-collectors, the Oath of Brethren, the Oath of Brokers, and the Oath of Freemen at the Guildhall. 178

Concerning the Acts of Court, the entire records are also engrossed in English. From 1453 to 1464, all the manuscripts refer to different issues related exclusively to the MAC (e.g. election of wardens, admittance into the livery, or prohibition on buying and selling with Lombards) insofar as the Court of Assistants of the MC was adopted only in 1463. The same happens with the RWA. Apart from a series of rentals kept in Latin at their beginning (ff. 1v-3r), the matrix language of the whole RWA is English. The acrolectal varieties endure long as the official languages of record of the MWA, especially French, which is the matrix language from the very beginning (1390-91) to 1457-58 with only a three-year gap (1449-52) where English occupies its place.147 The total shift by which the MC chooses English as matrix forevermore takes place in 1458-59. The popular announcement by the Brewers’ Company of its shift to English in 1422 following the example of Henry V has traditionally been cited in the literature as the facteur déclencheur for spreading up the process of vernacular emergence in the administrative documents of the livery companies;148 Henry V had made English an officially sanctioned language, acquiring prestige. Even though it is true that from the late 1410s English documents appear with increasing frequency, it seems that the process of Anglicisation is much more complex; this is why the particular case of the MC is to be analysed more in depth in the pages to come.

147 BL only serves as matrix language in the accounts of 1391-92. 148 Herbert (1834-36: 107) claims that the Brewers are not following the example of the King but of the Commons.

Chapter IV RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

183

IV.1. STEPS IN THE RESEARCH PROCESS

In the following pages, I detail how the process of research has been carried out. I firstly describe the manuscripts chosen and the selection criteria, and later I explain how linguistic and social data were collected, on what linguistic and extralinguistic variables the emphasis has been placed, and what analytical method was specifically adopted in my work.

IV.1.1. THE CHOICE OF THE TEXTS

As with any historical investigation, the linguistic and social information on which this dissertation is based is necessarily derived from written texts. In dealing with written data, from the very first moment, I considered the implications that this would suppose for my research. As a matter of fact, it did not take long for the inherent limitations of historical inquiry to be revealed. As has been reported before (§ I.1), the analysis of the records of the London Grocers and of the London Brewers demonstrated the relevance of these texts as informants of linguistic change in multilingual medieval England. In November 2008, I visited the Manuscripts Section in the Guildhall Library of the City of London, where they were stored, in order to consult the archives of both livery companies. As shown in Table 4.1, these archives were arranged in seven broad subject sections lettered A to G:

Table 4.1. Types of records and periods covered in the Grocers’ and the Brewers’ archives (from Guildhall Library 1982/89)

Types of records Grocers Brewers A) Constitutional 1345-1792 1414-1857 B) Court 1556-1953 1531-1921 (gaps) C) Membership 1231-2000 1655-1947 (gaps) D) Financial 1345-1958 (gaps) 1414-1930 (gaps) E) Trade 1792 1655-1892 F) Clerk’s 1684-1949 1670-1889 G) Charities and estates 1398-1965 1292-1962

According to the period covered, four types of records were worthy of study in the case of the Grocers (constitutional records, membership records, 184

financial records, and charities and estates records) and three in the case of the Brewers (constitutional records, financial records, and charities and estates records). While I was scanning through their manuscripts in order to identify the Grocers’ (1365) LS and the Brewers’ (1422) LS,149 I noticed (i) that the a priori straightforward dating of the two linguistic changes was far from being as accurate and simple as it seemed, and (ii) that the way Latin, French, and English coexist in them varies depending on the type of record. Whereas languages are easily separable to the eye in constitutional and charities and estates records because language alternation takes place at the text boundary, in financial records, by contrast, the three languages are more sharply and more frequently intertwined within the sentence boundary. Both kinds of mixing reveal, in different ways, the completely multilingual situation existing in England until well into the fifteenth century. Financial records, and particularly the wardens’ and/or the masters’ accounts, became the most suitable records for a deeper study of language mixing in the late medieval London livery companies. Apart from covering the centuries when the linguistic scenario of England was to change forever, the presence of the vernacular, i.e. ME, is much more pronounced in this kind of records. L. Wright (1994b: 108-9) shares this opinion when she argues that business records contain much more amount of vernacular than any other text types. If, as Labov (1972a, 1972b) assumes, the vernacular is the most (if not the only) interesting style to the investigator and also very difficult to be elicited,150 it was imperative in a sociolinguistic research like this to focus on those business records. Nonetheless, the conception of the vernacular in this dissertation cannot be compared to Labov’s speech style or even to J. Milroy’s distance from a standardised form. It is much closer to being considered any

149 In fact, this was done due to the vagueness of Heikkonen’s (1996: 13) statement concerning the exact records where she identified both LS. After two days of research, I came to the conclusion that she is referring to the Grocers’ Wardens’ Accounts and to the Brewers’ Masters’ Accounts unless, in the specific case of the Grocers, she has found an English text kept in 1365 I (and Nurmi and Pahta [2004]) have not. 150 In modern sociolinguistics, different techniques have been employed in order to minimise the effect of the observer’s paradox over the vernacular. Questionnaires, surveys, and interviews have given way to participant observation techniques. To use an insider to the group under observation as a helper (Labov et al. 1968) or to join the group of informants for being a friend of a friend (L. Milroy 1980/87: 40-6) have proved to be very useful strategies to overcome barriers to the vernacular. 185

deviation from the “focused” written sociolinguistic norms (Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985). In late medieval London, it was the norm to write in either BL or AF; this is why any deviance from that behaviour, i.e. ME forms, should be of interest. After that stay in London, I had decided to analyse the Grocers’ Wardens’ Accounts. Besides the original manuscripts kept in the Guildhall Library, a transcribed and translated facsimile had been edited by Kingdon (1886); therefore, the wealth of linguistic data was clear. However, the publication of The Medieval Account Books of the Mercers of London: An Edition and Translation by Lisa Jefferson in January 2009 changed my mind. Apart from for its wealth of both linguistic and social data in comparison with any other London livery company, I also thought that the first PhD dissertation completely devoted to the sociolinguistic behaviour of a London guild and its financial records should deal with the premier livery company of the City of London: the Worshipful Company of Mercers.

IV.1.1.1. Corpus of analysis

Jefferson (2009) represents the first published transcription and translation of the MWA, as well as of the RWA. It is true that Creaton (1976) already undertakes an annotated transcript of the former, but her MPhil dissertation has never been published. Furthermore, unlike Creaton’s (1976) work, this new edition is more reliable linguistically (Jefferson 2009: 1-2); in fact, Jefferson herself makes it clear that she prepared her edition of the text directly from the original manuscript, and that hardly had she taken note of Creaton’s. Jefferson’s (2009) two-volume edition provides a transcript and a facing- page parallel translation into PDE of the MWA running, without interruption, from 1390-91 to 1463-64 and also containing the account for 1347-48. The same is done for the RWA, initiated in November 1449, but including rental years from 1442-43 to 1463-64.151 It is relevant to note the ad hoc chronological insertion of other text types such as a list of quit-rents from 1343-44, the series

151 Although the original RWA include information until 1499-1500, the text is only taken up to the fiscal year 1463-64, i.e. until the same period covered in the main MWA (Jefferson 2009: 2). 186

of ordinances, and some oaths into the main MWA (Jefferson 2009: 30).152 One of the original aims of this dissertation is to analyse in depth the mixing of Latin, French, and English in the MWA from 1390-91 to 1463-64; nonetheless, these additional inserted texts and the RWA have also been taken into consideration,153 provided that some of information they include could be useful to a better understanding of the sociolinguistic behaviour of the main account- keepers. The business or financial records of the London livery companies, also known as wardens’ and/or masters’ accounts, are a text type characterised by different sections of information organised around a fixed structure. The MWA’s structure can be schematised as in Table 4.2:154

Table 4.2. Structure overview of sections and sub-sections in the MWA

Fiscal year opening CHARGE Ready money and balance (argent sek) Debts due and debtors Admissions and issues of apprentices Quit-rents, profits, and increases Fees and fines Gifts, legacies, and bequests DISCHARGE Salaries Alms payments Quit-rents Foreign expenses Legal matters Scribal work Repairs and vacancies in rental properties (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION)155 Special texts New wardens’ election

The financial accounting system used by the MC was the charge and discharge system; it was employed when a group of persons were entrusted by others with the receipt of money and with disbursements. In the case of the MC,

152 Undated oaths, as well as the list of all Whittington’s estate’s properties, are placed in two separate appendices (Jefferson 2009: 1017-32) because, by nature, they do not fit into the same chronological sequence. 153 The other scattered additional texts at the end of the MWA (ff. 210v-212r) have not been taken into account for my study. 154 The layout is sometimes modified on the scribe’s own initiative, and also the number of sections grows over time. Nevertheless, this is the most recurrent structure overall. 155 Unlike “charge” and “discharge”, the title of this section never appears as such in the MWA. 187

the four incoming wardens received various monies of which they should discharge themselves during their term of office, leaving also a remainder or balance (Jefferson 2009: 18-9). Jefferson and Rothwell (1997: 277-80) describe accurately the organisation of the Merchant Taylors’ Master and Wardens’ Accounts. Since there is little difference between their structure and the MWA’s, I follow their summary in here. Below the fiscal year opening, the charge sections are always listed first; they account for the cash received. The initial items are the balance passed on to the four incoming wardens and to be used for the MC’s business, and also the pending debts and debtors. Long lists of names paid on admission to the MC are also included. There follow monies received from rents paid on the tenements owned by the MC, from fees, fines, and forfeits paid in, and from gifts, testamentary bequests, and obits. From this income, the wardens paid out expenses such as salaries to the MC’s priests, beadle, rent-collector, and clerk, alms to poor members, amounts for the celebration of communal events, costs of any legal cases and of repairs to properties, plus any other expenses. Finally, at the end of the discharge section, additional strings may be found together with the ceremony where the new group of four wardens is elected.

In her edition of the MWA, Jefferson introduces a number of conventions used for editing that slightly modify the original text but that neither add nor subtract anything from the original meaning. They are explained as follows:

[i] In accordance with standard modern editorial practice, “u” and “v”, “i” and “j” have been differentiated according to pronunciation for the text in all three languages used. [...] [ii] In the French text, the acute and the cedilla accents have been used in order to mark pronunciation differences. [...] [iii] The use of capital letters at the beginning of the words has been largely standardised to modern usage. [...] [iv] Punctuation has been added of full stops, commas, colons, and the occasional semi-colon, as also of the apostrophe, in accordance with modern usage, and the dash has been used in a standard manner. [...] [v] Any editorial insertion or emendation is clearly indicated by the use of square brackets, and any words rejected as clearly erroneous are given in footnotes. [...] [vi] Word divisions are, as usual, an occasional problem. When a scribe has either divided a word or combined two together in a way inconsistent with general usage these occurrences have been corrected silently. And [vii] [t]he layout of the original has had to be modified (Jefferson 2009: 30-2).

188

All of these modifications as well as the translation into PDE have been respected silently. This has not been the case with the following decision: “[a]bbreviations in all three languages are expanded in accordance with the usual spelling of the scribe when the word is found in full” (Jefferson 2009: 31). Schendl and L. Wright (2011b: 25) regret the often silent editorial expansion of the regularly used abbreviations and suspension marks in medieval texts which, according to L. Wright (1996b: 9), could play an important role in neutralising the language of a specific lexical item and in enhancing reading comprehension. With that system, scribes managed to visually hide many of the morphemes so that common roots in BL, AF, and ME were more visible than their different affixes. Consequently, auditors were not required a commensurately great knowledge of BL and/or AF to read business accounts; concentration on the essential semantic information in the material was enough (L. Wright 2002: 473). Furthermore, Jefferson’s decision is also risky insofar as abbreviations and suspension marks are often otiose; L. Wright (1996b: 8) puts it plainly:

Signs can often be expanded as indicated [by usual practices], but there are many occasions when the sign will represent a different combination of letter graphs. The context will make clear which word is being represented, but not always which letter graphs would have been used, had the scribe written it out in full.

At least, Jefferson does not expand signs silently: “[T]he expansions are indicated by italics” (Jefferson 2009: 31).156 The numerous footnotes underlining word usage make it clear that Jefferson’s concern is mainly linguistic, and so does the above-mentioned decision. Initially, I had intended to replace expansions in italics with the original marks. That would have required the search in the original MWA; unfortunately, at that time, there was no access available to the MC’s archive for the general public due to the recent physical reorganisation of its offices. The MC, the Drapers, and the Salters are the only livery companies within “The Great Twelve” (Veale 1991) whose records are kept in their own halls; the rest of guilds guard them against damage in the Guildhall Library. Catastrophic events such as the Great Fire in 1666 and the Nazi bombings of London from October 1940 to May 1941, where many archives were destroyed, persuaded guildsmen

156 In contrast, Creaton (1976) expands them silently. 189

to secure their manuscripts from danger or risk. This is a clear example of the unavailability of data inherent in every historical research; nevertheless, unavailability in the livery companies’ records is more in the sense of lack of access and little impact than absence of data. Since the fourteenth- and fifteenth-century business accounts of livery companies such as the MC, the Grocers, the Goldsmiths, the Merchant Taylors, or the Brewers have survived, the amount of extant guilds’ records cannot be deemed meagre. A different matter is the scarce attention received from the academic community due to its contempt for the mixing of languages occurring in this text type. Only have the Mercers and the Goldsmiths seen their accounts published in modern editions (Jefferson 2003, 2009);157 it should not take long to bring the rest to the fore. As a consequence, expansions have been included, but rather than italicised, they have been subscripted in order to resemble visually the original signs as much as possible. Here is a comparison:

Johanne Edmond – apprenticio Johannis Middeltoun – ii s. [Johanne Edmond – apprenticio Johannis Middeltoun – ii s.] “John Edmund – apprentice of John Middleton – 2s.” (MWA 1391-92: f. 9v).

My initial goal concerning the MWA’s visual representation has not been reached but, after all, an exhaustive study of language overlap falls beyond the scope of my research. What has been actually italicised are the mixed variants appearing in Romance matrices and analysed in Chapter V. Here are some examples:

Item, a le smyth pur xxii hokes de ferre grauntes pur le mesme pentise poisauntes | | en toutes xliiii ll. a i d. ob. chescun ll., dount rebatés pur les veiles hokes, summa – vi d. “Item, to the smith for 22 large iron hooks for the same pentice weighing | | in all 44 lb., at 1½d. per lb., from which is deducted for old hooks a total of 6d.” (MWA 1435-36: ff. 122r-122v).

Another slight modification occurs when citing extracts from the MWA where CS appears, or another phenomenon is worthy of mention. I have followed the pagination of the original manuscripts rather than that of Jefferson’s edition to improve credibility of my study.

157 Lisa Jefferson has also transcribed the Merchant Taylors’ Master and Wardens’ Accounts but her transcription has never been published. 190

Jefferson (2009) is directly interested in providing an edition of merit from a linguistic point of view. But her edition also deserves great praise for the valuable information on the MC’s members it offers. Firstly, not only does Jefferson (2009: 9-15) detect up to 22 different hands of the scribes responsible for writing fair copies of the MWA, but she also dares to identify nine of them, thereby enlarging the list proposed by Creaton (1976: 20-1). And secondly, an index of around 2,000 names of mercers, with their masters, apprentices, and servants, as well as their occurrences in the MWA and the RWA is provided (Jefferson 2009: 1045-139). The clear arrangement of all this social information in an appendix has been vital for the collection of the data needed in my research.

IV.1.2. THE COLLECTION OF THE DATA

As a sociolinguistic investigation, two main kinds of data have been needed for this dissertation: linguistic and social. Both have been inevitably affected by a number of limitations. As for linguistic data, the first main task involved identifying all the English particles used by the account-keepers in the accounts among the c. 100,000 words composing the whole corpus; a number of risks were brought with it. As Trotter (2006: 74) suggests, a good deal of evidence in the case of the languages of medieval England leads to believe that it is actually remarkably difficult to distinguish them, at least in the lexis. He wonders how and where the line between BL, AF, and ME has to be drawn; or, in other terms, how CS and loanword could be distinguished from each other. Trotter (2006: 80-3) and L. Wright (2011a) have openly expressed their regret towards what the former calls “the evidence problem” (pp. 90-1). Traditionally, occurrence of a lexeme integrated in another language’s matrix has been sufficient for a foreignism to be incorporated into a historical dictionary. However, a decision based on this kind of evidence does not work for texts in post-Conquest England; L. Wright (2011a) demonstrates that a paradoxical situation whereby a word with an undisputed non-Latin origin as bagpipe appears attested in the DMLBS more than 50 years before the MED and nearly a century before the OED can be reached (pp. 91-2). According to Trotter and L. Wright, editors of medieval 191

dictionaries have handled data from mixed-language texts in an inconsistent way. More specifically, lexicographers seem to have blindly followed Poplack’s (1979) criteria of distinction between CS and loanword (nativisation); however, Latinate graphic decorum carried out by medieval scribes in order to mask vernacular usages (Clark 1992b) rules out morphological and syntactic integration as valid criteria for identification. To Trotter (2006), words in medieval England are considered international items since they move freely across language boundaries. Not only have Poplack’s (1979) criteria been discarded. L. Wright (1998b: 109-14) presents a list of counterexamples to the grammatical constraints that apparently universally govern CS. In a series of mixed-language business accounts, she finds solid evidence against Gumperz and Hernández Chávez’s (1968/75), Lipski’s (1978), Doron’s (1983), Joshi’s (1985), and di Sciullo et al.’s (1986) rules. Other criteria such as, for instance, Myers-Scotton’s (1992) frequency of appearance of the linguistic item in the speech community are simply hard to apply in a historical sociolinguistic research. Enough representative data would be necessary in order to know whether a foreignism has been accepted as part of a language; but this is not the case. And even supposing that representative data were available, how often has a ME word to appear in an AF (or in a BL) matrix to be considered a loanword? It was difficult, but some decision had to be taken in order not to reach a methodological dead end; I resorted then to the etymological origin of the word. I looked at doubtful words’ etymological information provided by three main historical dictionaries: the AND’s (Rothwell et al. 1977- ) and the MED’s (Kurath et al. 1952- ) online versions, and the OED (Simpson and Weiner 1857/1989). Any non-Romance word has been considered a CS in my dissertation. Perhaps I have not gone as far as Eastman (1992: 1), who argues that “[we must] free ourselves of the need to categorise any instance of seemingly non-native material in language as a borrowing or a switch”, but I have followed a criterion that borders this never-ending obstacle and that allows me to partly free myself of the need to categorise my material; etymologists have already done it. Attention to etymological origin has only been paid with single items as entire switched constituents, i.e. Germanic-origin words only surrounded 192

syntagmatically by non-Germanic words; for instance, ME aldermen is surrounded below by AF dit and il:

Item, de Thomas Asshby pur ceo q’il fuist disobessant a les mestres del mercerye et a le companie, a une assemblé a Seint Thomas en presens de divers aldermen, per comandement de dit aldermen il fuist comys a prisone en le Contour, mes a le request de divers gentz de sez amys et pur ceo q’il humbelment luy submitta a le companye, le companye luy perdona, payant a le Box – xl s. “Item, from Thomas Ashby because he was disobedient to the wardens of the Mercers’ mistery and to the company, and at an assembly in St Thomas of Acon in the presence of various aldermen he was by the order of the said aldermen committed to prison in the Counter, but at the request of various friends of his and because he humbly submitted himself to the judgement of the company, the company excused him on payment to the communal funds of – 40s.” (MWA 1426-27: f. 91r).

The situation changes when the switched word in question is surrounded by at least one word which is part of the English lexicon. A few words before,

ME aldermen is surrounded by divers and per. In this case, divers aldermen has been considered a whole switched unit (nominal group) insofar as divers (not per) also belongs to the English vocabulary. Nevertheless, not for the mere fact of being written side by side, two (or more) English words have been grouped together as a switch.

C’este l’accompt de Henry Frowyk, alderman, Johan Sturgeon, William Thornhille, et Thomas Stele, gardeins de la mistier del mercerie, per un an entier passé devant le fest del Nativitee Seint Johan le Baptistre l’an du me reigne le Roy Henry sisme puis le conquest xx . “This is the account of Henry Frowyk, alderman, John Sturgeon, William Thornhill, and Thomas Steel, wardens of the Mercers’ mistery, for a whole year up to the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist in the year 20 Henry VI [24th of June 1442]” (MWA 1441-42: f. 138v).

In the example above, despite appearing surrounded by English mercer- wardens’ proper names, ME alderman has been counted as a switched single noun since it is independent from the rest of words.158 In fact, the entry above exemplifies the problematic the second task has entailed. This second step involved delimiting the extension of extracts with several words which could be considered as mixes; put more simply, why has some words been grouped together as a switch and not the rest? The answer lies

158 In turn, ME proper names (as well as place names) have not been counted as instances of CS when they are independent from any other ME particle; only when toponyms and onomastic names are part of larger phrases (prepositional groups, generally), they have not been discarded. 193

in their syntactic dependence. Some examples may help understand better this difficulty:

En primes, ils sount chargez in argent seke a eux deliveré per lour predecessours que furent gardeins de la mercery in l’an proschein avant, come appiert in le pé de lour accompt – iiiixx v li. xvii s. vi d. “Firstly, they declare the ready money handed over to them by their predecessors who were wardens of the Mercers’ mistery in the immediately preceding year, as appears at the foot of their account - £85 17s. 6d.” (MWA 1442-43: f. 140v).

In the entry right above, it can be seen how the preposition in is surrounded by chargez and argent in line 1, mercery and l’an in line 2, and appiert and le in line 3. The only word borrowed into ME is mercery; however, there is no direct syntactic relationship between mercery and in and, consequently, they are not incorporated as switched extracts, not even on their own. As a matter of fact, the etymological origin of preposition in also poses problems insofar as it is a borrowing from Latin; thus, the clear-cut distinction is again blurred. In as a single item has not been considered a switch on its own but only as part of a larger switch, especially as head of prepositional phrases with words belonging to ME as the completive. Here is an example:

Item, ils demaundount allouaunce q’ils ount paié in quitrentes en cest an: “Item, they ask for allowance that they have paid in quit-rents this year:” (MWA 1437-38: f. 129v).

In a similar vein, the deliberate omission of some constituents, especially prepositions de or of, also may cause several ME independent words to appear together as follows:

Item, pur i verge i quarter cremesoun engreyned doné a le Seigneour Fawconbridge par mesme l’assent – xvi s. viii d. “Item, for 1¼ yards of crimson cloth dyed in grain given to Lord Fauconberg with the same agreement – 16s. 8d.” (MWA 1456-57: f. 188v).

In this case, cremesoun engreyned has been considered the switched unit, leaving quarter out because of the omitted preposition de between them. The reason why the acrolectal preposition de (and not the basilectal of) is chosen is determined by the matrix language of the string. As will be seen deeper later (pp. 211, 257), in verbless strings as the one above, AF or BL have been 194

presupposed as the matrix languages;159 only when the conjugated main verb is ME, the matrix language has been considered to be English. In order to finish on the issue of CS extension, textually separated but syntactically dependent constituents in ME have also been grouped together as a switch. Below, transpocicion, on the one side, and in engloys, on the other side, take part in the same switch to English since they depend on each other syntactically:

Item, a mesme Robert pur transpocicion d’un rolle dez libertees de Flaunders in engloys et pur lez articules contenuz, en parchamyn – vi s. viii d. “Item, to the same Robert for translating into English a roll of the liberties in Flanders, and for the articles contained in this on parchment – 6s. 8d.” (MWA 1444-45: f. 148v).

Collection of these linguistic data was done by myself and by hand from Jefferson’s (2009) edition of the MWA. Every time an English-origin particle was found, I took carefully note of it. Tokens were collected on a year by year basis when dealing with AM and LS stages, and speech category/constituent by speech category/constituent when switched tokens corresponded with the three CS sub-stages (Y+MA, MO, and BS). Oddly enough, human counting turned out to be the most straightforward method insofar as electronic editions of the MWA are not available; then, to convert all these documents by the OCR process prior to computer counting would have taken longer than human counting. Inevitably subject to a high degree of error due to inadvertence, counts were repeated several times in order to avoid possible mistakes. Concerning social data, the method of collecting social information differed from the way mixed linguistic items were identified. Firstly, while sampling informants, not all the members of the MC were useful for my research; only those who occupied a wardenship and, consequently, kept the MWA have been incorporated into my dissertation. The assumption was made that the different scribes and scriveners copying the accounts from paper notes acted as mere scriptors, at least, in all his activities related to language mixing (Parkes 1976: 127); that is to say, he reproduced mixed tokens verbatim and did

159 Determiners expressed in roman numerals rather than in letters have also been considered to belong to the matrix language. 195

not take any kind of liberties with the texts he was copying (cf. Moore 2011: 22- 3). Since the number of mercer-informants amounted to 145, the group of respondents was deemed representative enough for a historical research. My sampling universe is within the limits prescribed for linguistic studies in the literature:

The literature, as well as our own experience, would suggest that even for quite complex communities samples of more than about 150 individuals tend to be redundant, bringing increasing data-handling problems with diminishing analytical returns (G. Sankoff 1974/80: 51-2 in L. Milroy and Gordon 2003: 28-9).

And secondly, not all the information available on these 145 mercer- wardens was useful for a study of their SN. Even if it may seem paradoxical, biographical data available on some mercer-wardens is wealthy; in some cases, the information revealed can be surprisingly detailed. Therefore, the search for data had to be previously well limited in order not to end up in a never-ending collection. A previous stage in the collection of social data involved paving the way for the finding of significant data. As a SN research, this meant a collection focusing on the several criteria constituting the NSS of this dissertation.

IV.1.3. THE HANDLING OF THE DATA

The search for the mercer-wardens’ biographical information based on the NSS criteria already implied the handling of data insofar as extant informant that did not constitute relevant evidence from a SN perspective was completely discarded. To reconstruct the social information needed to interpret patterns of variation in written texts is not always straightforward (L. Milroy and Gordon 2003: 177).

IV.1.3.1. A socio-centric network strength scale for the Mercers’ Company of London

L. Milroy (1980/87: 141-2) introduces the first NSS in the literature as a tool to quantify the degree of attachment an individual has to his/her community. Even 196

though L. Milroy (1980/87: 178) advocates the universal applicability of the network concept, reality is different; the problem of back-projection then emerges relentless. As mentioned above (p. 59), Nevalainen and Raumolin- Brunberg (1989: 100) are particularly critical with the uniformitarian principle; they argue that social conditions in Tudor and Stuart England must have been different from those existing nowadays after being subject to change over time. Bergs (2006: 56) thinks likewise about the differences between prototypical socio-centric network structures in late medieval and modern England when he constructs his NSS for the Pastons. In Table 4.3, the network checklist for late medieval England Bergs (2006: 59) presents is reproduced:

Table 4.3. Tentative network checklist for late medieval England (Bergs 2006: 59)

Checklist/Social network correlates Overall network Number of ties Density Multiplexity Variables structure Close- Loose- High Low High Low High Low knit knit Gender Male Female Female Male Male Female Female Male Education Higher Lower Lower Higher Higher Lower Lower Higher Low/ Low/ Low/ Low/ Literacy High High High High None None None None Marital Single Marr. Marr. Single Marr. Single Marr. Single status Place of City Village Village City Village City Village City living Reference Other Family Family Other Other Family Family Other group Travel Freq. Rare Rare Freq. Rare Freq. Rare Freq. frequency Travel (Inter) Local/ Local/ (Inter) Local/ (Inter) Local/ (Inter) destinations nation. None None nation. None nation. None nation. Local/ Local/ Local/ Local/ Offices Nation. Nation. Nation. Nation. None None None None High Low Low High Low High Low High Contacts prestige prestige prestige prestige prestige prestige prestige prestige Cluster No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No

Bergs (2006: 72-6) further explains how every member of the Pastons gets his/her network score from this tentative checklist:

[T]he number of ties [...], density [...], and multiplexity [...] are measured for each family member. Each family member can score up to two points in each of the following categories [...]: education, literacy, place of 197

living, reference group, travel frequency, travel destinations, offices, contacts, and clusters. Gender, marital status, and literacy only have a one point maximum. The maximum number of points is therefore nineteen in total. [...] The higher the total score, the more links the speaker has, the denser and more multiplex the networks appear to have been. [...] The number of ties is meant to mirror the “degree of looseness” in the network; density and multiplexity mirror its closeness. The higher the score, the looser or closer the network in question respectively. The difference between number of ties and density plus multiplexity expresses the overall structure of the network: the more positive the difference the more loose-knit and uniplex the network seems to have been.

My own NSS has been based on Bergs’s, but a number of modifications have been introduced in order to account for specific aspects of the mercer- wardens’ lives and of the MC’s running.

Table 4.4. NSS for the wardens and account-keepers of the MC

Close-knit Balanced Loose-knit Variables (-1) (0) (+1) Marital status Married Widower Single Place of origin Village+ Village+ Both and/or of living Mercers London London National/ Business destinations Local Overseas Mercers/ Local/ Offices None National Low High Contacts prestige prestige

Analysing deeper the five criteria proposed in my NSS, as for marital status, single (+1) normally means more ties and looser networks than marriage; married people (-1) tend to focus on their households and to establish fewer relationships. Mercer-wardens may also have survived their wife (or wives); in that case, a balanced network (0) has been proposed insofar as their partner’s death may have supposed again the gradual loosening of their networks. Although many mercer-wardens were born and owned their rental properties in the City of London (+1), not all of them had the same place of origin and/or of living; as a matter of fact, many of the MC’s members came from Norfolk, a county very popular for its textile industry (Sutton 2005: 54-7). What is certain is that all of them migrated to London. Once there, either they bought their own house (0) or rented a tenement under the MC’s auspices (-1). 198

It was also possible that London-born mercer-wardens owned premises in the countryside; in that case, a balanced network (0) has been established due to the combination of London’s loose-knit networks with much closer ones in the villages. Following Bergs (2006: 73), the larger the place of birth and of living, the less dense the network appears to be (+1). By contrast, the networks of those who decided to be tenants of the MC have been considered to be much closer because their degree of attachment to the livery company was extremely high (- 1). These reviewed conditions work differently than the three remaining criteria (business destinations, offices, and contacts). The latter have been analysed in terms of focusing. It has been very difficult (if not impossible) to find, for instance, a mercer-warden who only traded overseas or who only had prestigious contacts. Obviously, before expanding to the Low Countries, most mercer-wardens used to carve out a career in local trade, and at the same time that they frequented aristocratic circles, they could have contact with the general populace. However, in my NSS, to be engaged in the national and/or overseas trade and to attend high prestige circles (+1) have correlated with more ties and looser networks than local destinations and low prestige contacts (-1). The same has been done for mercer-wardens holding offices. Once a warden has served, for example, as MP or Mayor of London, his networks are said to be loose-knit (+1) regardless of whether he also serves as scribe or auditor in the MC.160 Five provisional scores are obtained, one for each criterion. After a simple mathematical operation (addition), the final result (ranging from -5 to +5) represents the network score for each informant. On the one hand, the more positive the result, the more loose-knit his socio-centric network seems to have been; on the other hand, the more negative the network score, the closer and denser his socio-centric networks. The information necessary to calculate the mercer-wardens’ network scores has been collected from four main sources: Sutton’s (2005) The Mercery of London, I. Rogers’s (1975- ) Fifteenth-Century Biographical Index, British History Online, and The National Archives’ online records. Guided by Sutton’s

160 Another reason for this interest in “focusing” is that, otherwise, most network scores would have been 0 and, consequently, the building of my NSS would have been broadly useless. 199

(2005: 595-670) index, the most comprehensive account of the MC’s history gives detailed information of numerous recorded episodes in which specific mercer-wardens participated. Whereas in this first case I carried out a handsearch of the mentions listed in Sutton’s (2005) name index, in the three other online databases I wrote the mercer-warden’s full name in the search engine box. From the results later produced, I then selected the biographical information which most suited my research based on the five NSS criteria. I. Rogers’s extensive index contains entries for over 40,000 names arranged in 97 folders alphabetically by surname; in them, any mention to biographical data of the fifteenth-century informant in question I. Rogers has come across in a number of medieval reference works such as calendars, charters, or rolls has been included. In turn, British History Online and The National Archives are digital libraries containing core primary and secondary sources for the medieval (and modern) history of London (and of the British Isles). Finally, I also used to google every warden’s full name just in case additional useful information in an unknown source could be obtained. As a tool for whose design every available piece of information on the individual’s biography must be evaluated, I now concentrate, for a moment, on showing how network scores have been calculated for two of the mercer- wardens who differ vastly in their scores: Hugh Wiche and John Goodson.161 Recorded as John Boston’s apprentice in the MWA from 1413-14 to 1422- 23 (third generation), Wiche is married three times in his life and survives two of his wives (marital status: 0); he is born a. 1400 and buried c. 1468 in London (St Margaret Lothbury and St Dionis Backchurch, respectively), and c. 1439-40 he settles action against a group of deforciants of premises in Uxbridge, Colham, Cowley, and Harefield (place of origin and/or of living: 0); he is one of the 34 mercer-adventurers known to have been involved in the cross-Channel trade in 1421 (business destinations: +1) (Hardy and Page 1892; Sutton 2005: 284). Wiche also holds important local and national offices such as MP for London (1447), alderman of Coleman Street (1458-68), and Mayor of London (1461-62) among others (offices: +1); he contributes large personal loans to the Yorkists

161 For the sake of understandability of this dissertation, I do not include the 145 mercer- wardens’ biographical sketches. I only go deeper into those cases where social information may help understand better an informant’s linguistic usages. Nevertheless, all informants’ NSS scores are specified in Appendix 3 (pp. 405-9). 200

and is duly knighted in 1465 (contacts: +1) (Sutton 2005: 187). This produces a score of +3 for Wiche. An apprentice in the MWA from 1417-18 to 1427-28 (fourth generation), Goodson has a daughter called Katherine (marital status: -1); he pays the £5 6s. 8d.-rent for a tenement in St Martin Pomary in 1445-46 and in 1447-48 and lends large sums of money to London initiatives such as the enlargement of water conduits in the parish of St Mary Aldermanbury in 1447 (place of origin and/or of living: +1); he also invests heavily in the local trade of mercery and pepper (business destinations: -1); he does not hold any relevant office in his life (offices: -1) or has any close tie with aristocratic circles (contacts: -1) (Keene and Harding 1987; Sutton 2005: 173, 185, 229). Consequently, Goodson gets a score of -3. The collection of social data has not been exempt from the problems affecting historical research. Although, as has been mentioned above (p. 195), much information about a number of mercer-wardens has survived, on many other occasions, the extant data for some of the five criteria in my NSS are very poor (if not absent). In some cases (e.g. when information on the mercer- warden’s place of origin is not revealed), the obstacle has been overcome by paying attention to the informant’s surname in order to see if a place name could have been adopted, as it happens sometimes.162 However, in most other cases, these shortcuts have not been possible. At those moments, I decided to consider the lack of data as indicative of absence of action. I assumed that if a mercer-warden had never been recorded in close contact with aristocratic circles, shipping goods out to the Low Countries, or being alderman of the City of London, it was because he had not done it. I am completely aware that this decision goes against Wang’s (1969: 21) platypus metaphor, which reads that “we cannot prove that a platypus does not lay eggs with photographs showing a platypus not laying eggs”, but it had to be taken; otherwise, my research would not have been feasible. Taking this into account, the main consequence is that the results in what concerns socio-centric networks cannot be taken as 100% reliable.

162 If his surname is not a place name, he has been considered to be born in London. 201

IV.1.3.2. The ego-centric networks of the mercer-wardens

It has been argued before that, contrary to what L. Milroy (1980/87: 178) maintains, the network concept cannot be applicable to any situation without being subject to deep modifications. Nevertheless, L. Milroy formulates her idea of universal applicability in terms of ego-centric (not socio-centric) networks when she says the following:

Note that the term social network refers quite simply to the informal social relationships contracted by an individual. Since all speakers everywhere contract informal social relationships, the network concept is in principle capable of universal application (L. Milroy 1980/87: 178 original italics).

Perhaps the universal application does not work for the structural patterns of connections as a whole, but I do not see why the way of establishing links with people around an individual in the past should not be similar to that in the present. This is why I have reconstructed the ego-centric networks some of the mercer-wardens belonged to. Graphically speaking, my design of the ego-centric networks has been quite simple; it recalls in a way “the dots-and-lines model” (Bergs 2006: 24) L. Milroy (1980/87: 20) reintroduces from Moreno’s (1934) sociometry. Networks in my dissertation basically consist of names and lines where the informant the micro-study concentrates on appears in the centre with his surname bolded and his contacts surrounding him. Two kinds of ties can be noticed; whereas strong ties have been represented by solid lines, weak ties have been represented by dotted lines. The different ego-centric networks employed in my dissertation are characterised by being overall, i.e. all the contacts established during a mercer- wardens’ life are represented (e.g. p. 268), and/or entire, i.e. the connections between informants other than ego are drawn (e.g. p. 267). But there are also ego-centric networks in which only contacts established before or after a very specific date are represented (e.g. p. 277). Finally, in networks of masters and apprentices, no ego is bolded since all members are important (e.g. p. 282). 202

Concerning the data needed in order to build ego-centric networks, the MWA themselves have provided valuable information.163 The MWA reveal three of the possible types of links a mercer serving office can trace throughout his life:

(i) Master-apprentice tie. Every time an apprentice was admitted into the MC, his master’s name was kept in the corresponding section. This can be seen right below:

De introitu apprenticiorum: De Johan Benyngtoun apprentice Johan Frosshe – ii s. “From admission of apprentices: From John Benyngton, apprentice of John Fresh – 2s.” (MWA 1395-96: f. 18r).

A seven-year relationship appears to be long enough to classify this tie as strong (F. Scott 1912: 180).164

(ii) Successor tie. Every year at Midsummer the four mercer-wardens leaving office would elect four new wardens (one each) for the coming year, as illustrated below:

L’eleccioun des mestres : Et fait a savoir qe a ycel mesme feste de Sein Johan le Baptistre proschein devant escript, a un congregacioun des bones gentz del mistere en la sale de Seint Thomas furent esluz les novelles mestres pur l’an avenir, vidz : William Parker eslit Richard Whityngtoun, Johan More eslit Johan Otlee, William Sonyngwell eslit Thomas Aleyn, et William Marcheford eslit Thomas Prudance, as queux novelles mestres les veilles mestres ont delivé ceo qe remaint en lour mayns, vidz : – CCiiiixxxi li. iiii d. qa. “The election of wardens: Memorandum that at that same feast of St John the Baptist written above, at an assembly of the goodmen of the mistery in the hall of St Thomas’s, the new wardens for the coming year were elected, i.e. William Parker elected Richard Whittington, John More elected John Otley, William Sonningwell elected Thomas Aleyn, and William Marchford elected Thomas Prudance, to the which new wardens the old wardens handed over that which remained in their hands, i.e. £291 4¼d.” (MWA 1395: f. 16v).

163 In this respect, Jefferson’s (2009: 1045-139) index has also been very useful in order to speed up the search for relationships between mercer-wardens. 164 Apprenticeship term was extended to 10 years in 1448-49 (p. 145). 203

(iii) Fellow warden tie. Every time a mercer served office shared his term with three more fellows:

Anno xxmo: C’este l’accompt de Henry Frowyk, alderman, Johan Sturgeon, William Thornhille, et Thomas Stele, gardeins de la mistier del mercerie, per un an entier passé devant le fest del Nativitee Seint Johan le Baptistre l’an du me reigne le Roy Henry sisme puis le conquest xx . “20 Henry VI: This is the account of Henry Frowyk, alderman, John Sturgeon, William Thornhill, and Thomas Steel, wardens of the Mercers’ mistery, for a whole year up to the feast of the Nativity of St John the Baptist in the year 20 Henry VI.” (MWA 1441-42: f. 138v).

Since it is a difficult task to say how high the degree of interrelationship between them was, a weak bond has been hypothesised for this tie and the previous one. In any case, their link was surely not as strong as the master-apprentice tie.165

Even if for the reconstruction of the individual mercer-warden’s network only links attested in the MWA and involving mercer-wardens are considered, these data represent a quite reliable way of reconstructing it. Furthermore, ego-centric networks have also one main objective: to provide information where socio-centric networks have proved weaker. While scores in my NSS have been calculated from the mercer-wardens’ biographies as a whole, ego-centric networks do try to take diachronic evolutions into consideration, and account for the actual contact(s) a mercer-warden may have had with English particles prior to each wardenship. In this regard, for instance, when two mercer-wardens are linked via the successor tie and later via the fellow warden tie (or vice versa), the link has been graphically represented as strong insofar as it is the result of the addition of two or more weak ties. In addition, the number of times a mercer-warden has been in contact with any of the four English variables before his years in office has been counted and represented in a table (e.g. p. 305), where the number of cells below each variable is the same as the number of years in office of the warden, and the result in each cell represents the number of contacts with each variable before serving office. With this table, it has been intended to assess the possible

165 Successor ties and fellow warden ties are represented in Appendix 2 (“List of Mercers in Office of Wardenship from 1390-91 to 1463-64” [pp. 401-3]). 204

influence of contact with English on the mercer-warden’s linguistic practices in a more direct way. Shortcomings have also made their appearance when developing these two aspects of ego-centric networks. First of all, the three kinds of tie employed to construct mercer-wardens’ ego-centric networks are not recorded at times. Sometimes a warden’s master remains unknown. On some other occasions, the election of new wardens is not systematically kept in the MWA though. Periods when no record occurs go from 1438-39 to 1441-42, from 1443-44 to 1447-48, from 1450-51 to 1454-55, and from 1456-57 to 1463-64. In most cases, the election has been taken for granted. Neither has it been possible to confirm whether the elected warden would be in charge of the same tasks as the fellow mercer who elects him. In some cases, a first warden elects a fourth warden (e.g. John Woodcock and John Welles in 1408) and also vice versa (e.g. John Eton and Richard Whittington in 1408 as well). And secondly, almost the entire range of entries in the MWA cannot be attributed (a priori) to a single author. At the end of every fiscal year, the MC’s financial accounts used to be presented in a special ceremony. As their composition involved the four outgoing wardens working together, it is hard to determine who wrote what entries. Nevertheless, a suggestion for the authorship of the entire MWA has been attempted in this dissertation. To this end, I have resorted to a tool that has been successfully employed in the literary sphere: Hope’s (1994) socio-historical linguistic evidence (SHLE).

IV.1.3.3. Socio-historical linguistic evidence

Hope (1994) introduces the SHLE as a new method for determining the authorship of disputed Shakespearean plays. Apart from assigning an author to apocryphal plays, this method, more importantly to this research, allows the identification of the separate contributions of different playwrights such as John Fletcher and Thomas Middleton in collaborative plays. Based on theories of linguistic variation and change developed in modern and historical sociolinguistics (Labov 1972b; Romaine 1982a), SHLE focuses on the context of rapid linguistic change in which early modern plays were produced:

205

The basic premise of socio-historical linguistic evidence is that early Modern English writers will show differences in their usages of certain early Modern English variables, according to the influence of the factors identified by socio-linguistics as playing a role in patterning linguistic variation and change. These usages will be identifiable and distinguishable statistically, and will be explicable in terms of socio- linguistic theory (Hope 1994: 8).

Hope (1994: 5-6) argues that linguistic variables with a change in progress are the best candidates to detect the hand of a chosen author insofar as the incoming and recessive variants will vary within the usage of a group of writers and in correlation with traditional extralinguistic variables. Hope proposes a two-stage process whereby, in a first step, the usages of the candidates for the authorship of a play are established from a comparison of their unaided work and, in a second step, he compares results from disputed texts with the findings of the authors’ unaided work to eventually suggest an as strong as possible candidate. However, the application of SHLE to the MWA is constrained by a circumstance that limits in a way its potential. In this case, such a comparison is impossible since non-controversial texts by any of the accounts’ authors have not been found. The lack of independent samples is a shame but not necessarily fatal; it is still possible to identify different linguistic tendencies within the material available by testing my own “best guess” divisions. If, as Hope maintains, these linguistic usages are explicable in terms of sociolinguistic theory, an advisable way of building up these guesses has been to locate the origin of the changes in progress in those variables, i.e. when they are innovations, and to track their later evolution. The paths followed by an innovation until it becomes (or not) a change in the speech community have been well described and represented by Bergs (2006: 256) (Figure 4.1 below). Initially, special efforts have been made to identify the source from which the innovation comes, i.e. those mercer-wardens in whose entries each mixed variant appears for the first time in the MWA. Later, mercer-wardens who have been in contact with the potential innovator are examined; if some of them has adopted the innovation and has later spred it beyond, the latter has been labelled as an “early adopter” and the former as the “innovator”. Once these identifications have been made, the profiles of the mercer-wardens in question have been examined in order to clarify what factors may have exerted an 206

influence on their linguistic behaviour; three extralinguistic variables have received exclusive attention: generation, socio-centric, and ego-centric networks. Finally, all those mercer-wardens with similar profiles as those with an already-identified linguistic behaviour have been considered to behave very closely to the latter. Based on these findings, an assignment of mixes for every single fiscal year has been carried out.

Figure 4.1. Innovation type and change in networks (Bergs 2006: 256)

One conclusion has to be drawn from this exposition. The suggestion for authorship proposed in my dissertation has been based on the study of the sociolinguistic profiles of several significant mercer-wardens and the later observation of their mixing behaviour. The most likely author has always been proposed, but this does not mean that there are no other alternatives. Therefore, the conclusions on my results will have to be much more cautious than with a clear-cut scribal identification. Variants in the different mixed-language stages of the MWA can be used as authorship tools; they look promising as a means of distinguishing the usages of the four mercer-wardens that keep the MC’s records every year. The regulated practice of mixing between AF, BL, and ME constitutes a rising phenomenon over the late medieval period in Britain and, as can be seen in Figure 4.2 below, even the LS to SE in official documents plots the (inverted) S-curve of diffusion from c. 1400 to c. 1650 that, according to Hope (1994: 6-7), is key and to which 207

the patterning of variants involved in SHLE has to conform in order to detect the hand of a chosen author.

Figure 4.2. Distribution of English, French, and Latin texts in official documents (Heikkonen 1996: 112)

In the same way as English at a macro-linguistic level progressively assumes more functions and appears in more domains, mixed extracts in English cross boundaries between phrases, sentences, entries, and sections in the MWA.

IV.1.3.4. Generation

In other researches analysing changes in the LC patterns over time (e.g. Li 1994: 114-5), age has turned out to be the most important extralinguistic associated with change in LC and in language ability. A diachronic research focusing on the process of Anglicisation in the MWA from the late fourteenth to the mid- fifteenth century, this study also had to question whether the different dates of birth of the mercer-wardens (i) have a direct impact on their mixing practices or, conversely, (ii) the influence is indirect via their correlation with the two other extralinguistic variables under scrutiny (ego-centric and socio-centric networks). In order to do so, observation both in real time and in apparent time of mercer-wardens was carried out. That is, the issues of how a mercer- informant’s mixing usages develop throughout his different appearances in the office of wardenship, and how the mixing practices of informants from different generations vary have been evaluated. 208

The sample consisting of 145 mercer-informants was divided into different groups according to their dates of birth. Five generations were established: (i) mercer-wardens born a. 1359, (ii) mercer-wardens born between 1360 and 1379, (iii) mercer-wardens born between 1380 and 1399, (iv) mercer- wardens born between 1400 and 1419, and (v) mercer-wardens born p. 1420 (Appendix 1 [pp. 399-400]).166 The number of years comprised within each generation has been 20. If, as has been stipulated above (p. 145), apprentices join the MC at the age of 16 and tend to issue from their apprenticeships in order to become eligible for wardenship after around 10 years, 20 has been considered the most appropriate number of years. When biographical information in secondary sources has been scarce, the MWA have been useful for allocating an approximate date of birth to the informant. Bearing in mind the necessary precautions after Blake’s (1966: 290) conclusion that any date of mercer-wardens’ birth calculated from the MWA should be regarded as suspect, I used to subtract 16 from the fiscal year when the warden’s entry as an apprentice is recorded. Blake (1966: 287) further argues that the MWA “cannot be used for accurate dating of an apprentice’s entry or issue”; however, I continued on this track because, after all, I was not looking for the exact year but only an approximation.

IV.1.3.5. Linguistic variables and variants and diachronic stages

Once all English-origin linguistic variants had been collected, they were classified into their corresponding variables. It is important to note here that mixing variation between AF and BL has not been considered; only mixed English items have been taken into consideration. Following L. Wright (1998b), AF and BL, as acrolectal varieties on one side, stand in a binary opposition to ME, as the vernacular variety on the other side, on the basilect/acrolect trajectory; SE is the proto-standard which later takes over the acrolectal functions as a result of the process of Anglicisation in the different domains (L. Wright 1998b: 114). Consequently, solely variants from English, as the only vernacular in the MWA, have been analysed in my dissertation. This contrasts

166 The informant’s generation is indicated by a superscripted Roman numeral at the left of his full name or surname. Not to be confounded with superscripted Arabic numerals at his right, which indicates his number of times serving office as a warden p. 1390. 209

markedly with the conception of AF as another vernacular on the same level as ME also expressed in the literature (e.g. Rothwell 1985, 2001b, 2004; Kristol 2000; Trotter 2006, 2011). I also concur with L. Wright’s (2002, 2005) view of English in medieval times as consisting of two varieties: (i) ME as the vernacular variety competing with AF and BL as acrolects, and (ii) SE as the brand-new acrolectal and proto-standardised variety to which all the domains begin to shift from the beginning of the fifteenth century onwards and which constitutes one of the ancestors of eModE (L. Wright 2000c). The classification of variants is based on L. Wright’s (1998b) diachronic model, which distinguishes several intermediate mixed-language stages from LM of AF and BL to LS to SE, according to the syntactic constituents involved in CS. L. Wright (1998b: 101-9) divides mixed-language syntactical domains into three broad categories or stages: youthful, mature, and moribund. Here is a summary of her main syntactic criteria for each stage (pp. 136-7):

(i) In youthful writing, it is mainly roots of nouns and verbs which surface in the vernacular language (i.e. ME). Further, the frequency of ME words to acrolectal (i.e. AF and BL) words is also low.

(ii) In mature writing, nominal groups may contain more than one ME word, either nouns, adjectives, or substantival –ing forms. Prepositional groups are also extremely common, and vernacular –ing forms may attract a preceding article in ME. Within the nominal group, word order may follow both the acrolectal (noun + adjective) and the vernacular pattern (adjective + noun), and Romance and Germanic rules on agreement are also mixed.

(iii) In moribund writing, the switch-points cease to observe the boundary of the nominal group or verbal root, and long strings of lexemes occur in the vernacular. Word order is overwhelmingly English. But the determining factor of moribundity is the presence of English function words, i.e. articles, pronouns, prepositions, or conjunctions (L. Wright 2002: 476). 210

Although L. Wright’s (1998b) model is taken as a basis for this dissertation, a number of modifications are necessary. As can be perceived, the demarcation between stages is not very well defined on some occasions; for instance, since switched verbal roots are characteristic of both youthful writing and mature writing, in which of the two stages should a switch in this variant be placed? In addition, contradictions are also present in L. Wright’s (1998b) diachronic model; for example, if English function words constitute a sign of moribundity, why are articles preceding verbal nouns considered as components of mature writing? Furthermore, in some cases, the classification of variants is not very sophisticated; as a matter of fact, long strings of lexemes are labelled “moribund” without going into further considerations related, for instance, to syntactic interdependence between lexemes. In this dissertation, L. Wright’s three categories have been slightly modified and considered as sub-stages composing the CS stage. Switched tokens have been treated as variants and classified by sub-stage. Here is my classification:167

(i) Y+MA CS sub-stage. Both youthful writing and mature writing have been grouped together since in L. Wright’s model, both categories share constituents such as the verbal root. Nominal group is again proposed as the boundary of the switch. Variants included in this stage are the following: single noun, verbal noun, adjective, adverb, adjective + noun/noun + adjective (Adj+N/N+Adj), and noun adjunct + noun (N Adj+N).

(ii) MO CS sub-stage. Its variants are lexical verb, noun in genitive + noun (N in Gen+N), determiner + noun (Det+N), prepositional sequences, and long combinations of constituents. As L. Wright proposes, function words in English represent the most decisive factor for classifying switches under this stage, even if they are still being part of nominal groups (e.g. N in Gen+N or Det+N). In

167 Before the classification began, certain constituents in the MWA had been excluded from the analysis for their peculiar characteristics in mixed-language environments: hybrid forms (pp. 240-1), place names and proper names (p. 249), and flagged-like switching (p. 228). 211

addition, long strings of lexemes transcending the verbal root are also included within this group.

(iii) BS CS sub-stage. This stage is added in order to introduce an aspect not considered by L. Wright: matrix language turnover (Myers-Scotton 1998). On most occasions within the process of LS, the matrix language and the embedded language (in this case, French [and Latin] and English respectively) normally swap roles, and the latter acquires functions and domains originally attributed to the former. Since my dissertation falls within the group of works that uses the language of the main conjugated verb in an independent clause as point of reference for determining the matrix language (e.g. Klavans 1983; Treffers-Daller and van den Hauwe 1990; Treffers-Daller 1991, 1993; McConvell and Meakins 2005), mixed independent clauses had to be incorporated as another variant indicating the turnover.

Apart from these three sub-stages composing the CS stage, two other major stages functioning as variables in the process from maintenance of AF and BL to shift to SE in the MWA have been included: AM and LS. In the case of AM, only fiscal years when no English-origin particle occurs have been counted (§ V.1.2.1, pp. 220-1). As for LS, fiscal years with presence of English as the matrix language from the year opening have been counted as tokens of this final stage (§ V.2.6.3.16).168 Perhaps more importantly, L. Wright’s model has also been modified with the refinement of the variationist perspective.169 In her brief analysis of the evolution of CS in the MWA, L. Wright (2002: 475-8) argues that before moribundity, the two languages (AF and ME) are not distributed randomly but in an orderly way; English is variably used for the content words, i.e. nouns, adjectives, verbal roots, or –ing forms may optionally appear in the vernacular, whereas French is compulsorily used for the function words (prepositions, conjunctions, or pronouns) and variably for all other parts of speech. Once

168 The mixed-language variants composing my study are listed in Appendix 4 (pp. 411-31). 169 L. Wright (2011b, 2012) has recently begun to delve into variation and change in the mixed- language business documents produced in medieval London. 212

function words are switched to ME, Dorian’s (1978, 1981) tip is triggered and AF is said to undergo a sudden change immediately before dying out (L. Wright 2002: 476). Nevertheless, L. Wright also observes that the LS from mixed varieties to SE in business writing is not clean but is characterised by movements backwards and forwards. It is actually shown how in accounts kept in 1433-34 the English element transcends the usual boundaries of the nominal group and of the verbal root, and function words occur in the vernacular (f. 114r), but later in 1441-42 (f. 140r) only nouns and –ing forms appear in English, with function words again in AF (L. Wright 2002: 477). In the same way as the different stages towards LS coexist in the MWA, variants from these different variables do also co-occur in entries of business information. Therefore, rather than focusing on the absolute presence and/or absence of variants, what turns out to be relevant is the quantification of competing variants in relative terms, i.e. how much more a mixed variant of a specific variable (or, in this case, stage) is preferred over another (Tagliamonte 2006). The relative percentages of switched variants have been calculated from the raw figures by the following mathematical formula: (S x 100)/N = In the case of linguistic variation across time, S is the number of switched variants, and N is the total number of switches either in the CS stage or in the sub-stage of the variant.170 In the case of linguistic variation in the individual speaker, whereas S represents the number of tokens of a specific variable switched by an informant, N is the total number of variants switched by him as an account-keeper. In this last respect, the resulting percentages have also been further correlated with each mercer-wardens’ socio-centric network scores in order to determine whether patterns of LM, CS, and LS depend in a way on informants’ network structures.

170 Depending on the periodisation, the resulting percentage has been further divided. In most cases, the result has been divided by 10 insofar as the diachronic evolution of variants has been tracked on a decade by decade basis.

Chapter V DATA ANALYSIS

217

V.1. MIXED-LANGUAGE WRITING IN THE MERCERS’ WARDENS’ ACCOUNTS

This sub-chapter is devoted to analysing the occurrence of mixed-language variants in the MWA, especially from their diachronic dimension. On the one hand, grammatical aspects of language mixing involving the different speech categories and grammatical constituents in which the variables can be realised are addressed. On the other hand, the variation and the distribution of the mixed variants across time are also plotted.

V.1.1. FROM LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE TO LANGUAGE SHIFT VIA CODE SWITCHING

This research falls within the under-explored line of inquiry which makes a significant claim about the relationship between CS and LS; more particularly, it considers how CS is involved in LS. In compliance with A. Thomas’s (1982) and Myers-Scotton’s (1998) hypotheses and also with L. Wright’s (1998b) diachronic model, CS between AF and BL and ME in the MWA can be seen as preceding the LS to SE. The gradual process towards the total shift to SE is also evidenced by the overall statistical data of the MWA. In Figure 5.1, showing the evolution of the three main mixed-language stages in a ten-year periodisation, the appearance of each stage complies with the time pattern expected a priori.

Figure 5.1. Fiscal years with AM, CS, and LS

218

That is to say, AM is concentrated in years from the first three decades, years with CS especially dominate the scene in intermediate decades, and fiscal years where LS to SE takes place occur in the last fifteen years. Overall, whereas the most conservative period is located at the beginning of the MWA, the most progressive period occurs in the last years covered by the corpus. Focusing specifically on the CS stage, it is also a particularly widespread phenomenon all over the MWA. CS is present in 53 out of 74 fiscal years (71.62%) and even prevails over AM and LS in 6 decades (1400-60). According to the type of switching, CS stage further consists of three sub-stages: Y+MA, MO, and BS. Their graphic representation in Figure 5.2 bears witness to how variants from the Y+MA sub-stage dominate all periods in which CS occur, with MO and BS variants far behind in every decade.

Figure 5.2. Y+MA, MO, and BS sub-stages only in fiscal years with CS

In Figure 5.2, the extensive predominance of Y+MA variants’ percentage rates is rather constant throughout the MWA; their results are never below 72%, and even in late decades (e.g. 92.22% in 1450-60) they are close to the absolute predominance existing in earlier periods (e.g. 100% in 1390-1400 and in 1410- 20). In turn, MO variants’ frequency rate is also fairly consistent. Once they first appear in the MWA (1400-10), and except for 1 decade of non-occurrence (1410- 20), their rates are nearly always around 20%. Finally, variants from the BS variable do not play the same relevant role as variants from the two other sub- stages. They only appear in two decades (1420-30 and 1440-50), and when they occur, they are just over 4% and 5%. In Table 5.1 below, all of the linguistic realisations of the variants composing the CS stage are ranked. These realisations are a combination of 219

parts of speech (single noun, verbal noun, lexical verb, adverb, and adjective) and grammatical units (long combination of constituents, independent clause, prepositional sequence, and different kinds of nominal group).

Table 5.1. Ranking of variants from the CS stage

Position Variant (sub-stage) No. of tokens 1st Single noun (Y+MA) 281 2nd Long combination of constituents (MO) 150 3rd Independent clause (BS) 56 4th Verbal noun (Y+MA) 54 5th Prepositional sequence (MO) 31 6th N Adj+N (Y+MA) 18 7th Adj+N/N+Adj (Y+MA) 13 8th N in Gen+N (MO) 6 9th Lexical verb (MO) 5 10th Adverb (Y+MA) 3 11th Adjective (Y+MA) 1 11th Det+N (MO) 1

Concerning the parts of speech, single noun is by far the most switched constituent, comprising 75.95% of the Y+MA sub-stage (281 out of 370 switches) and nearly half (45.40%) of all switches in the MWA (281 out of 619). This particular result appears to corroborate the findings of other studies where the single noun also ranks the highest (e.g. McClure 1977; Berk-Seligson 1986). And it is also consistent with many hierarchies of borrowability proposed in the literature which prove that nouns are the most frequently borrowed elements of language (e.g. Whitney 1881; Haugen 1950; Singh 1980; Muysken 1981; van Hout and Muysken 1994). Nevertheless, verbs ranking third (among parts of speech) and nouns with verbal features (verbal nouns) ranking in the second position only comply with Haugen’s (1950: 224) ordering:

nouns > verbs > adjectives > adverbs, prepositions, and interjections

But this hierarchy is followed only partially, insofar as in the MWA switched adverbs (3) score higher than adjectives (1).171

171 Although originally uniquely applied to describe restrictions on borrowing, I follow Treffers- Daller (1993: 203-42), who argues that CS also be organised in terms of a hierarchy of switchability whereby some types of constituents are switched more often and more easily than others. Her hierarchy is explicitly presented in Treffers-Daller (1993: 226). 220

Regarding grammatical units, the most frequently switched constituent in the MWA is long combination of constituents (150 out of 619 [24.23%]), lying far away from the next constituent: independent clause (56 out of 619 [9.05%]). These variants, however, rank only behind the single noun and are then the second and the third most switchable constituents in the MWA. As a matter of fact, results for large-sized constituents (i.e. consisting of more than one word) are not far from those of small-sized constituents (one single word): 275 (44.43%) against 344 (55.57%). Consequently, Gumperz and Hernández Chávez’s (1968/75) size-of-constituent constraint, which says that major constituents such as sentences and clauses tend to be switched more frequently than smaller constituents, is partly respected. In fact, like here, the one regularly found exception to this constraint is the category “single noun” (Berk-Seligson 1986: 314).

V.1.2. VARIABLES AND VARIANTS

This dissertation is concerned with the development and variation of the several intermediate switching stages giving way to the shift to SE as the matrix language of the MWA. As such, the five stages (AM, LS, and CS represented by its three sub-stages [Y+MA, MO, and BS]) are considered to be the linguistic variables under study. In a similar vein, the different realisations of each stage and sub-stage constitute the variants. In the following sections, I zoom in on each variable and its corresponding variants.

V.1.2.1. Absence-of-mixing stage

None of the main models of successive stages proposed in the literature (A. Thomas 1982; Myers-Scotton 1998; L. Wright 1998b) provides for the possibility of lack of mixing as the initial stage in the process towards LS. Remembering that the principle of accountable reporting requires not only that all the relevant examples of a phenomenon in some data set are incorporated into the analysis, but also all of the contexts in which it could have appeared but did not (Labov 1966b), accountability is of difficult application to CS insofar as the non-occurrences of CS cannot be easily established (Poplack 221

1993: 275-6). This difficulty has been traditionally solved by delimiting points where CS is syntactically permissible and where prohibited; studies of syntactic restrictions on mixing have been widely formulated (e.g. Poplack 1979; Bentahila and E. Davies 1983; Joshi 1985; di Sciullo et al. 1986; Belazi et al. 1994). Nevertheless, as mentioned above (§ IV.1.2, p. 191), L. Wright (1998b: 109-14) finds a high number of counterexamples in mixed-language business texts, where rules governing switch-points are systematically violated. As will be seen throughout this analysis, the same kind of violations is recurrent in the MWA. CS in business writing, then, poses additional problems for the construction of the linguistic variable. At this moment, the concept of LC must be taken into consideration. As D. Sankoff (1988: 151) argues, communication is realised through recurrent choices made by speakers at various interactional and grammatical levels.

Figure 5.3. Decision-making process of the multilingual account-keeper

Recalling in a way Grosjean’s (1982: 129) flowchart (Figure 2.2, p. 98), in Figure 5.3, it can be seen how every mercer-warden keeping accounts had to face linguistic choices at several different levels: (i) which matrix language to use for his accounts, (ii) whether switching within the entry or not, and (iii) if switching, which constituent to switch. Account-keepers’ choices result in 222

different variables corresponding to different stages in the evolution towards LS. The way of accounting the occurrences (variants) of these variables also varies; in the case of AM, the accountability must be carried out only at the macro-textual level, i.e. a fiscal year where language remains AF (or BL) and no string or linguistic item are switched to ME are counted as one token of this stage. The same happens with LS; once the entire accounts for a fiscal year are kept in SE, the counting has to be made by years as a whole. In turn, variants in Y+MA, MO, and BS sub-stages can be counted individually at the micro-level. The reason for this difference in counting lies in the sociolinguistic nature of the variables itself. As Poplack (1993: 275) further points out, “change is not brought about by a single deviant utterance”. Consequently, whereas Y+MA, MO, and BS variants generally occur only in the idiolect of a single mercer- warden, for AM and LS to appear, a kind of communal agreement between the four wardens in office must be reached. In the case of AM, none of the four has to use English particles; in the case of LS, the four wardens have to choose English as the matrix language of their entries.

V.1.2.1.1. Variation across time

Figure 5.4 gives the distribution of AM across decades in the MWA. It shows how the lack of ME switched items is something recurrent and regular in the first three decades included in the accounts.

Figure 5.4. Fiscal years with AM

223

Except for the first decade (1390-1400) where years with AM and years with CS rate similarly (50%), the latter prevail over the former from 1400-10 and become the norm from the 1420s. Whereas years with AM do not appear p. 1418-19, in 12 out of the 30 fiscal years kept between 1390-91 and 1419-20 (40%), only AF- and BL-origin constituents are present. Interestingly enough, the beginning of the period of prominence of switching to ME roughly coincides with Henry V’s (1417) gesture of shifting to English in his Signet Office letters. Researchers have identified a direct relationship between the monarch’s LS and that by one of the London livery companies: the Brewers’ Company in 1422 (e.g. Fisher 1979, 1997; Richardson 1980a; Heikkonen 1996). A similar process of change from above could be assumed in this case; wardens of the MC could have felt a kind of legitimatisation for the use of English in their official documents. Nevertheless, it remains something conjectural at this stage, though; in any case, whatever direct or indirect its repercussions may have been, Henry V’s shift is much more innovative than the rather slow emergence of ME features in the MWA.

V.1.2.2. Code switching stage

Between AM and LS, an intermediate stage where CS to ME prevails can be found. Three sub-stages have been further identified depending on the quantity and quality of syntactic constituents involved: (i) Y+MA, (ii) MO, and (iii) BS. They deserve an analysis in depth.

V.1.2.2.1. Youthful + mature sub-stage

In the Y+MA sub-stage, the first one where CS from AF/BL to ME occurs, the switch-point always observes the boundary of the phrase, be it a nominal, an adjectival, or an adverbial group. Never does the switched constituent go further the following structure: (modifier) + head + (qualifier). In the MWA, CS at the Y+MA sub-stage is realised by a list of syntactic categories and combinations of words that deserve a thorough one-by-one discussion in here. 224

V.1.2.2.1.1. Single noun

Single nouns in ME appear in two main positions: completive in a prepositional group ([1]-[3]) and appositive phrases ([4]-[6]). The following examples illustrate these usages:

(1) Item, q’ils ount paié a le colectour de Crychirche pur un entier an devant le dite feste de Missomer, per acquitance – xix s. “Item, that they have paid the collector of Christchurch for one whole year up until the said feast of Midsummer, by acquittance – 19s.” (MWA 1436-37: f. 125v).

(2) Item, pur nailes – ob. “Item, for nails – ½d.” (MWA 1436-37: f. 126r).

(3) Item, paié pur wex pur le chapelle – iiii s. vi d. “Item, paid for wax for the chapel – 4s. 6d.” (MWA 1445-46: f. 151v).

(4) Item, a Richard Lyndesay pur une supplicacioun a lez Maire et Aldermanz pur Johan van Neweden, ducheman, webbe – vi d. “Item, to Richard Lyndsey for a petition to the Mayor and aldermen concerning John van Uden, Dutchman, linenweaver – 6d.” (MWA 1421-22: f. 81r).

(5) Item, ils soy chargent de une somme ressu de Johan Warham, snarler, c’est assavoyr – xx d. “Item, they declare receipt of a sum from John Warham, snarler, i.e. – 20d.” (MWA 1428-29: f. 99r).

(6) William Fleet, wolman, pur soun chaperoun – xv s. vi d. “William Fleet, wool-merchant, for his hood – 15s. 6d.” (MWA 1435- 36: f. 123v).

Contrary to studies on language mixing where switched single nouns are used in a wider range of functions such as subject, object, or predicate nominals, the particular characteristics of this text type limit vastly the possibilities for exploiting switched nouns. On the one hand, subjects are normally realised by proper names as well as by anaphoric personal pronouns referring to the wardens:

(7) Item, ils soi dischargent qe Johan Kesteven, Johan Grene, Richard Horwod, et Robert Buxton doient chescun de eux ii s. pur le chyvalché del venu le roi de Irland – summa – viii s. “Item, they declare that John Kestevene, John Green, Richard Horwood, and Robert Buxton each owes 2s. for the procession at the King’s return from Ireland – total – 8s.” (MWA 1396-97: f. 23v). 225

On the other hand, on many occasions, the subject and part of the verbal group (the auxiliary) are omitted, the string of information being then restricted to structures consisting of (i) past participle of the main lexical verb + object(s) ([8]), or (ii) of complement(s) mostly realised by prepositional groups ([9]):

(8) Item, receu de Albrand Gascoyn pur sa fyn – vi li. xiii s. iiii d. “Item, received from Aldebrand Gascoigne for his fee – £6 13s. 4d.” (MWA 1402-03: f. 36r).

(9) Item, a Johan Bele, le bedelle, pur soun salarie – lii s. “Item, to John Bele, the beadle, for his salary – 52s.” (MWA 1410-11: f. 55r).

Nevertheless, as Jefferson (2009: 25) states, the MC’s records are intentionally formal and correct, and are written up from other more temporary notes, being intended for posterity; this is the reason why they also insist upon full sentences, verbal and numeral accounting, and careful headings. ME single nouns especially stand alone as headings of sections:

(10) Bequest: Item, ils soy chargent d’une somme ressu de William Trymnelle, Johan Seymour, et Johan Borham, executours del testament de Richard Somerey (qe dieu assoile) pur sone devyse al box del mercerie – iii li. vi s. viii d. “Bequest: Item, they declare receipt of a sum from William Trymnelle, John Seymour, and John Boreham, executors of the will of Richard Somerey (may God absolve him), for his bequest to the communal funds of the Mercers’ mistery – £3 6s. 8d.” (MWA 1430-31: f. 105r).

With the highest score in my data, switched single nouns are mostly used as heads of multi-word nominal groups. They can be accompanied by determiners such as articles ([11]), possessives ([12]), and demonstratives ([14]), and also by qualifiers ([13]) in AF:

(11) Item, pur un barge pur lez shirifs – xii s. “Item, for a barge for the sheriffs – 12s.” (MWA 1445-46: f. 151v).

(12) Item, de Isabelle Flete pur le temps qe sa shope estoit reparé – v s. “Item, for Isabelle Fleet for the time during which her shop was being repaired – 5s.” (MWA 1425-26: f. 90r).

(13) Item, paié pur boltes de ferre al chapelle – iii s. 226

“Item, paid for iron bolts for the chapel – 3s.” (MWA 1414-15: f. 66r).

(14) Item, paié pur writyng de entrés et issues en cest bok lé othe – viii d. “Item, paid for the writing up of the oaths for admissions and issues, in this book – 8d.” (MWA 1423-24: f. 86r).

With a handful of exceptions, cardinal numbers preceding a ME noun are not expressed alphabetically but numerically. In (15), both methods can be seen:

(15) Item, paié a un lokyere pur i lok al chapelle, par Johan Bele – iii d. “Item, paid to a locksmith for a lock to the chapel, by John Bele – 3d.” (MWA 1414-15: f. 66r).

The second strategy is used as a means of exploiting language overlap between AF (and BL) and ME. Once again, it is up to the auditor to read it as AF un, BL uno, or ME ōn. The same strategy does not work, however, as accurately for ordinal numbers; while on some occasions, abbreviations in ordinals do permit overlapping (e.g. AF xve and ME xve), they sometimes provide enough information for a clear-cut distinction (BL iiiiº, AF iiiie, and ME iiiithe). Previous examples ([11], [12], and [14]) constitute new violations to Lipski’s (1978) impossibility of switching between determiners and nouns:

*I see the casa “I see the house” (Appel and Muysken 1987/2005: 122).

These examples can be added to the body of counter-evidence against this constraint (e.g. Bentahila and E. Davies 1983: 316-7; Woolford 1983: 527, 533; Nishimura 1985: 202; Mahootian 1993: 119-20). In Pfaff’s (1979) study of Spanish/English in the speech of Mexican Americans, determiners with nouns are the most frequent mixes in nominal groups; lack of structural conflicts between Spanish and English enables this kind of switching (Pfaff 1979: 305). All types of nouns can realise variants of the Y+MA sub-stage. Due to the accounting nature of this business text type, most nouns in the MWA are countable and/or concrete; so are the switched single nouns (230 out of 281 [81.85%]). A couple of examples are shown below:

(16) Item, pur bromes et une pot pur ewe – i d. “Item, for brooms and a water-pot – 1d.” (MWA 1426-27: f. 93r).

227

(17) Item, paié pur i quayer paper et i bagge pur money – vi d. “Item, paid for 1 quayer of paper and for 1 bag for money – 6d.” (MWA 1430-31: 107r).

Fewer switched nouns are uncountable and/or abstract (51 out of 281 [18.15%]):

(18) Item, paié a Thomas Raftone pur escriver un instrucione de duche et pur la traier le mesme instrucione en anglois – v s. “Item, paid to Thomas Raston for writing out a mandate in Dutch and for translating the same mandate into English – 5s.” (MWA 1430-31: f. 106v).

(19) Item, pur voider le snowe suer le sale del mercery a Saint Thomas d’Acres a divers foies – vi d. “Item, for clearing the snow from above the Mercers’ hall at St Thomas of Acon on various occasions – 6d.” (MWA 1436-37: f. 126r).

In the case of uncountable nouns, the switched element is normally the partitive, or the measure that quantifies the commodity in question rather than the noun itself:

(20) Item, un paxbred d’argent qe poise de poise de Troie iii ounces et dimi quarter, et le poise de un ferling d’or – “Item, a silver pax which weighs by Troy weight 3 oz. and half a quarter oz. and the weight of a farthing of gold –” (MWA 1412-13: f. 58r).

(21) Item, ils ount ressu de Sir Thomas Dale, persone de Seint Sythes, pur estre de nostre compaignie frank, un hoggeshed de vyn de Gasgoyn rouge pur le feste del compaignie – “Item, they have received from Sir Thomas Dale, parson of St Osith’s, to be free of our company, one hogshead of red Gascon wine for the company’s feast –” (MWA 1429-30: f. 101r).

Like the countability markers, compound nouns have also been included within this group:

(22) Item, pur loture des aubes, amytes, et auterclothes et pur amendement des parures appurtenantz al chapelle a Seint Thomas per la dit an entier – xii d. “Item, for washing of the albs, amices, and altar-cloths, and for mending of the parures belonging to the chapel in St Thomas’s, for the whole said year – 12d.” (MWA 1440-41: f. 128r).

(23) Item, pur talghe candels en la chapelle – iiii d. “Item, for tallow candles in the chapel – 4d.” (MWA 1444-45: f. 148v).

228

Cases of vernacular nouns have also been left out. As hinted above ([7]), proper names standing alone or surrounded by AF (or BL) words have been excluded from the analysis. The same has been done with some cases that recall in a way flagged switching (§ II.2.1.1):

(24) Item, paié as [ ] laborers assignez par le Chambre avec bateux appellez ‘lighters’ pur suisprendre et defaire lez weres – v li. xii d. “Item, paid to the [ ] labourers assigned by the Guildhall Chamber, with boats called ‘lighters’, for the removal and dismantling of the weirs – £5 12d.” (MWA 1421-22: f. 81r).

In (24), ME single noun lighters has not been included insofar as the switching of the word is explicitly announced via the past participle appellez.

V.1.2.2.1.1.1. Variation across time

In Figure 5.5, it can be seen how single nouns are switched at a regular rate throughout the whole period covered by the MWA.

Figure 5.5. Single nouns in fiscal years with presence of mixing

As a matter of fact, it is quite unusual to find fiscal years where CS happens and ME single nouns are absent; the only exceptions occur in 1404-05, 1420-21, and 1438-39 (i.e. 3 out of 53 [5.66%]). In addition, in a high number of years (18 out of 28 [64.29%]), single noun switches score at least 50% or higher. Similarly, every year variants from the Y+MA sub-stage appear, single nouns are present; results prove this dominance: 281 out of 370 (75.95%). Several main moments can be observed in the evolution of single noun as a variant in the MWA. Up until 1399-1400 single nouns are the only switched 229

constituent, and 90.63% of total switches (29 out of 32) a. 1420-21 are realised by this same variant. In 1420-30, ME single nouns’ rates drop considerably by 64.78% and even by 45.96% in the 1440s. Nevertheless, this fall does not automatically precede the LS in the MWA. In 1450-60, nouns’ rate increases again by 65.78%, a similar level as in previous stages (1420-30 and 1430-40). All these data tend to corroborate the widely reported findings of the single noun being the most frequent part of speech in any bilingual corpus; it is normally switched more easily than adjectives, adverbs, and other parts of speech (e.g. Timm 1975; Poplack et al. 1987; Poplack and Meechan 1995; Azuma 2001: 99). In fact, not only do single-noun switches in the MWA concern culture-specific concepts; ME lexemes such as loke, boke, or lawe with clear equivalents in AF (serre, livre, and loye) are still switched. Single nouns play a decisive role all over the MWA; their predominance begins to be threatened only the years before LS (1446-49 and 1457-58), when larger mixed constituents prevail.

V.1.2.2.1.2. Verbal noun

Verbal, deverbal, or substantival –ing nouns are the only type of nouns (other than single nouns) that are treated as an independent variant in this dissertation. This decision is mainly due to morphological reasons; whereas bound morphology is not decisive in distinguishing between AF and ME single nouns because of overlap and variability when assigning gender and number concord (L. Wright 1998b, 2005), switched verbal nouns are identified by their ability to take ON-origin suffix –ing (or its variants –yng and –eng). They are exemplified in (25), (26), and (27):

(25) Item, pur wasshing de auter clothes et towailles per l’an – ix d. “Item, for the washing of altar-cloths and cloths for the year – 9d.” (MWA 1444-45: f. 149r).

(26) Item, paié a Robert Bale pur copieng del mesme lettre – iiii d. “Item, paid to Robert Bale for the copying of the same letter – 4d.” (MWA 1442-43: f. 143r).

(27) Item, pur repairyng del fenestre de glas a Seint Thomas – iiii d. “Item, for repairing the glass window at St Thomas’s – 4d.” (MWA 1443-44: f. 146v).

230

Although in (27) a Romance-origin verb (repairer) takes a Germanic gerundial –ing form paralleling *run-eando and *eat-iendo, this does not challenge Poplack’s (1979) free morpheme constraint insofar as the verb repār(en) seems to have been lexically integrated into ME a. 1350 (MED);172 repairing functioning as a verbal noun is first attested in English a. 1387 (OED and MED). In fact, all verbal nouns in the MWA are derived from Germanic- origin or from already-borrowed verbs (e.g. entryng, serching, leyeng, or writyng). Nevertheless, in records of other livery companies of the City of London, there are examples of verbal nouns with –ing forms attached to non- English verbs; as a matter of fact, escrivyng in (28) can be found in the Grocers’ Wardens’ Accounts:

(28) Item, pur enrollynge et escrivyng de diverez dedez “Item, for the enrolling and recording of different deeds” (Kingdon 1886: 126).

No occurrence of Germanic-origin verb + Romance-origin gerund suffix has been attested in the MWA either:

*washent “washing”

Nonetheless, L. Wright (1995b) informs of a visual merging between BL gerundial endings (–and, –end, –iend) and early ME counterparts (–and[e] in use in Northern England, –end[e] in the Midlands, and –ind[e] in Southern England) with roots in ME writings. Gerundial forms such as repand, supportand, and piectend can be read both as BL and ME words since their BL roots are cognate with or have been borrowed into ME, and their suffixes overlap (L. Wright 2002: 481). This merging occurs in fourteenth-century documents (not in the MWA though) where writers use early ME suffixes to mark verbal nouns; it is only during the fifteenth century when the –ing morpheme takes over this role, and the –and(e)/–end(e)/–ind(e) group drops out of use altogether (L. Wright 2011b: 204-6). Syntactically speaking, verbal nouns’ behaviour is very similar to that of the single noun. Even though no occurrence is found in my corpus, they can

172 It is impossible for historical linguists to verify whether a lexical form has been phonologically integrated into the language of the bound morpheme. 231

function as subjects and objects. In the MWA, all examples of verbal nouns occur within the same syntactic structure, which is schematised as follows:

(preposition) + (article) + verbal noun + de(s) + nominal group

In (29), an example with all of the above-cited elements is shown:

(29) Item, pur le sawynge de ii C lxv pees en quarters – iii s. iiii d. “Item, for the sawing of 265 feet into quarters – 3s. 4d.” (MWA 1435-36: f. 122r).

The presence of constituents between parenthetical signs is not compulsory but optional. In (30), both the introductory preposition and the article are absent:

(30) Item, waisshynge de ornementes del chapelle – viii d. “Item, washing of the chapel accoutrements – 8d.” (MWA 1431- 32: f. 109v).

As for both optional constituents, whereas the introductory preposition can be realised by prepositions other than pur (en in [31] and de in [32]), only definite articles (la, le, l’, lez) realise the latter constituent:

(31) Item, paié le xvii jour de septembre pur diverse chosez en scherchyng de weeres ovesqe nostre meire William Walderne – l s. “Item, paid on the 17th of September for various things concerned with the inspection of weirs with our Mayor William Waldern – 50s.” (MWA 1423-24: f. 86r).

(32) Item, doné et paié a William Croffton, carpenter, pur soun labour de suerveynge des dites laboures, summa – iii s. iiii d. “Item, given and paid to William Crofton, carpenter, for his work in supervising the said works, total – 3s. 4d.” (MWA 1435-36: f. 122v).

Apart from the verbal noun, Romance preposition de must be always present, otherwise the switched constituent will not be considered as a verbal noun but as a verb in the gerund (§ V.1.2.2.2.1). Normally, preposition de is followed by either a single noun or a nominal group. Any of the five constituents composing the above-schematised syntactic structure can be switched to ME. If besides the verbal noun, the introductory preposition and/or the nominal group were switched, this would not affect the verbal noun, as far as the counting of its occurrences is concerned. However, if 232

either the adjacent definite article or the adjacent preposition de (or both) were switched, this would not be counted as a token in the Y+MA sub-stage. The switch would then correspond to a multi-word variant in the MO sub-stage (§ V.1.2.2.2); for instance,

(33) Item, pur seweng of þe frenge pur viii baners novelles – xvi d. “Item, for sewing the fringe for 7 new banners – 16d.” (MWA 1457-58: f. 191r).

V.1.2.2.1.2.1. Distribution across time

As L. Wright (2002: 480) argues, mixed-language business writing is particularly full of gerundial forms. In fact, verbal noun is the fourth most switched category in the MWA (54 out of 619 [8.72%]) only behind single nouns (281) and long combinations of constituents (150), very close to independent clauses (56), and far from the fifth category, prepositional sequence (31).

Figure 5.6. Verbal nouns and single nouns in the MWA

Despite being a recurrent variant, switched verbal nouns do not make their appearance in the accounts until 1420-30 (more precisely, 1423-24). From this date onwards, they are present in every decade when CS occurs and also in 18 out of 32 fiscal years (56.25%). Both (morphological) divergences and (syntactic) similarities of the verbal noun with regard to the single noun have already been shown. As far as its diachronic evolution is concerned, differences and commonalities in respect to the single noun can be found again. On the one hand, the scarcity of verbal nouns’ occurrences a. 1430-31 (5 tokens, all of them in 1423-24) contrasts markedly with the widespread use of switched single nouns all over the MWA. 233

This situation changes slightly from the late 1430s, when in some fiscal years, verbal nouns’ occurrences equate to single nouns’ (e.g. 1454-55) and even score higher (e.g. 1441-42). On the other hand, their respective evolutions follow a quite similar pattern. Both rise steadily until they reach a peak (88 single nouns in 1430-40 and 27 verbal nouns in 1440-50); then, both begin a marked decrease until the late 1450s. These data show again that no category (even with nominal features as the verbal noun) can match the freedom of switching over a long period of time single nouns have; it can be actually reached but only at isolated fiscal years.

V.1.2.2.1.3. Adverb

Seldom are ME adverbs inserted into AF and BL strings of the MWA. The three tokens found in the accounts (specialle and overtly [2]) are collected in (34) and (35):

(34) Item, de William Pratte pur uncurtois langage et specialle pur lyeng de John Harowe overtly en la courte – xxvi s. viii d. “Item, from William Pratte for discourteous language and, in particular, for telling lies about John Harrow openly in the court – 26s. 8d.” (MWA 1455-56: f. 183r).

(35) Item, de John Colet pur divers et grauntz offences par luy faitez comebien a tout la companye del mercerie come autres particuler persones, pur quelez ofences il luy obeye et submytte overtly en la courte a le regiment de tout la companye [...] “Item, from John Colet for various great offences committed by him both against the whole Mercers’ company and also against other individual persons, for the which offences he obediently submitted himself openly in the court to the governance of the whole company [...]” (MWA 1455-56: f. 183r).

Whereas the switched manner adverb overtly always appears after a verb or depends directly upon it, the degree adverb specialle occurs more freely in the sentence. Actually, specialle is a rather special (if the repetition is forgiven) adverb. Originally borrowed from AF as an adjective (especiale), this word turns into an adverb in ME (not in AF) without taking the –ly suffix in the thirteenth century (c. 1230 in MED and a. 1300 in OED). In both cases, ME adverbs mix well with AF strings. Structural parallelisms between ME and AF help these occurrences to happen. No 234

examples of mixed adverbs in more complex constructions such as a modifier (e.g. very) intervening between determiner and noun are found in the MWA.

Despite the lack of syntactic restrictions in their positions, switching in this part of speech is exceedingly rare. Only 3 out of 619 switched constituents (0.48%) are realised by adverbs. In addition, all of them are written in the same folio (f. 183r), and might have been kept by the same scribe; at least two switched adverbs appear in the same string. To draw any reaching conclusions from a diachronic perspective is not possible due to the concentration of tokens in one single year (1455-56) and in two entries of information, which could even point to the idiosyncratic use by one single account-keeper.

V.1.2.2.1.4. Adjective

If CS in adverbs is quite difficult to occur in the MWA, switched adjectives are equally rare, if not even rarer, to be found. In (36), the only example of switched adjective can be observed:

(36) En primes, de William Heende pur uncurtois paroles a John Marchalle en overt lieu – xiii s. iiii d. “Firstly, from William Heende for discourteous words to John Marshall in a public place – 13s. 4d.” (MWA 1456-57: f. 187r).

Switching between a ME adjective and an AF noun involves infringement of an influential constraint that has attracted much attention: the government constraint (di Sciullo et al. 1986). Grosso modo, this theory predicts that adjectives on the same syntactic (N1) level must have the same language index as the head noun modified (di Sciullo et al. 1986: 9).173 French/Arabic data in Belazi et al. (1994: 232) contradict these predictions:

J’ai une voiture mizyaena. “I have a beautiful car.”

Even di Sciullo et al. (1986: 15-6) remain doubtful about the grammaticality of one of the switches in their Italian/English corpus:

173 As seen below (§ V.1.2.2.2.4), this constraint has also made predictions about the prepositional group. 235

Ma ci stanno dei smart italiani. “But there are smart Italians.”

If the adjective smart branches from N2, the sentence is not a counterexample to their theory; if smart branches from X1 types of categories, the sentence is actually a counterexample.

Like the adverbs, the number of switched adjectives is too scarce (1 out of 619 [0.16%]) to reach significant conclusions concerning their diachronic evolution. Although their switching does not entail any syntactic conflict between AF and ME, both rates are extremely low. In addition, despite both variants belonging to the Y+MA sub-stage, their appearance in the accounts is extremely late as well; they only appear immediately before LS (1455-56 for the adverbs, and 1456-57 for the adjectives). The behaviour of adjectives in the MWA contrasts with what has been found elsewhere. In other studies, adjectives are switched at a higher rate, normally ranking in the first positions of intrasentential CS (e.g. Berk-Seligson 1986: 325; Redouane 2005). Contrary to Pfaff’s (1976) and D. Sankoff and Poplack’s (1981) findings, adjectives in the MWA are not often switched outside the immediate domain of the noun they modify. Switched adjectives have been used attributively not only in (36) but also in all instances documented where the accompanying noun is switched too, as shown shortly.

V.1.2.2.1.5. Adjective + noun/noun + adjective

Syntactic combinations consisting of Adj+N/N+Adj have also been switched to ME. In (37)-(40), a list of examples can be observed:

(37) Item, paié pur rennynge hokes de latoun pur les curtyns – viii d. “Item, paid for latten running hooks for the curtains – 8d.” (MWA 1414-15: f. 66r).

(38) Item, paié pur ii newe aubis – vi s. viii d. “Item, paid for 2 new albs – 6s. 8d.” (MWA 1423-24: f. 86r).

(39) Summa totalis receyved – Cli li. ix s. “Sum total received – £151 9s.” (MWA 1448-49: f. 157v).

(40) Item, pur i verge i quarter cremesoun engreyned doné a le Seigneour Fawconbridge par mesme l’assent – xvi s. viii d. 236

“Item, for 1¼ yards of crimson dyed in grain given to Lord Fauconberg with the same agreement – 16s. 6d.” (MWA 1456-57: f. 188v).

As in the case of verbal –ing nouns, participial –ed adjectives in switched nominal groups have also been classified as Y+MA variants; by contrast, the latter are included within the Adj+N/N+Adj category. Their number of occurrences in the corpus is also very low (2 out of 619 [0.32%]); in both occurrences (receyved and engreyned), Germanic suffix –ed is attached to Romance-origin roots. No example of English verbal root + French suffix –é has been found in the MWA (cf. baké in the Merchant Taylors’ Master and Wardens’ Accounts [L. Wright 2005: 390-2]). Much attention has been devoted in the literature to the unacceptability of switching Adj+N/N+Adj constructions. The equivalence constraint (p. 72) also implies that

[c]ode-switches will tend to occur at points in discourse where juxtaposition of L1 and L2 elements does not violate a syntactic rule of either language, i.e. at points around which the surface structures of the two languages map onto each other (Poplack 1979: 13-4).

According to this constraint, switches between languages in constituents with diverging word order are automatically excluded. Therefore, CS occurring between subject and main verb in cases where the main clause in L1 requires an SVO ordering of elements, whereas L2 requires a VSO order would not be accepted. The same would happen with switches in nominal groups involving a L1 where adjectives normally precede a noun, and L2 which dictates that adjectives follow the noun:

*a car nuevo “a new car” (Poplack 1979: 15, 17).

Whereas attributive adjectives in English are prenominal, in Spanish (and in French) they are generally postnominal.174 Since English and Spanish (and French) have non-equivalent rules for adjective placement, this construction is judged unacceptable. This is a priori of particular interest here because the languages involved in the construction above resemble those of the

174 A closed set of Spanish (and of French) adjectives may also precede the noun. 237

MWA; and I write “a priori” since an in-depth analysis reveals a much more complex scenario than expected. Firstly, violations of the equivalence constraint involving adjectives and nouns coming from languages with different word order are widely attested in the literature (e.g. Bentahila and E. Davies 1983; Berk-Seligson 1986: 324; Bokamba 1989: 282; Stenson 1990: 171; Mahootian and Santorini 1996). Poplack’s (1979) constraint is not the only one concerning Adj+N/N+Adj constructions to prove invalid for the MWA; Aguirre’s (1977) hypothesis that word order follows strictly the placement rules of the language of the adjective is not infallible either. And secondly, morphosyntactic differences and similarities between present-day French and PDE do not correspond exactly with what is found in the Middle Ages. Nowadays, whereas most French attributive adjectives frequently immediately follow their head nouns, in English, they typically precede them. However, Fischer (2006) argues that both pre- and post-posed adjectives can be found in ME until the direction of change towards more and more prenominality prevails; the hypothesis on a possible influence of French on the ME post-posed adjectives is discarded since in CF, the Adj+N order is the most frequent (Fischer 2006: 260). ME adjectives occurring post-nominally like in (41) as well as AF adjectives placed pre-nominally like in (42) are not uncommon in the MWA:

(41) Item, pur tartron rede et fyn bokeram bloy pur lé mesme baners – xi s. “Item, for red tartarin and fine blue buckram for the same banners – 11s.” (MWA 1444-45: f. 149r).

(42) Item, ils se deschargent de xxviii s. paiez pur diverses foreynes despenses faitz, come piert par une bille allowé des auditours – xxviii s. “Item, they declare 28s. paid for various extrinsic expenses incurred, as appears in a document, approved by the auditors – 28 s.” (MWA 1418-19: f. 74v).

To this, it has to be added the fact that the hallmark of business writing is its variability (L. Wright 2002: 483). Nowadays, (i) French, but not English, distinguishes two grammatical genders, and (ii) while French adjectives agree with the nouns they modify in gender and number, morphologically marked for most adjectives, English adjectives are invariant. These Adj+N/N+Adj number 238

and gender agreement rules are not as fixed in ancient times. Examples are clear in the MWA:

(43) De Roger Amorigy pur ses primere et seconde ans – xiii s. iiii d. “From Roger Amorigy for his first and second years – 13s. 4d.” (MWA 1413-14: f. 62v).

(44) Item, a luy allowans pur petit expences pur coiller le rente – iii s. iiii d. “Item, to him as an allowance for petty expenses on the collection of the rent – 3s. 4d.” (MWA 1433-34: f. 114r).

In (43) and (44), AF adjectives do not agree with their head noun in gender and number.

V.1.2.2.1.5.1. Distribution across time

Figure 5.7 below displays the diachronic evolution of Adj+N/N+Adj constructions in the MWA. As can be observed, from 1410-20, tokens are scattered through different decades (except for 1430-40) but tend to concentrate on the second half of the period covered by the MWA (1440-60). Whereas 3 out of the 13 tokens of this variant (23.08%) occur a. 1430, Adj+N/N+Adj switches are more recurrent from the 1440s (10 out of 13 [76.92%]).

Figure 5.7. Adj+N/N+Adj variants in the MWA

Adj+N/N+Adj constructions, which appear isolated at the beginning (1414-15, 1423-24, and 1426-27), begin to emerge in consecutive (or at least alternate years) from 1440-41. In absolute terms, Adj+N/N+Adj switches per year are never too high (3 tokens in 1455-56 being the highest). 239

Despite being the earliest Y+MA variant other than single noun to emerge in the MWA (1414-15), Adj+N/N+Adj switches are not characterised by their recurrence (13 out of 619 [2.10%]). Scoring behind nouns (single and verbal) as in most studies, it is the fourth (out of 6) most switched Y+MA variant. The third position of N Adj+N as a switched variant in the Y+MA sub- stage is less common.

V.1.2.2.1.6. Noun adjunct + noun

As a noun that modifies another noun within a nominal group, N Adj+N variants have been distinguished from compound nouns insofar as the latter may also consist of two nouns but combined to form one single word. Neither have switched compound nouns nor N Adj+N variants been paid any specific attention in other researches; both constructions have been normally counted as variants of single noun and of nominal group, respectively. Whereas the same has been done for compound nouns in this dissertation, N Adj+N constructions have been treated separately due to their relevance in the MWA. As detailed right above, N Adj+N is the third most switched Y+MA variant (18 out of 370 [4.86%]) and also the sixth category overall (18 out of 619 [2.91%]). Here follows a couple of examples of this variant in the MWA:

(45) Item, ils demaundent allouance pur rent decrece en mesme l’an en les ditz tenementes pertenantz al mercerie, come appiert per l’accompt de William Rumbold provee per moy Thomas Dounton les jour et an avant escriptz – xx s. “Item, they ask for allowance for a decrease in rents during the same year, in the said tenements belonging to the Mercers’ mistery, as appears by William Rumbold’s account, approved by myself, Thomas Dunton the aforesaid day and year – 20s.” (MWA 1439-40: f. 135v).

(46) Item, pur iiii rose garlondes pur l’aleccion dez novel gardeins – viii d. “Item, for 4 rose-garlands for the election of the new wardens – 8d.” (MWA 1454-55: f. 181r).

ME N Adj+N constructions correspond to AF noun + prepositional group constructions. As can be seen in (47) and (48), these AF prepositional groups are mostly introduced by de:

240

(47) Item, pur decrece del rent des tenementz en la Corone, la Pye, et Sevenhode Lane le mesme terme – xxxiii s. x d. “Item, for decreases in the rents of the tenements in the Crown, the Pye, and Sevenhode Lane during the same term – 33s. 10d.” (MWA 1441-42: f. 140r).

(48) Item, pur garlondes de roses pur maistres – vi d. “Item, for rose-garlands for the wardens – 6d.” (MWA 1444-45: f. 148v).

Despite de also denotes possession in AF, in both cases, prepositional groups add specific information about the head noun they are modifying. ME possessive is expressed via prepositional groups headed by of or with the Saxon genitive:

(49) Item, pur ii platis pur le doore de William Fleetes shoppe – ii d. “Item, for 2 plates for the door of William Fleet’s shop – 2d.” (MWA 1436-37: f. 126r).175

(50) Alis Bridenelle, the doughter of Thomas Picot, þe sone of John Picot, the sone of Nicholas Picot, sumtyme mercer of London, for a fyn to make here free – xx s. “Alice Bridenelle, the daughter of Thomas Picot, the son of John Picot, the son of Nicholas Picot, sometime mercer of London, for a fee to make her free – 20s.” (MWA 1427-28: f. 94v).176

Furthermore, examples of N Adj+N such as chevauchiaunt lyverey in (51) have been excluded from the analysis:

(51) Item, ils sount chargés pur ceo qe ils ount resseu de divers persones pur estre excusés de chevaucher ovesqe le maire Henry Frowyke en le chevauchiaunt lyverey, c’est assavoir en premes : “Item, they declare that they have received from various persons to be excused from riding with the Mayor Henry Frowyk wearing the procession livery, i.e. firstly:” (MWA 1435-36: f. 121r).

It constitutes a hybrid form consisting of two Romance-origin words placed in a Germanic syntactic collocation insofar as a present participle modifying a noun has not been attested in AF. Whereas the noun lyverey is fully integrated into ME lexicon by 1435-36, chevauchiaunt remains exclusively AF.

175 The Saxon genitive expressing possession in (49) has been classified as MO (N in Gen+N) since it implies the switching of function words (§ V.1.2.2.2.2). 176 ME genitive of-phrases in (50) are part of a longer switching (long combination of constituents), and as such they have been studied (§ V.1.2.2.2.5). No instances of them surrounded syntactically by AF constituents have been found in the MWA. 241

If this word had been borrowed by ME scribes, the complete N Adj+N construction would have been counted as another token in the corpus.

V.1.2.2.1.6.1. Distribution across time

In Figure 5.8, it can be seen how ME N Adj+N constructions make their appearance discreetly (1 token) in 1420-30, more specifically at the end of the decade (1429-30). In 1430-40, the number of tokens increases 500% (from 1 to 5), and from then, they follow a constant evolution (6 tokens in 1440-50 and 1450-60).

Figure 5.8. N Adj+N variants in the MWA

As mentioned above, the number of switched N Adj+N constructions in the MWA is higher than in the rest of comparable studies. In addition, if Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8 are compared, N Adj+N variant also scores over Adj+N/N+Adj combinations in the latter part of the MWA (from 1430-40). This highlights again the importance of this variant in the MWA and also perhaps in the mixing between AF and ME in medieval documents.

V.1.2.2.2. Moribund sub-stage

In the MO sub-stage, the switch-point ceases to observe the boundary of the nominal group or the verbal root, and long combinations of ME lexemes occur; but the determining factor of moribundity is the presence of ME closed-class words (L. Wright 1998b: 107, 2002: 476). ME determiners, prepositions, and conjunctions in the MWA never occur isolated but are always part of longer 242

combinations in the same language of the function word, i.e. mixed function words are never surrounded by non-English items. At this stage, L. Wright’s optionality rule is no longer operative (p. 135). Although a priori switches in the MO sub-stage are ruled out by Joshi’s (1985: 194) constraint on closed-class items which reads that “determiners, quantifiers, prepositions, possessive, Aux, Tense, helping verbs, etc. cannot be switched”, he actually intends that his constraint only bars switching of function words when these appear in between matrix language constituents (Joshi 1985: 194). Therefore, no function word in the MWA infringes this rule. The parts of speech that realise CS at the MO sub-stage can be listed and analysed in the following sub-sections.

V.1.2.2.2.1. Lexical verb

While at the Y+MA sub-stage, switching in the verb does not go beyond its root, one of the signs of moribundity in mixed-language business writing is the switching of entire lexical verbs. Timm (1975) puts forward several constraints on English/Spanish verbal switching; to her, switching cannot occur between pronominal subjects and finite verbs or between finite verbs and pronominal objects:

*I fui “I went”

*mira him “sees him”.

It is also claimed that switching is prohibited between auxiliary and verb, as well as between finite verbs and their infinitive complements:

*I must esperar “I must wait”

*they want a venir “they want to come”.

In the MWA, switched single lexical verbs do not appear in any of the environments considered by Timm (1975); they occur in non-finite form and 243

always within the same syntactic structure, which is very similar to that where all verbal nouns appear:

preposition + lexical verb (–ing form) + phrase

The only case where this structure is reversed is exemplified in (52):

(52) Item, paié pur un chaleys chaungyng – xxxvi s. viii d. “Item, paid for the changing of a chalice – 36s. 8d.” (MWA 1445- 46: f. 151v).

In (52), direct object (un chaleys) realised by AF nominal group precedes ME verb chaungyng. Even though OV phenomena have been noted in ME and AF (Turville-Petre 1996: 53-5; Ingham 2005), these inversions are not particularly found in constituents following a preposition. As mentioned above (pp. 231-2), the decisive difference between verbal noun and lexical verb lies on the absence of the preposition de after the verb. Examples of the latter are collected below:

(53) Item, ressu de Richard Borowe, servant de Alisaundre Orable, pur un fyn pur entrecomenyng par de la meer pur Johan Upton – iii s. iiii d. “Item, received from Richard Burgh, in service with Alexander Orable, for a fine for having dealings overseas for John Upton – 3s. 4d.” (MWA 1442-43: f. 141r).

(54) Item, paié a Johan Roo pur ridyng envers Horwelle pur le mesme cause – vi s. viii d. “Item, paid to John Roo for riding to Orwell for the same reason – 6s. 8d.” (MWA 1444-45: f. 149r).

The fact that ME single lexical verbs appear in only one type of syntactic collocations (i) impedes a more in-depth comparison of ME and AF verb morphosyntax in mixed environments, and (ii) might even point to respect towards Timm’s (1975) constraints (cf. Bentahila and E. Davies 1983; Redouane 2005: 1927-8). Constraints violated by switched single verbs in the MWA are limited to di Sciullo et al.’s (1986) government constraint. As the completive of a prepositional group, lexical verb is expected to belong to the same language as that of the governing preposition; but (53) and (54) are not the case.177

177 Romance-origin verbs that have been borrowed into English and appear with the suffix –ing attached are considered as exclusively English. 244

Nevertheless, AF preposition pur exerts some kind of influence over the verb insofar as the latter always appears inflected in its gerund form, respecting so the English syntactic rule. In a similar vein, (53) and (54) also ignore di Sciullo et al.’s constraint, since the complements of the verb and the verb itself are not in the same language (di Sciullo et al. 1986: 8). Nevertheless, this last aspect of the government constraint is not always violated though:

(55) De William Gronde pur spekyng whan the M. knokid þe mallet – i d. “From William Grond, for speaking when the Master knocked the mallet – 1d.” (MWA 1446-47: f. 152v).

The switching in (55) corresponds to another variant (long combination of constituents) from this same sub-stage (§ V.1.2.2.2.5). Furthermore, on many occasions, when lexical verbs are switched, they are also part of independent clauses revealing a matrix language turnover and being classified as BS variants:178

(56) And so Muschamp hadde it – xl s. “And Muschamp had thus bought it – 40s.” (MWA 1447-48: f. 155v).

(57) Here begynnyth theire discharge: “Here begin their disbursements:” (MWA 1448-49: f. 159v).

V.1.2.2.2.1.1. Distribution across time

The switching of ME single verbs in AF entries of the MWA is rare (5 out of 619 [0.81%]). As can be seen in Figure 5.9 below, instances tend to concentrate in three years of the 1440s (2 in 1442-43, 2 in 1444-45, and 1 in 1445-46); therefore, the use of switched single verbs is not really widespread among the mercer-wardens responsible for keeping the MWA. These results contrast strongly with the high frequency of verbal insertion elsewhere. Verbs are the second or third largest group of switched elements in some English/French data (Poplack et al. 1988) and also in studies

178 It is important to note here that although a lexical verb in English is the key factor for determining a change in the matrix language (and the occurrence being classified as BS), the verb must be in a finite form. All instances of single lexical verb in the MWA comprise verbs in non-finite forms, and this is why they belong to the MO sub-stage rather than to BS. 245

dealing with more divergent languages (e.g. Kabiye and Ewe in Essizewa [2007: 39]).

Figure 5.9. Lexical verbs in the MWA

In the MWA, this position is occupied by the verbal noun (54 out of 619 [8.72%]). In a couple of studies dealing with Japanese/English contact, Nishimura (1985) and Azuma (1997) show that verbal nouns also score much higher than lexical verbs. According to Martin (1975 in Azuma 1997: 6), the main reason for these figures is that verbs (English, in that case) are recategorised into nouns via the verbal noun construction (–suru suffix). A similar process might have happened in the MWA, and switched verbal noun constructions might have replaced the switching of ME lexical verbs.

Figure 5.10. Lexical verbs and verbal nouns in the MWA during the 1440s

However, as displayed in Figure 5.10 above, verbal nouns do not always act as substitutes for lexical verbs. It is relevant to see how in fiscal years from 1440-41 to 1449-50 when ME lexical verbs appear (1442-43, 1444-45, and 1445- 46), verbal nouns score even higher than in years when lexical verbs are absent. 246

V.1.2.2.2.2. Noun in genitive + noun

The so-called Saxon genitive is included as a variant in the MO sub-stage since this synthetic pattern is considered to behave more like a function word, and often alternates with the analytic of-phrase constructions in order to express the same meaning of possession. As a matter of fact, Hundt (1998: 42-3) mentions its orthographic separation from the root as one of the features that makes the Saxon genitive a not very prototypical inflectional morpheme. According to Quirk et al. (1985: 322-5), the strongest conditioning factor on the choice between the two allomorphs revolves around what he calls gender scale; proper names, proper nouns, and collective nouns as in (58) and (59) are more likely to occur with the s-genitive:

(58) Memorandum, receu de Alyce Corsmaker pur un fyn pur entrer en Sylkwommannes craft – vi s. viii d. “Memorandum, received from Alice Corsmaker for a fee for admission to the Silkwomen’s craft – 6s. 8d.” (MWA 1420-21: f. 78v bis).

(59) Preestes salaryes: “Priests’ salaries:” (MWA 1448-49: f. 159v).

Nevertheless, as can be seen in (60), all kinds of nouns seem to inflect for the genitive morpheme in ME:

(60) Item, pur xii pater nosters bedes pur torcheholders – vi d. “Item, for 12 rosaries for the torch-bearers – 6d.” (MWA 1422-23: f. 83r).

As a matter of fact, whereas of-phrases made their first appearance in ME, s-genitive used to be generalised to all genders and numbers before (Crisma and Gianollo 2006: 73). Therefore, there seems not to be any clear-cut factor predicting the choice between these two constructions in the MWA.

V.1.2.2.2.2.1. Distribution across time

N in Gen+N instances are not frequently switched; the whole amount only reaches 6 out of 619 switched tokens (0.97%). As can be observed in Figure 5.11, 247

the 6 instances are scattered through four different decades, stretching from 1400-10 to 1440-50:

Figure 5.11. N in Gen+N variants in the MWA

Even though this may point to a more or less widespread switching of this constituent among different mercer-wardens, its low frequency does not permit any definite conclusions to be drawn. Nonetheless, it is important to notice that N in Gen+N is one of the first variants of the MO sub-stage to be switched (1404-05) and the only one, together with long combinations of constituents, until 1427-28. Furthermore, 3 out of 4 (75%) MO variants appearing a. 1427-28 are N in Gen+N. Despite a promising beginning (100% in 1404-05 and 1420- 21), after these earliest attestations, occurrences drop dramatically, and switched genitive ends up playing a residual role in the MWA.

V.1.2.2.2.3. Determiner + noun

AF and ME have parallel internal order in nominal groups without adjectives: Det+N. In both languages, determiners (articles, demonstratives, possessives, and quantifiers) normally function as nominal pre-adjacents as well as heads (this latter function with the exception of the article). Although similarities between AF and ME Det+N constructions seem to stop here insofar as some AF determiners (but not ME) undergo (i) gender agreement, (ii) plural formation, and (iii) contractions when required, a closer look at the MWA reveals that variability in AF agreement is extremely common in mixed-language business writing (L. Wright 2002):

248

(61) Item, ils soi chargent ové le dette due de Johan Cosham pur le rent – x li. “Item, they declare the debt due from John Cosham for the rent - £10” (MWA 1403-04: f. 38v).

(62) De John Elys De Hugh Joye et } l’aprentices de Geffrey Boleyn – iii li. De John Syute “From John Elys From Hugh Joye and } the apprentices of Geoffrey Boleyn – £3 From John Syute” (MWA 1452-53: f. 175v).

(63) Item, pur fasoun de les endentures pur shoppe Johan Bostoun – xiiii d. “Item, for the drawing up of the indentures for John Boston’s shop – 14d.” (MWA 1417-18: f. 73r).

Despite a higher degree of similarity between languages, Det+N mixes occur in the present corpus with low, really insignificant, frequency. (64) is the only instance found in the MWA:

(64) Item, paié as prestes et clerkes de Seint Thomas pur eir masse de requiem et dirige pur nous freres – x s. “Item, paid to the priests and clerks of St Thomas’s for their requiem mass and obit for the fraternity – 10s.” (MWA 1446-47: f. 154r).179

If whole Det+N switches are rare in the MWA,180 the occurrence of ME single determiners is inexistent (cf. Poplack 1981: 175). In Det+N constructions from the MWA, the most switched constituent is the noun (Pfaff 1979: 304, 308-9; D. Sankoff and Poplack 1981: 33-4).

V.1.2.2.2.4. Prepositional sequence

In this section, all sequences of switched words appearing adjacent and/or depending syntactically on ME prepositions are classified. It is important to notice that although literature shows that prepositions such as with, through, or in do participate in CS (e.g. Pandit 1990; Mahootian 1993; Myers-Scotton 1993a; Bentahila and E. Davies 1995), the data in the MWA do not include any single preposition switching.

179 Possessive eir may be a shortened form of ME third-person plural genitive þeir/their. 180 Nait M’Barek and D. Sankoff (1988) do not consider switched Det+N as instances of CS but as a separate category of language mixture called insertion. Wentz and McClure (1976) even claim Det+N switches to be ungrammatical. 249

(65) En primes, ils sount chargez in argent seke a eux deliveré per lour predecessours que furent gardeins de la mercery in l’an proschein xx avant, come appiert in le pé de lour accompt – iiii v li. xvii s. vi d. “Firstly, they declare the ready money handed over to them by their predecessors who were wardens of the Mercers’ mistery in the immediately preceding year, as appears at the foot of their account - £85 17s. 6d.” (MWA 1442-43: f. 140v).

In (65), preposition in is always surrounded by non-English terms.181 However, these cases of (syntactically) isolated in have been excluded from the study insofar as this preposition is common to both ME and BL, and it is not completely clear whether the variant in the accounts comes from the acrolectal varieties or from the basilectal variety. Isolated place names, proper names, and proper nouns have not been included in our corpus either; only when being part of prepositional groups they are taken into consideration.

(66) Item, of Robert Eburton – ii s. “Item, from Robert Eburton – 2s.” (MWA 1448-49: f. 158r).

(67) Item, to Westmynster – xx s. “Item, to Westminster – 20s.” (MWA 1448-49: f. 160r).

(66) and (67) are only some examples of switched prepositional groups that can be found in the MWA. (68) and (69) are two more instances:

(68) Item, pur divers costes faites in reparacions per William Rumbold en le meson de Thomas Worthynge a le Pye, come appert per les parcelles en le papir des rememberaunces, summa – xxx s. xi d. “Item, for various costs incurred on repairs by William Rumbold at Thomas Worthing’s house in the Pye, as appears by the individual items set out in the paper memorandum book, total – 30s. 11d.” (MWA 1435-36: f. 122v).

(69) Item, for iiii lokkes – ii s. viii d. “Item, for 4 locks – 2s. 8d.” (MWA 1448-49: f. 160v).

Whereas in (68) locative preposition in is followed by a single noun

(reparacions), in (69) purpose preposition for is complemented by a nominal group (iiii lokkes). Once again, these switches violate Joshi’s (1985) constraint on closed-class words, but at the same time comply with others, such as di

181 In is visually surrounded by the term mercery but is not syntactically dependent on it, being the latter the decisive factor for linking constituents (pp. 192-3). 250

Sciullo et al.’s (1986) government constraint, as well as with Poplack’s (1979) equivalence constraint, since prepositional groups in AF and ME are structurally parallel: preposition + nominal group.182 As in the previous examples syntactically dependent and surrounding constituents belong to AF exclusively, the mix does not go beyond the prepositional group. However, prepositions and/or preposition + nominal group constructions are often preceded by words labelled both as AF and ME:

(70) Item, ils sount chargés ovesqe le rente perteinaunt a le dite mister del mercery pur un entier an, c’est assavoir pur le rente del Crowne in Weste Chepe qe amounte per an, come apperte per le rentale del dite mercery – summa – xix li. “Item, they declare the rent-monies pertaining to the said Mercers’ mistery for one whole year, i.e. for the rent of the Crown in West Cheap, which amounts per year, as appears by the said mistery’s rental, to a total of – £19.” (MWA 1437-38: f. 129r).

(71) Item, ils sount chargés ovesqe un tenement in Sevenhode Lan qe amounte per l’an, come appert per la dite rentale del mercery – summa – v li. vi s. viii d. “Item, they declare the rent from a tenement in Sevenhode Lane, which amounts per year, as appears by the said mistery’s rental, to a total of – £5 6s. 8d.” (MWA 1437-38: f. 129r).

(72) Cestez sount lez costagez faictz sur le plee et assise recoveré envers le Priour de Seint Bartholomewe in West Smythfeld de Loundres, c’est assavoire : “These are the costs incurred on the plea and assise won against the Priour of St Bartholomew in West Smythfield in London, i.e.:” (MWA 1442-43: f. 142v).

(73) Item, ils demaundent allowaunce pur vacacion in le mesme – xix s. vi d. “Item, they ask for allowance for vacancies in the same – 19s. 6d.” (MWA 1447-48: f. 156v).

On these occasions, I have decided to consider the whole sequence of dependent words as switched to ME. The factor of syntactic interdependence between the constituents has to be highlighted. Combinations without this close relationship like apprentices in in (74) have been left out of the corpus:

(74) Item, ils sount chargés pur issues de apprentices in lour accompt, c’est assavoir : “Item, they declare for the issues of apprentices, in their account, i.e.:” (MWA 1447-48: f. 154v).

182 AF articles can be contracted when combined with the preposition though. 251

V.1.2.2.2.4.1. Distribution across time

One of the features of later business writing is a preponderance of prepositional groups in a move from synthetic inflection to analyticity (L. Wright 2002: 479- 80). This is mirrored by the MWA through the presence of mixed prepositional sequences especially from the second half of the accounts.

Figure 5.12. Prepositional sequences in the MWA

As seen in Figure 5.12, most tokens of this variant (30 out of 31 [96.77%]) occur from 1430.183 Prepositional sequences go from not appearing in the first half of the MWA to become the fifth most switched category from 1427-28. According to the move towards analyticity, a gradual increase of ME prepositional sequences with the passage of time is expected in the data. And it does occur from 1420-30 until 1440-50, when a peak is reached (17 tokens). But from then onwards, figures fall down dramatically (3 tokens in 1450-60).

V.1.2.2.2.5. Long combination of constituents

There are different types of combinations of constituents coded under this category. Instances range from fragments with subordinated clauses ([75] and [76]) to fragments with consecutive phrases, and among these, especially consecutive prepositional groups ([77] and [78]):

(75) Item, ils soy chargent de une somme de divers persones beyng absent fro dirigez, ridyng & sommouns, com piert per i bille – xxxvii s. x d.

183 The token from 1420-30 occurs in 1429-30. 252

“Item, they declare a sum from various people who were absent from funerals, processions, and assemblies, as appears by a list – 37s. 10d.” (MWA 1428-29: f. 99r).

(76) Item, de luy a rest of his rekenyng, þe which was graunt to a wyndowe making of þe yeld halle chapelle – vi li. “Item, from him, a remaining balance of his account, the which was a grant for making a window in the Guildhall chapel – £6.” (MWA 1447-48: f. 156r).

(77) Item, a Richard Lyndesey for writyng of diverses suertez for John Wareyn – ii s. “Item, to Richard Lyndsey for writing various sureties for John Warren – 2s.” (MWA 1433-34: f. 114r).

(78) Item, de John Roo for a rest in his hand of cloth and ray – xxv s. “Item, from John Roo for a remainder in his hands of plain cloth and striped cloth – 25s.” (MWA 1447-48: f. 156r).

These instances diverge from each other both quantitatively and qualitatively, both in form and in number, but all of them can be categorised as intrasentential switching, i.e. the switch (to ME, in this case) occurs within the sentence (§ II.2.1.1.1, p. 70). It is to be clarified again that accounting entries do not act as boundaries delimiting intrasentential and intersentential switching. In the MWA, many whole entries like (79) and (80) merely consist of verbless combinations of words and phrases, and they have not been classified as intersentential:

(79) De Richaert Heynes jadis l’aprentis de John Harowe – ii s. Summa – xxii s.

Dyvers fynes & bequestes: De Herry Lytelton pur ceo q’il achate son liveray a sa pleaser et non pas de nous – iii s. iiii d. “From Richard Haynes formerly the apprentice of John Harrow – 2s. Total – 22s.

Various fines, fees, and bequests: From Harry Littleton, for buying his livery as he liked and not from us – 3s. 4d.” (MWA 1452-53: f. 176r).

(80) Item, de Thomas Porter jadis l’aprentis de John Stokton – ii s. Summa – xl s.

Entrees of shopholders: En primez, ressu de William Fyncham – xii d. “Item, from Thomas Porter formerly the apprentice of John Stockton – 2s. Total – 40s. 253

Admission of shopholders: Firstly, received from William Fyncham – 12d.” (MWA 1457-58: f. 190r).

As clarified above (p. 244 fn. 178), the presence of switched main finite lexical verbs within independent sentences in account entries is the differentiating factor between intrasentential and intersentential switching and, at the same time, between MO and BS sub-stages.

V.1.2.2.2.5.1. Distribution across time

Long combinations of ME constituents begin to occur in the MWA from 1400- 10. It constitutes the first category to be switched in the MWA other than the single noun. It is noticeable, and in a way expected, to see how this variant is almost inexistent a. 1427-28 (1 token in 1400-01); the situation changes completely from this date. As can be observed in Figure 5.13, tokens appear on an inconsistent basis from 1420-30 to 1450-60:

Figure 5.13. Long combinations of constituents in the MWA

The evolution of this variant is very similar to what happens in the other large-sized intrasentential variants (Adj+N/N+Adj, N Adj+N, N in Gen+N, Det+N, prepositional sequence, and independent clause). Like N in Gen+N and Adj+N/N+Adj, long combination of constituents follow a trend with ups and downs (33 tokens in 1420-30, 3 in 1430-40, 110 in 1440-50, and 3 in 1450-60). In addition, like all the large-sized variants, long combination of constituents reaches a peak in the 1440s; however, while Adj+N/N+Adj and N Adj+N 254

manage to maintain their scores a decade later, the rest of variants drop dramatically in 1450-60. Despite this shortage, long combination of constituents is by far the most switched category of the MO sub-stage (150 out of 193 instances [77.72%]), and the second overall (150 out of 619 tokens [24.23%]). ME long combinations are present in five decades, but 90.67% of their occurrences (136 out of 150) tend to be concentrated in only three fiscal years (1427-28, 1447-48, and 1448-49). In Poplack (1979) and Berk-Seligson (1986), the results of large-sized intrasentential constituents are compared with those of small-sized constituents. Transported into this dissertation, their classification gives the following results:

Table 5.2. Number of intrasentential variants by size in the MWA

Small-sized intrasentential variants Single noun 281 Verbal noun 54 Lexical verb 5 Adverb 3 Adjective 1 344 Total (61.10%) Large-sized intrasentential variants184 Long combination of constituents 150 Prepositional sequence 31 N Adj+N 18 Adj+N/N+Adj 13 N in Gen+N 6 Det+N 1 219 Total (38.90%)

These results stand in marked contrast to Berk-Seligson’s (1986) findings, in which 98% of the intrasentential switches are small-sized constituents, and are clearly closer to those of Poplack (1979), with large-sized switches making up 40% of all intrasentential switches.

184 Independent clause has not been included in this classification since its switches are intersentential. 255

V.1.2.2.3. Before shift sub-stage

This sub-stage represents another major modification of L. Wright’s (1998b) diachronic model of mixed-language business writing. Whereas L. Wright classifies all switches trespassing the phrase boundary as MO, in this dissertation a further distinction is made between switches involving phrases and dependent clauses (intrasentential), and those where sentences and independent clauses are switched (intersentential) (Myers-Scotton 1993a; Schendl 1997: 56, 2000/03: 306-7). Switches like (81) and (82) are not grouped together, even if both (i) imply the switching of a long string of words, and (ii) occupy a whole account entry:

(81) Item, the forseid wardens demaunden alowaunce of a certein somme of mony be hem paied unto William Estfeld, Mayr of Londone, for divers costes & expenses be hym done in þe tyme of a parlement holden at Westm’ the xx day of Septembre anno viiiº ti Henrici vi , as for remedy & withstondyng of grete offence done a3ens a statute maad of long tyme passed in takyng of apprentices, summa – iii li. vi s. viii d. “Item, the aforesaid wardens ask for allowance for a certain sum of money paid by them to William Estfeld, Mayor of London, for various costs and expenses incurred by him at the time of a Parliament held at Westminster on 20 September of the year 8 Henry VI, in obtaining remedy for and opposing the great offence done against a statute made a long time ago about the talking on of apprentices, total – £3 6s. 8d.” (MWA 1429-30: f. 104r).

(82) Item, of John Skele apprentice of John Brodde þe xvii day of August – ii s. “Item, from John Skele apprentice of John Brodde, on the 17th of August – 2s.” (MWA 1448-49: f. 158r).

Whereas switch in (81) is classified as BS, (82) belongs to the MO sub- stage. The differentiating factor is nothing related to the size of the switch but to the presence of a switched main finite verb (demaunden). Other instances of BS variants are exemplified in (83), (84), and (85):

(83) Hewe Wych paied also for brekyng of the ordenaunce and for rydyng out in dyvers places – xx s. “Hugh Wiche also paid for infringement of the ordinance and for riding out to various places – 20s.” (MWA 1427-28: f. 94v).

(84) Item, so ther is dewe behynde of the obligacion – xv li. “Item, therefore there remains still to pay of this bond – £15.” (MWA 1447-48: f. 156r). 256

(85) Item, spent in smale costes by Thomas Steelle – xv d. “Item, spent on petty expenses by Thomas Steel – 15d.” (MWA 1448-49: f. 161r).

All these instances belong to the BS sub-stage since ME finite verbs appear. Main verbs in sentences are often elided though; consequently, it is not always possible to determine the language of the main verbal form. Nevertheless, if in complex sentences like (86) and (87) the main verb of the second independent clause is switched to ME, this switch is counted as a token of the BS sub-stage.

(86) De Thomas Gille pur dishobesaunce a lez wardeins and for þat Thomas Bertelot, his prentis, be ii 3eer was not bounde, presentid ne entrid – iii s. iiii d. “From Thomas Gille for disobedience to the wardens and because Thomas Bertelot, his apprentice, was not bound, presented, nor admitted for 2 years – 3s. 4d.” (MWA 1429-30: f. 102v).

(87) De John Litelton for he wold not goo to Gravesend to huyre soldeours – vi s. viii d. “From John Littleton for he did not wish to go to Gravesend to hire soldiers – 6s. 8d.” (MWA 1446-47: f. 153r).

Furthermore, in (86) and (87) the switched independent clauses are introduced by ME coordinating conjunctions (and, for). This complies with Gumperz’s (1976: 34) claim that conjunctions must be in the language of the second of two conjoined sentences:

and she was working. I was reading a book { *and she was working.185

but I couldn’t. I wanted to stop smoking { *but I couldn’t.

because his wife was at work. John stayed at home { *because his wife was at work.

The syntax of sentence conjunction is completely parallel in AF and ME, what enables CS. Even if in (86) and (87), constituents of the first sentence

185 Underscores indicate switch to the other language. 257

belong to AF, cases where these constituents are ME have also been included as BS instances:

(88) Item, of Geffrey Boleyn for a fyne for cause Thomas Grene, chapman, snarlid with ware here in London and it was attachid & brought afore þe Chamberleyn and he was sworn þat he shuld hele ne snarle no more – xiii s. iiii d. “Item, from Geoffrey Boleyn for a fine because Thomas Green, chapman, was hawking goods here in London, and they were confiscated and brought before the Chamberlain, and he had to take an oath that he would not practice concealment and deceit ever again – 13s. 4d.” (MWA 1447-48: f. 156r).

de (89) Item, of John Petite þe iii day of May for he entred a pleynt upon William Olyver, mercer – xx s. “Item, from John Petit on the 3rd of May, for having brought a complaint against William Oliver, mercer – 20s.” (MWA 1448- 49: f. 158v).

Following Joshi’s (1985) notion of asymmetry, I also assert that there is always a language, that Myers-Scotton (1993a) terms “matrix language”, which dominates each sentence in the MWA. Not only is the presence of the switched verb of any independent clause in a sentence a key factor in determining whether the variant belongs to the MO or to the BS sub-stages; the language into which this conjugated verb is switched also serves to establish the matrix language. Thus, my study concurs with those other researchers where the matrix language is identified on the basis of the language of the verb or inflectional phrase (Klavans 1983; Treffers-Daller and van den Hauwe 1990; Treffers-Daller 1991, 1993; McConvell and Meakins 2005). This does not mean that verbless entries such as (82) have no matrix language; in these cases belonging to the Y+MA and MO sub-stages, French (or Latin) is presupposed to be the dominant matrix language. In the BS sub-stage, in turn, English emerges as the main language. The relevance of the BS sub-stage must be emphasised at this point, since it also implies the beginning of a shift in the dominance of the interacting languages of the MWA. A description of the process by which the two participating languages swap roles has been proposed by Myers-Scotton (1998) through her matrix language turnover hypothesis. This dissertation assumes the scenario where matrix language turnover is seen as a step towards LS. BS 258

represents the last CS sub-stage in the transition from LM of AF (and BL) to LS to SE in the MWA.

V.1.2.2.3.1. Distribution across time

Independent clauses and sentences are the third most switched category in the MWA (56 out of 619 [9.05%]). In spite of this, tokens concentrate in only two decades (1420-30 and 1440-50) with an upward trend:

Figure 5.14. BS variants in the MWA

Furthermore, BS variants appear in a limited number of 6 fiscal years (1423-24, 1427-28, 1429-30, and 1446-49). It seems relevant to notice that, except for the first year (1423-24), English independent clauses occur in the same years as one variant of the MO sub-stage: long combination of constituents. This fact may pinpoint a close relationship between both variants on the part of the account-keepers; mercer-wardens who switch long combinations of constituents appear to introduce English sentences as well. L. Wright (1998b, 2002) traces a stronger link between all MO and BS variants; actually, she groups both stages together since “switching from language to language in discrete entries is a phenomenon that often accompanies moribund passages of business mixed-language” (L. Wright 2002: 476-7). To her, English sentences and function words are part of Dorian’s (1978, 1981) tip, or sudden disruption of the system. In her analysis of the MWA, L. Wright (2002) does not provide a specific date for the tip but collects examples showing that by 1429-30 English had already transcended boundaries. 259

If a look is taken at my results globally and according to her test, the system would begin to be disrupted in 1400-01, since the first after-tip variant (long combinations of constituents) appears then in the MWA. A priori, such a statement maintaining the disruption of the system at such an early date only because 1 MO variant occurs in the accounts of one single mercer-warden seems too ambitious. Instead, if attention is paid to those periods when the sum of MO and BS variants scores higher than Y+MA variants, this overtaking might hint a possible disruption. Table 5.3 displays the results of this comparison:

Table 5.3. Fiscal years with more MO + BS variants than Y+MA variants

F. year Y+MA MO + BS 1404-05 0 1 1420-21 0 1 1427-28 1 35 1437-38 3 4 1438-39 0 2 1447-48 13 29 1448-49 3 139

Only in 7 fiscal years, MO and BS variants score higher than their Y+MA counterparts. In addition, only in two periods, some of these years are consecutive (1437-39 and 1447-49). The period from 1447-48 to 1448-49 is particularly interesting insofar as the first LS to SE occurs right after it (1449- 50); consequently, the mixed-language system could be said to be disrupted at that time. However, the possible disruption does not appear to continue long term since in all fiscal years of 1450-60, Y+MA variants prevail again over both MO and BS counterparts. The lack of an overall long-term trend in these figures point to a process of shift to SE where (i) only a few mercer-wardens seem to be leading a proper transition period, and (ii) the rest of the MC is far from following this change. In a similar vein, the results of BS variants also make it clear that the turnover of French and Latin as matrix languages before LS is nothing widespread at the MC’s level. In no fiscal year, BS scores higher than the rest of variants. Therefore, the dominance of English as the new matrix language seems 260

to be restricted to the initiative of a few individuals, and being optimistic, of a group within the MC.

V.1.2.3. Language shift stage

The shift from AF and BL to SE as the official language of record of the MWA marks the end of a prolonged stage where CS between the basilect and the acrolectal varieties is an essential part of it. As for the business accounts, LS to SE takes place when the opening of the fiscal year by the incoming wardens is kept in English, replacing then French and Latin as the official language of this domain. (90) and (91) illustrate this shift:

(90) This is the acounte made by William Cantlow, John Haroo, Thomas Muschamp, and Robert Halom, wardeynes of the felaschippe of the mercery fro the fest of Saint John Baptist in the yere of oure lord God Ml CCCCº xlix unto the said fest nexte folowyng than beyng the 3ere of oure lord God Ml CCCCº L, and in the 3ere of Kyng Henry the sixt after the conquest xxviiiti “This is the account rendered by William Cantelowe, John Harrow, Thomas Muschamp, and Robert Hallum, wardens of the Mercers’ fellowship, from the feast of St John the Baptist in the year of our Lord 1449 until the next following said feast day, in the year of our Lord 1450, and in the year 28 Henry VI” (MWA 1449-50: f. 162r).

(91) This is thacompte of Rauff Verney, aldirman, John Burton, John e Stokton, & John Marchalle, merciers & custoses of þ same, for an hole yeer at þe fest of Midsomer the yeer of Kyng Herry þe Sixte xxxviiti “This is the account of Ralph Verney, alderman, John Burton, John Stokton, and John Marshall, mercers and wardens of the same, for a whole year up to the feast of Midsummer 37 Henry VI” (MWA 1458-59: f. 192r).

1449-50 in (90) constitutes the first year of the MWA to be shifted to SE. In turn, in 1458-59 (91) a second LS occurs after a six-year gap (1452-58), when AF regains its role as main language of record. The MC is the only London livery company which continues to use AF as the official language of its accounts until such a late date (1457-58). Even though the term “moribund” is widely employed in the study, when AF and BL cease to be used in the MWA and, consequently, lose completely their function in the accounts of livery companies, the former acrolectal 261

varieties do not die out altogether. Whereas AF continues to be used in the legal register, BL does it in the context of Church (L. Wright 1998b: 115). Text types of business accounts as the MWA occur in many places around Britain, amounting so to a kind of proto-standard (L. Wright 1998b: 114). When mercantile manuscripts progressively shift to English, they contribute in a way to the shaping of the standardisation of eModE like other text categories (L. Wright 2000b, 2000c, 2001, 2005).

V.1.2.3.1. Variation across time

As expected, SE as main language of record proliferates in the last fiscal years. From 1448-49 to the end of the MWA (1463-64), i.e. 16 fiscal years, 9 years (56.25%) are shifted to SE.186 Two periods can be distinguished in Figure 5.15:

Figure 5.15. Fiscal years with CS and LS from 1448-49 to 1463-64

On the one hand, a first period going from 1448-49 to 1455-56, where the first shift comprising 3 fiscal years (1449-52) occurs, is still dominated by years with CS (62.50% against 37.50%). On the other hand, in 1456-64 the situation is reversed, and LS (75%) scores higher than years with CS (25%); this is due primarily to the second LS, which is longer than the previous shift (1458-64). There also exists a marked contrast between both shifts. Whereas in the first one (1449-1452) the shift follows a gradual dominance of English pointing even to a disruption of the system, in 1458-59 the shift seems much more abrupt. In fact, from 1452-53 to 1457-58, AF dominance is back both in absolute and in relative terms. For instance, the number of switched tokens is not as high

186 Exactly like AM, tokens in LS are counted yearly. 262

as in the fiscal years preceding the first shift (especially 1447-49). In addition, seldom do switched MO variants occur (23.08% in 1457-58 being the highest), and BS variants are even completely absent. AF regains ground in such a way that CS levels are as high as in earlier decades, with variants from the MO and BS sub-stages playing an insignificant role. LS to SE represents the unavoidable destination the business accounts of the London livery companies are to reach. In the case of the MWA, (i) the period of giving way to incipient SE is not a straightforward changeover but a process full of back and forth movements (L. Wright 2002: 478), and (ii) the two shifts to SE are quite different from each other. Whereas the (1449-50) shift succeeds a period of growing Anglicisation in the accounts, nothing related to CS levels predicts that the second shift would eventually occur in 1458-59. What are the causes of the use of AF enduring longer in the MWA than in the accounts of the rest of London livery companies has been previously debated in the literature (Creaton 1976: i, 22). The analysis in this dissertation does not try to give a specific answer to such a complex question; it tries to shed light on part of the problem and constitutes then only one step towards that more ambitious goal.

263

V.2. MERCER-WARDENS’ SOCIAL INFORMATION AND LINGUISTIC USAGES

In this sub-chapter, I analyse to what extent the mixed-language practices of all the mercer-wardens who keep the MWA are correlated with their generation, their socio-centric network scores, and their contact with English through their ego-centric ties. In order to do so, an individualisation of the accounts through a suggestion of authorship is previously done. The analysis in itself is organised around this authorship attribution, insofar as innovators, early adopters, and language maintainers are completely identified in the first place, and patterns in their respective behaviours are later extrapolated to the rest of informants.

V.2.1. THE QUESTION OF AUTHORSHIP

Every 24th of June from 1390-91 to 1463-64, the four mercers leaving office after their one-year term were required to render formal accounts for all monies received and disbursed on behalf of the MC (Jefferson 2009: 18).187 As a collaborative work, the MWA were signed and handed over jointly by the four wardens; consequently, important doubts about their precise shares of the accounts arise. Taking for granted that the scribe limited himself to writing fair copies out of scattered slips of paper, a clear-cut authorship cannot be attributed to the different sections or to the switched constituents. Seldom are entries in the MWA clearly autographed; in Table 5.4, a list is provided:

Table 5.4. Fiscal years and authors of the autographed entries in the MWA

F. year Author(s) 1437-38 Onehand 1438-39 Wiche 1439-40 Dunton 1440-41 Goodson 1441-42 Sturgeon, Thornhill, and Steel 1442-43 Fielding and Burton

187 These formal accounts are also called “þacompte of þe Halle” (RWA 1459-60: f. 28v) to distinguish them from “property and estates accounts” or RWA from c. 1442 onwards (Jefferson 2009: 2). 264

Either individually, in couples or in groups, the only period when a number of wardens are used to signing their entries runs from 1437-38 to 1442- 43; a couple of examples can be seen below:

(92) Reparacions : Item, ils demaundent allouance pur reparacions faitz en le mesme an sur les avantditz tenementes pertenantz al mercerie come appiert pleinement per l’accompt du dit William Rumbold prové per moy Thomas Dounton les jour et an suisditz – xv li. xiii d. “Repairs: Item, they ask for allowance for a decrease in rents during the same year, in the said tenements belonging to the Mercers’ mistery, as appears by William Rumbold’s account, approved by myself, Thomas Dunton the aforesaid day and year – £15 13d.” (MWA 1439-40: f. 135v).

(93) Reparacions : Item, ils demandent allouance pur reparacions faitz en lan suisdit sur les avantditz tenementz pertenantz al mercerie, come appiert pleinement per l’accompt du dit William Rumbold prové per nous Johan Sturgeon, William Thornhille, et Thomas Stele – xlv s. i d. “Repairs: Item, they ask for allowance for repairs carried out in the aforesaid year on the aforesaid tenements belonging to the Mercers’ mistery, as appears in full by the said William Rumbold’s account, approved by us, John Sturgeon, William Thornhill, and Thomas Steel – 45s. 1d.” (MWA 1441-42: f. 139v).

The practice of autographing manuscripts is sometimes useful to assign switched constituents to particular wardens. (94) illustrates it perfectly:188

(94) Rent decrece: Item, ils demandent allouance pur rent decrece en mesme l’an en les ditz tenementz pertenantz al mercerie, come appiert per l’accompt du dit William prové per moy le dit Johan [Goodson] les jour et an avant escriptz – vii li. xi s. “Rent decrease: Item, they ask for allowance for a decrease in rents during the same year from the said tenements belonging to the Mercers’ mistery, as appears by the said William’s account, approved by myself, the said John [Goodson], the aforesaid day and year – £7 11s.” (MWA 1440-41: f. 137v).

Beyond any doubt, these examples are taken into consideration in my later sociolinguistic analysis; unfortunately for this dissertation, this practice is only carried out for six fiscal years. An individualisation of the accounts is

188 (45) in p. 239 also exemplifies this. 265

necessary since a real SN analysis seems feasible only in the third basic type of data identified by Bergs (2006: 51):

1. Data that is completely “un-social”: speakers/scribes are unknown, social context cannot be established. 2. Data that can be ascribed to certain groups or locales: the social context can only be established at some macro-level over and above the individual. Social data on the groups and/or locales is available. 3. Data that can be ascribed to single speakers/scribes, whose social data are (more or less) available, i.e. the data can be “individuated”.

In the two other cases, it is either extremely difficult, if not impossible, or only possible in a metaphorical fashion. In this research, I resort to (i) Hope’s (1994) SHLE, and (ii) textual evidence available in the MWA for the identification of the authors of the accounts.

V.2.2. LINGUISTIC INNOVATORS AND EARLY ADOPTERS

Due to their critical role, innovators have traditionally received special attention in SN research (Granovetter 1973, 1983; L. Milroy 1980/87: 202-3); and this dissertation is no exception to this trend. Despite the authorship problem described above, an approximation to the identification of who is actually responsible for introducing in the MWA the first mixed category of each variable and stage seems feasible. Every mixed instance occurs in a fiscal year with four mercer-wardens in office; consequently, the chances of success arise considerably from 0.69% (1 in 145) to 25% (1 in 4).189 The full list is displayed below:

Table 5.5. Wardens in office and earliest mixed category for each (sub-)stage

Stage F. year Wardens Y+MA 1392-93 Sheringham L. Andrew MO 1400-01 More R. Everard Marchford Whatley BS 1423-24 Fauconer Edmond Osborne Prentice LS 1449-50 Cantelowe Harrow Muschamp Hallum

189 50% (1 in 2) in 1392-93 since various circumstances explained below (p. 267) impede the natural renewal of the office on Midsummer Day in 1392 and also in 1393. 266

In the first stage of the research, I try to identify those individuals who apparently behave as innovators, i.e. who, for being weakly linked with an adopting group, tend to act as a bridge through which new information, linguistic in this case, flows. Following Hope’s (1994) main postulates, if an innovation follows one of the paths indicated in Bergs’s (2006: 256) flowchart (Figure 4.1, p. 206), it is very likely that its earliest user is an innovator. Thus, the behaviour shown by early adopters must be taken into account as well. A mercer-warden’s feasible candidature for the label “innovator” will be reinforced, if the same innovation spreads through the close-knit network of one of the fellow wardens with whom the prospective innovator is weakly linked. At a further stage, I take advantage of the information provided by those mercer-wardens whose linguistic behaviour has been identified in order to (i) design their possible sociolinguistic profiles, and (ii) to extrapolate any kind of findings to the behaviour of those mercer-wardens whose profiles still remain uncertain. The ego-centric networks of the mercer-wardens in Table 5.5 above will be firstly tested so as to attain these goals.

V.2.2.1. Ego-centric networks

As developed above (pp. 202-3), the MWA provide valuable information concerning three main contacts a mercer-warden can establish with people from his social surrounding throughout his life. I test here the ego-centric ties of the hypothetical innovators from Table 5.5 with their master, their successors in office, and other fellow wardens with whom they share the wardenship office.

V.2.2.1.1. William Sheringham

In his second term as a warden (1392-93), the first Y+MA switched variant

(mommyng) of the MWA can be found (f. 12r). Already a mercer-warden in January 1385 (Sharpe 1907: 257-9 in Sutton 2005: 555), William Sheringham is mentioned in the MWA for the first time in 1391 (f. 5v), when John Woodcock elects him as his successor in office. 267

A rare situation, he serves office for three fiscal years in a row (1391-92, 1392-93, and 1393-94) since the wardens remain unchanged during this period. The reason is that the goodmen of the MC are commanded to appear before Richard II at Nottingham Castle on the day after the feast day of St John the Baptist; consequently, the MC cannot hold its assembly in proper manner at Midsummer in accordance with its ordinances and customs (MWA 1394: f. 11r). Since during 1391-92 John Organ dies and John Sibille is imprisoned, only Sheringham and Laurence Andrew remain in office and, consequently, one of them is the responsible for introducing the earliest switched variants in the MWA in 1392-93 (1 Y+MA) and 1393-94 (1 Y+MA). Charged once again to act as wardens for the next two fiscal years due to the rejection of their accounts, their successors are not elected by Sheringham and L. Andrew as usual but by communal consultation (MWA 1394: f. 13v). After these busy fiscal years,190 the admission of Sheringham’s three apprentices (John Whatley, Nicholas Hamme, and John Beston) is recorded in 1395-96 (f. 19r).191 This is Sheringham’s ego-centric network:

Figure 5.16. Sheringham’s overall and entire ego-centric network

A piece of evidence from Figure 5.16 is to be highlighted. One of his apprentices (John Whatley) is participating as a warden when the first MO variant (long combination of constituents) occurs (1400-01). Whether this might hint a relation between both mixes of different stages has to be further tested by paying special attention to the linguistic behaviour of Whatley’s apprentices.

190 Neither Sheringham nor L. Andrew will serve as wardens any more. 191 Their admissions are obviously recorded late since Whatley issues the following year (f. 21r), Beston in 1399-1400 (f. 30r), and Hamme becomes warden two fiscal years later (f. 23v). 268

V.2.2.1.2. John Whatley and William Cantelowe

John Whatley’s apprentices recorded in the MWA are the following: Richard Cof, Thomas Dale, John Grigge, William Cantelowe, Thomas Roos, and Richard Denton. Only one of them (Cantelowe) serves as a mercer-warden,192 but quite remarkably, he does it as first warden when the first LS to SE occurs (MWA 1449-50: ff. 162r-168v). To recapitulate, the earliest switched variant of the Y+MA sub-stage appears in a fiscal year when one of the mercer-wardens (William Sheringham) is strongly linked by the master-apprentice tie with another mercer-warden who serves office when the earliest MO variant occurs (John Whatley). The latter is, in turn, strongly tied with one of the four mercers in office when LS to SE happens (William Cantelowe). Apparently, there are a priori too many coincidences for a relationship apprenticeship-innovativeness to be the result of chance. I will then follow the thread of these mercer-wardens’ networks since, so far, it has shown promising results for this dissertation; the existence of a close-knit network of innovators has been pointed indeed. Figure 5.17 and Figure 5.18 below display John Whatley’s and William Cantelowe’s ego-centric networks respectively:193

Figure 5.17. Whatley’s overall ego-centric network

As mentioned right above (§ V.2.2), for these three mercer-wardens to be clearly labelled “innovators”, their linguistic influence on others must be attested. As SN research reads, weak ties are likely to be critical in transmitting innovations from one close-knit group to another. I will now check whether

192 One of Richard Whittington’s apprentices, Thomas Roos serving office in 1401-02 and 1410- 11 is his namesake. 193 Due to their high number of contacts and for reasons of clarity, connections between wardens other than ego have not been graphically represented. 269

there exist mercer-wardens, weakly linked with Sheringham, Whatley, and Cantelowe, who tend to adopt the innovation, and whose strongly tied contacts make it disseminate faster and faster.

Figure 5.18. Cantelowe’s overall ego-centric network

In the case of William Sheringham’s SN, it is very difficult to determine his weakly tied contacts’ reaction to the innovation since half of them (John Organ and John Sibille) had to leave office before its time due to fatal illness and imprisonment, and none of their apprentices serves office. As for Laurence Andrew, it is not clear at all whether he transmits the innovation to his unknown master, or one of his apprentices follows the adoption since in the fiscal years in which Richard Aylmer (L. Andrew’s apprentice) serves office (1411-12 and 1421-22) the switching may be equally allotted to other fellow wardens. At least, L. Andrew’s other apprentice becoming a warden (Richard Harper in 1410-11) is certain not to have mixed at all since in his only year in office AM is present. Concerning Sheringham’s last tie (John Woodcock), even harder obstacles for identification are found as (i) the innovation is introduced after his contact with Sheringham, (ii) his master is not known, and (iii) none of his apprentices serves office. In any case, Woodcock himself seems not to follow suit, since in his later terms as a warden (1390-91, 1397-98, and 1407-08), either AM prevails or the number of switched extracts is less than 4 (1), what points to him as a non-switcher, even more if one of his fellow wardens is John Whatley (as in 1407-08).

V.2.2.1.3. John Coventry and Hugh Wiche

In this fiscal year (1407-08), with John Woodcock, John Middleton I, John Whatley, and John Eton in office, several ordinances as well as some oaths 270

(other text types not analysed as deeply as the MWA in this dissertation) of the MC are kept in English for the first time (ff. A4v-A5v). At the end of this year, Whatley elects John Coventry as his successor in office (f. 47v). The next time ordinances kept in English appear occurs in 1416-17 (f. 71v), a fiscal year with J. Coventry serving office as first warden. To be honest, this is quite unlikely to be a matter of chance. This is J. Coventry’s ego-centric network:

Figure 5.19. J. Coventry’s overall ego-centric network

Two strong ties can be seen in Figure 5.19, that between John Coventry and Thomas Fauconer being particularly relevant. As a matter of fact, the English ordinances and oaths of 1407-08 are re-copied in 1423-24 (Jefferson 2009: 210 fn. 145), Fauconer being first warden after the election by J. Coventry himself. Thus, there seems to be an influence on Fauconer’s decision of copying these English documents coming from J. Coventry. This fact represents a solid evidence of both J. Coventry’s role as an early adopter and John Whatley’s role as an innovator indeed. In the case of the first LS, introduced with William Cantelowe as first warden in 1449-50, it is later maintained in 1450-51 and 1451-52 with Hugh Wiche and John Middleton II as first wardens respectively. Although Wiche’s election as warden by Cantelowe in 1450 is their first connection recorded in the MWA (f. 167r), everything points to Wiche electing previously Cantelowe at Midsummer 1445.194 The wardens’ election ceremony is not recorded either in 1451 and 1457 though, when Wiche and J. Middleton II might have elected each other for wardenship. Then, it could be said that SE as the matrix language of the MWA lasts for the fiscal years where the first wardens seem to have a close- knit relationship with each other and into which other fellow wardens can also be incorporated (§ V.2.6.3.16, pp. 367-8).

194 Cantelowe elects Wiche as his successor again in 1456 (f. 184v). 271

Even if the adoption of SE as matrix language of the MWA reaches Wiche via his strong (and not a weak) tie with Cantelowe, his role as an early adopter cannot be denied insofar as he transmits this LS to his strongly linked contacts:195

Figure 5.20. Wiche’s overall ego-centric network

His apprentice John Shelly also shifts to SE in 1463-64, William Redknap, Wiche’s fellow apprentice with John Boston, also shifts to SE in the same fiscal year as Shelly, and Thomas Dunton, a very close associate, does the same in 1450-51. So far, three innovators (Sheringham, Whatley, and Cantelowe) and two early adopters (J. Coventry and Wiche) appear to have been identified. The question of “what makes them behave linguistically this way?” unavoidably arises at this very moment; in order to answer it, two more extralinguistic factors are tested below: generation and socio-centric networks.196

V.2.2.2. Generation

In a diachronic research like this, where the process towards a complete shift to SE consists of a number of intermediate stages with ME particles increasingly appearing, an extralinguistic factor such as generation must also be taken into consideration. The different dates of birth of the mercer-wardens are expected to function as a factor affecting, at least partly, their linguistic usages. In the MWA, accounts from five different generations of mercer-wardens can be found. In Appendix 1 (pp. 399-400), the complete list of 145 mercer-

195 As a consequence, William Cantelowe’s role as an innovator is indirectly corroborated too. 196 Neither social rank nor gender have been included as significant extralinguistic factors in this analysis since all mercer-wardens are male and roughly belong to the mercantile high-middle rank. 272

wardens keeping the MWA classified by generation is displayed. Five different generations and five different stages, the results of a ranking of generations by number of wardenships served and of stages by number of tokens are exhibited in Table 5.6. At first sight, they point to a correlation mercer’s generation- mixing stage:

Table 5.6. Ranking of generations by wardenships and of stages by mixes

Generation Stage Position Number of wardenships Number of tokens Generation II Y+MA (2nd [sub-]stage) 1st 111 out of 292 (38.01%) 370 out of 619 (59.77%) Generation III MO (3rd [sub-]stage) 2nd 89 out of 292 (30.48%) 193 out of 619 (31.18%) Generation IV BS (4th [sub-]stage) 3rd 59 out of 292 (20.21%) 56 out of 619 (9.05%) Generation I AM (1st stage) 4th 24 out of 292 (8.22%) 12 fiscal years Generation V LS (5th stage) 5th 9 out of 292 (3.08%) 9 fiscal years

In the same way as mixed variants from the second Y+MA sub-stage rank first in the MWA (370 out of 619 [59.77%]), second-generation wardens dominate the MWA with 111 out of the 292 posts of mercer-warden available (38.01%).197 The same happens with the second position of MO (third sub-stage) variants and third-generation mercer-wardens, the third position of BS variants and fourth-generation wardens, the fourth position of AM and wardens from the first generation, and both LS and fifth-generation mercer-wardens ranking last. According to the pattern displayed, each generation seems to show a stronger preference for switched variants of its corresponding stage. Whereas in the accounts kept by wardens from the first generation (born a. 1359) AM must predominate, in those written by fifth-generation wardens (born p. 1420) LS must be a reality. In addition, second-generation mercer-wardens (born between 1360 and 1379) should prefer Y+MA variants, wardens born p. 1380 (third generation) must do it for MO variants, and fourth-generation wardens (born between 1400 and 1419) for variants from BS stage.

197 72 fiscal years with 4 wardenships and 2 years (1392-93 and 1393-94) with 2 wardenships make a total of 292 posts of warden. 273

At the community level, at least, it can be discerned how the more mercer-wardens from new generations serve office, the more variants from advanced switching stages occur in the MWA. But a closer look at individuated data reveals a more complex picture; exceptions to this established pattern can be immediately noticed. For instance, when it was a priori expected that innovators should introduce variants from their corresponding mixing stages, none of them actually respects this pattern. Responsible for introducing the earliest Y+MA variant (second stage), William Sheringham turns out to be a first-generation mercer-warden; John Whatley, who introduces the earliest MO sub-stage variant, is born a. 1380, and William Cantelowe, occupying office when LS (fifth stage) first occurs, belongs to the group of third-generation wardens. Quite the opposite, innovators appear to be also ahead of the linguistic change since variants introduced correspond to later stages. A similar situation happens with the introduction of BS variants in 1423- 24 insofar as this earliest fourth-stage variant is switched by either second- or third-generation mercer-wardens, as can be seen in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7. Wardens in office and mixes in 1423-24

Wardens iiFauconer iiiEdmond iiOsborne iiiPrentice Switches AM Y+MA 9 MO BS 1 LS

Concerning the early adopters, a second-generation warden like John Coventry and a third-generation warden like Hugh Wiche also adopt and transmit later variants (LS to SE in ordinances and oaths and LS in the MWA, respectively) to their contacts, whose linguistic behaviour is not conservative either and also spread variants from advanced stages (e.g. iiFauconer copying ordinances in SE, and ivShelly, ivRedknap, or iiiDunton shifting to SE). Then, there seems to be a new pattern for innovations where generation plays a role but in an unexpected way. Firstly, earliest variants of mixed- language stages are introduced by mercer-wardens ahead of the linguistic change; in addition to this, early adopters as well as their contacts seem to be also ahead of the linguistic change in progress. Previous observed facts lead me to assume that extralinguistic variables other than generation are also involved in the patterning of language mixing. 274

This is the reason why the following section focuses more on the potential role played by socio-centric networks.

V.2.2.3. Socio-centric networks

The first task here consists in calculating each individual’s network score. More specifically, the degree of membership to the speech community of those mercer-wardens whose linguistic usages have been identified in the previous sections will be measured. The NSS presented in Table 4.4 above (p. 197) will be employed in order to attain such a goal. Table 5.8 represents the socio-centric network scores for all those mercer-wardens whose linguistic behaviour has already been ascertained to some extent.

Table 5.8. Socio-centric NSS scores for innovators and early adopters

Wardens NSS score Sheringham +3 Whatley +5 Cantelowe +3 J. Coventry +2 Wiche +3

In the case of innovators, the fact that all their network scores are above 0 is to be emphasised (Sheringham’s +3, Whatley’s +5, and Cantelowe’s +3). These high scores mean a high degree of looseness in their socio-centric networks; innovators are used to interacting with people outside their close-knit networks, coming into contact with new (linguistic) items that will probably be transmitted into their original network afterwards. The same happens with early adopters’ scores; J. Coventry’s +2 and Wiche’s +3 could also be hinting a possible correlation between socio-centric network looseness and advancement in the linguistic change. Since in the previous sample only informants using English particles and scoring positively can be found, the other side of the coin also has to be tested, i.e. to see which network score wardens not switching or shifting to English have. Attention is focused on Laurence Andrew as well as Nicholas Hamme, a so-far-ignored warden. 275

On the one hand, a second-generation mercer-warden, L. Andrew is certain not to have switched in any of his three fiscal years in office (1391-92, 1392-93, and 1393-94).198 On the other hand, Sheringham’s apprentice like Whatley, Hamme serves office in 1397-98, where AM prevails. Despite being closely linked to a network of English language innovators, he does not show an especially innovative behaviour, at least in his only year in office. Here are their network scores:

Table 5.9. Socio-centric NSS scores for L. Andrew and Hamme

Wardens NSS score L. Andrew -3 Hamme -3

Their low scores (both -3) seem to point to a correlation between socio- centric network closeness and linguistic conservatism as well (even if both have had contact with English particles in their ego-centric networks). This is the only indicator which, for example, may explain why Hamme, whose profile is quite similar to Whatley’s, behaves so differently from the latter as far as mixing practices is concerned. Overall, the linguistic innovators identified so far have tended to (i) belong to the same close-knit ego-centric network, (ii) be ahead of the linguistic change by introducing variants from later stages, and (iii) score higher in their socio-centric network test. Regarding early adopters, for being weakly (or strongly, sometimes) linked with innovators’ ego-centric networks, they may spread (or not) these innovations to their close-tied contacts; if their network scores are high, the innovation is much more likely to be transmitted beyond. Finally, as for informants reluctant to CS, a negative network score may explain this conservative behaviour. With all this information collected, an attempt to reveal who is the mercer-warden responsible for introducing and adopting BS variants can be made. As seen in Table 5.7, the earliest BS variant is switched in 1423-24, with Thomas Fauconer, John Edmond, Thomas Osborne, and William Prentice in office. According to the first extralinguistic variable tested (ego-centric

198 Since the couple of Y+MA switches in his fiscal years has already been allotted to Sheringham, this automatically means that he does not switch at all. 276

network), none of them is apparently strongly linked to any of the Sheringham- Whatley-Cantelowe network; consequently, there might be an unattested link between one of these mercers and that network, or quite simply another network of innovators exists. As for their generation, either second- or third- generation wardens, all of them are equally likely to introduce the first fourth- stage switched variant insofar as in all cases, the switch would mean to be ahead of the linguistic change. Thus, the deciding factor ends up being their socio- centric network scores. Negative scores for Edmond (-1), Osborne (-4), and Prentice (-3), previous findings point to Fauconer (+2) as the so-far missing innovator, more specifically, the introducer of English independent clauses and sentences.

V.2.2.3.1. Thomas Fauconer

Mentioned above as a close associate to John Coventry and late adopter of ordinances and oaths in English, Fauconer is thought to be responsible for keeping a fine in English (MWA 1423-24: f. 84v). In the same way that apprentices from successive generations introduce variants from successive stages in the Sheringham-Whatley-Cantelowe network, Fauconer’s apprentices (ivRalph Verney and ivJohn Berby) use variants from the fifth stage; one of them (Verney) is even first warden when SE is reintroduced as the matrix language of the MWA (1458-59). Consequently, Thomas Fauconer is in all likelihood the fourth innovator. Nevertheless, it is again regrettable that, in this case, the identity of Fauconer’s master is not disclosed, and no clue is given; these data would be invaluable for this research.199 Among the members of Fauconer’s network (Figure 5.21 below), the early adopter has to be identified. The fact that Fauconer introduces the BS variant at the end of his career narrows the list of potential early adopters down to four mercer-wardens (his three fellow wardens and his successor). In previous cases, the mercer firstly adopting the innovation is weakly (or strongly) tied to the innovator, transmits it to his strongly linked contacts, and

199 A quite recent project aiming to build an online fully searchable database of apprentices and freemen of several London livery companies, the “Records of London’s Livery Companies Online” project (URL: http://www.londonroll.org) does not provide either an identity for Thomas Fauconer’s master. 277

has high network scores. Only one of the four possible early adopters fulfils every condition: William Estfeld, his successor in office in 1424-25.

Figure 5.21. Fauconer’s ego-centric network p. 1423

V.2.2.3.2. William Estfeld

Figure 5.22 depicts William Estfeld’s ego-centric network after being in contact with BS variants:

Figure 5.22. Estfeld’s ego-centric network p. 1423

Strongly linked with the innovator Fauconer (like Hugh Wiche with William Cantelowe)200 and with a network score of +2, if attention is paid to Table 5.10 below, it can be also noticed that in most fiscal years where BS variants occur, key positions in the office are held by mercer-wardens with a strong attachment to Estfeld. Henry Frowyk is first warden in 1429-30 (3 tokens) and 1448-49 (38 tokens), and Richard Rich in 1446-47 (1 token).201 With positive (Rich’s +2) or balanced (Frowyk’s 0) network scores, both of them are likely to spread the innovation beyond.

200 Fauconer and Estfeld’s tie is strong since both have already shared office in 1417-18. 201 The rest of switched tokens from BS stage appear in fiscal years whose mercer-wardens have some kind of relationship with the innovative Sheringham-Whatley-Cantelowe network (e.g. John Whatley himself in 1427-28, and Geoffrey Fielding in 1447-48). 278

Table 5.10. Wardens in office and BS variants

1427-28 Wardens iiWhatley iiiLarge iiiBatail iiPidmell Switches AM Y+MA 1 MO 29 BS 6 LS 1429-30 Wardens iiiFrowyk iiiHales iiiBoston iiiDautre Switches AM Y+MA 12 MO 4 BS 3 LS 1446-47 Wardens iiiRich iiiCotford ivReynkyn ivBaron Switches AM Y+MA 9 MO 4 BS 1 LS 1447-48 Wardens iiiFielding ivSturgeon ivVerney ivPenne Switches AM Y+MA 13 MO 22 BS 7 LS 1448-49 Wardens iiiFrowyk ivSteel ivKirkby ivLock Switches AM Y+MA 3 MO 101 BS 38 LS

Nevertheless, in Estfeld’s years as a mercer-warden (1424-25, 1428-29, 1433-34, and 1440-41) BS variants do not appear,202 i.e. Estfeld himself does not employ any BS variant. Two important questions arise then: (i) can an innovation be spred to his contacts if the supposed early adopter does not use it in his accounts?, and (ii) is this innovation simply not adopted? Both questions are left open for now.

Unless the contrary be proved, the case of Thomas Fauconer points to an innovator not coming from the Sheringham-Whatley-Cantelowe close-knit network. Thus, not all mixed variants come directly from this network of innovators. For instance, in the 1390s, Y+MA variants are switched in fiscal years where none of the mercer-wardens seems to be influenced by William Sheringham.

Table 5.11. Wardens and mixes in some fiscal years during the 1390s

1395-96 Wardens iWhittington iiOtley iiT. Aleyn iiPrudance Switches AM Y+MA 1 MO BS LS 1396-97 Wardens iShadworth iNorthbury iiA. Everard iiWalsingham Switches AM Y+MA 1 MO BS LS 1398-99 Wardens iiWaldern iLeenge iiFauconer iiDyster Switches AM Y+MA 1 MO BS LS

202 Estfeld’s first year in office (1417-18) is not included in this relation since he had not been in contact with BS variants yet. 279

These informants who independently introduce innovations into the MWA but later than the innovators are called second innovators;203 they deserve some attention as well.

V.2.3. SECOND INNOVATORS AND OTHER ADOPTERS

In order to guess who of the four mercer-wardens is responsible for switching single nouns in 1395-96, 1396-97, and 1398-99, I first compare their profiles with William Sheringham’s. As mentioned above (p. 275), Sheringham’s profile is characterised (i) by being ahead of the linguistic change, (ii) by his apprentices being also innovators, and (iii) by his positive network scores. Since a mercer-warden with a similar profile is searched for, first-generation mercer- wardens should be analysed in the first place expecting them to introduce second-stage (Y+MA) switched variants.

V.2.3.1. Richard Whittington and William Cavendish

What else might be said about this man of legend and topic of a vast number of studies (e.g. Flower 1811; Gomme and Wheatley 1885; Besant and Rice 1902; Barron 1969). Focusing on his characteristics relevant to this dissertation, Richard Whittington is a first-generation warden (born c. 1350), with a NSS score of +2, and two apprentices serving office in 1401-02 and 1410-11 (Thomas Roos), and 1412-13, 1420-21, and 1426-27 (William Cavendish). Importantly for this research, one of these apprentices (Cavendish) is in office when a new MO variant (Sylkwommannes craft) is switched (MWA 1420- 21: f. 78v bis). Could there be then another close-knit network of innovators à la Sheringham-Whatley-Cantelowe? Doubts arise since in the fiscal year (1438-39) when Cavendish’s apprentice (William Fleet) serves office, no switched variant from further stages is used. However, the composition and evolution of this network is actually different from that of Sheringham-Whatley-Cantelowe. Whereas in the latter all of its components score positively, Cavendish scores a

203 Not to be confounded with innovators introducing a variant from the second (Y+MA) stage, who are the actual innovators, indeed. 280

poor -4 and W. Fleet, a 0. Thus, it could be the case that a negative socio-centric network score should prevent the successive network members from being ahead of the linguistic change. Furthermore, W. Fleet only appears as a mercer- warden in 1438-39 and, consequently, the possible diachronic evolution of his behaviour cannot be further analysed. Another aspect to be highlighted is the fact that Cavendish is elected as a mercer-warden in 1420 (the same year of his possible switch) by John Whatley (f. 77v). Even though a possible influence from innovative Whatley on his behaviour could be hinted, Cavendish is not actually in contact with any of Whatley’s MO variants, since in 1419-20 only 1 Y+MA variant (shope) is switched. Consequently, another question must be asked: may an innovator have an influence on others’ linguistic behaviour without being the latter in actual contact with the mixed linguistic item? This question is also left open. Whittington’s ego-centric contacts can be checked in the search of an early adopter. This is Richard Whittington’s ego-centric network:

Figure 5.23. Whittington’s overall ego-centric network

Among his weakly linked contacts, John Otley, Thomas Aleyn, Thomas Prudance, and John Shadworth are directly in contact with the innovation.204 Since so far every early adopter has turned out to have a positive network score, special attention will be then paid to Thomas Aleyn (+3) and John Shadworth (+4).205

204 Even though the link between Whittington and Shadworth is graphically represented as strong, this is due to Whittington’s network being overall, i.e. all contacts established throughout his life are represented as a whole. By 1396, the relation between them is weak insofar as their first attested contact occurs that year; in 1409, Whittington elects Shadworth again as his successor in office, making their link stronger then. 205 Both John Otley’s and Thomas Prudance’s network score is -1. 281

V.2.3.2. Thomas Aleyn

Mercer-warden in 1395-96, 1403-04, 1415-16, and 1421-22, from his second term in office the number of Y+MA variants is usually higher than in the rest of fiscal years; 1421-22 with 8 switched single nouns is to be highlighted. It is very likely that T. Aleyn himself adopts the innovation and switches single nouns as well; his network score of +3 also leads to believe so. Very little can be said about his apprentices since none of them serves office in the MC, the only relevant data in this respect being that Thomas Dane (T. Aleyn’s apprentice) is, in turn, Thomas Gosse’s master, mercer-warden in 1452-53. T. Aleyn’s overall ego-centric network is as follows:

Figure 5.24. T. Aleyn’s overall ego-centric network

His strong ties with Alan Everard, John Butler, and John Coventry are remarkable. All of them with a score of +2, T. Aleyn’s influence could be mainly noticed in J. Coventry’s mixing usages. In the latter’s (1422-23) wardenship, the high number of Y+MA variants (6) might point to him as adopting this switching. Furthermore, in the same way as Thomas Fauconer fulfils the roles of innovator of BS variants and late adopter of ordinances and oaths in SE, John Coventry may function as an early adopter of SE in ordinances and oaths and as a late adopter of Y+MA variants.

V.2.3.3. John Shadworth

Richard Whittington elects John Shadworth as his successor in office in 1396 (f. 19v). Like in 1395-96, in this fiscal year another single noun (shopes) is switched (MWA 1397: f. 22r). Nevertheless, the labelling of Shadworth as an early adopter does not appear to be as straightforward as that of J. Coventry insofar as in the first year of one of his apprentices as mercer-warden (Robert Domenyk 282

206 in 1404-05), another MO variant (Mynstralles costes) is introduced (f. 41v). Positive figures in their network scores (+4 and +1 respectively) and introducing variants from later stages, Shadworth and Domenyk become then strong candidates for taking part in another network of innovators in the style of the Sheringham-Whatley-Cantelowe network.

Figure 5.25. Shadworth-Domenyk network of masters and apprentices

However, a complete evolution similar to the Sheringham-Whatley- Cantelowe network may have been actually disrupted due to two possible reasons: (i) the absence of Domenyk’s apprentice (John Hartwell)207 as a mercer-warden, and/or (ii) William Irwilliam’s and Robert Gregory’s negative NSS scores (both -1). As for the first reason, a master not in contact with the actual linguistic usages of the MC may not transmit the linguistic change in progress to his apprentices. And secondly, Irwilliam may consequently not be ahead of the linguistic change, unlike the rest of innovators’ apprentices.208 In sum, rather than as an early adopter, John Shadworth may behave as a second innovator introducing Y+MA variants as well. Variants tend to appear in the fiscal years he is in office (1 in 1396-97, 2 in 1403-04, and 1 in 1409-10). Despite Hartwell’s absence from wardenship and Irwilliam’s negative network score, everything points to John Shadworth’s link with Robert Domenyk as part of a close-knit network of innovators.

206 Shadworth himself elects Domenyk as his successor in office in 1404 (f. 39r). 207 Names in round brackets in the different flowcharts mean that the mercer has not served office as warden in 1390-1464. 208 Gregory is not ahead either simply because he is a fifth-generation warden shifting to SE (fifth stage). 283

V.2.3.4. Robert Domenyk and Thomas Sedgeford

Only serving office in 1404-05, Robert Domenyk’s overall and entire ego-centric network is very limited:

Figure 5.26. Domenyk’s overall and entire ego-centric network

Despite this limitedness, one of his weak contacts is worthy of study. Ralph Middleton is enmeshed in a close-knit network of masters and apprentices whose members show an interesting behaviour concerning the switching and shifting of particles.

Figure 5.27. R. Middleton’s network of masters and apprentices

A mercer-warden in 1404-05, his apprentice’s behaviour (John Pidmell) is relevant since in his only fiscal year in office (1427-28), MO and BS variants are switched abundantly (29 and 6 respectively), what may point to him as an actual switcher.209 In turn, Pidmell’s two apprentices serving office (Robert Hallum and Roger Middlemore) are also ahead of the linguistic change since they are fourth-generation mercer-wardens shifting to SE; one of them (Hallum) is in fact fourth warden when the first LS to SE occurs (1449-50). Could there be then a new network of second innovators? It is hard to say since Thomas Sedgeford (Ralph Middleton’s master) (i) does not switch in his

209 John Pidmell has two masters during his apprenticeship (Ralph Middleton and Thomas Denton). This fact, together with R. Middleton serving office only one year, points to R. Middleton’s early death. 284

(1401-02) accounts or (ii) his master is known. The first point may be explained by Sedgeford’s negative NSS score (-3) like in the case of Nicholas Hamme and Nicholas Bacon. As far as the second point is concerned, what is relevant in Sedgeford’s profile is the fact that he is elected to office by John Whatley in 1401 after the latter introducing his innovation (f. 34r). Could this election then point to a closer relationship between Sedgeford and the Sheringham-Whatley-Cantelowe network and even one of them being his master? Probably.210 What is sure is that the Sedgeford-R. Middleton- Pidmell-Hallum network is linguistically influenced by some kind of contact either coming from an innovative master or from a later adoption. Concerning these two points, linguistic behaviour in this network leads to the question of whether a mercer-warden may transmit the innovations to his apprentices even with negative network scores.211

V.2.4. THE CASE OF THE AUTOGRAPHERS

As anticipated above (§ V.2.1), the linguistic habits and profiles of those mercer- wardens autographing their accounts will be now analysed in order to see if they can also be categorised as innovators or early adopters, or at least provide information applicable to the identification of more mercer-wardens’ mixing practices.

V.2.4.1. Thomas Onehand

The first switcher who autographs some sections of the MWA is Thomas Onehand in 1437-38 (f. 130r). In these accounts, he certainly switches MO sub- stage variants such as prepositional sequences (Crowne in Weste). A fourth- generation warden with a NSS score of -3, Onehand appears to be conservative in his mixing practices. The rest of closely linked members from his ego-centric network do not seem to be much more progressive either.

210 Collaboration between John Whatley and Ralph Middleton has been at least well attested in 1401 concerning the release from jail of William Mede and others (Stamp 1927). 211 Like Sedgeford (-3), R. Middleton (-1), Pidmell (-1), Hallum (-2), and Middlemore (-2) score negatively in their NSS. 285

Figure 5.28. Onehand’s overall ego-centric network

John Stratton, Onehand’s master, serves as a warden in 1412-13 where AM prevails. Also with a network score of -1 and an unknown master, neither is this first third-generation mercer-warden ahead of the linguistic change nor does he seem to fulfil any of the requirements for being an innovator or an early adopter. John Lambert, Onehand’s apprentice, serves office when AF is restored as matrix language of the MWA (1452-53) after the first LS. Lambert is even credited with switching back to AF in documents with SE as the matrix language:

(95) Memorandum that I, John Lamberd, have resseyved of Richard Nedam le vi jour de Novembre l’ane xxxi – xl s. xl d. “Memorandum that I, John Lambert, have received from Richard Nedeham on 6th of November [Henry VI] [1452] – 40s. 40d.” (MWA 1452: f. 174v).

Despite this conservative behaviour at the beginning of his career, Lambert is remarkably second mercer-warden in 1459-60 with SE as the matrix language of the MWA again. What makes him become ahead of the linguistic change? His predecessor in office had actually written his accounts down in SE. Probably elected by Thomas Rike,212 his network of +3 may play an important role in his adoption of LS in 1459-60. If attention is paid to his ego-centric network (Figure 5.29 below), linguistic influence could also be allotted to John Burton. Also in contact with a predecessor shifting to LS during 1451-52, Burton may have acted as an early adopter of LS and exerted this influence on Lambert

212 The election of masters is not recorded at the end of the fiscal year 1451-52. 286

through their strong tie in 1458-59.213 However, Burton’s network score of -2 casts some doubts on him performing as an early adopter.

Figure 5.29. Lambert’s overall ego-centric network

V.2.4.2. Hugh Wiche and Thomas Dunton

The mercer-warden who autographs his accounts in 1438-39 is Hugh Wiche. Widely credited for being an early adopter, in this fiscal year Wiche certainly switches a third-stage MO variant as Onehand (Crowne in Chepe) twice (ff. 132r, 133v). Little else can be said about him that has not been mentioned yet; probably on this occasion his most important contribution may be the appointment of Thomas Dunton as his successor. Rather than prepositional sequences, Thomas Dunton switches N Adj+N ([45]). A third-generation mercer, Dunton shows both a conservative and an advanced linguistic behaviour. Whereas Y+MA (second stage) variants are mostly present in 1439-40 and 1456-57, LS (fifth stage) occurs in 1450-51 with him in office.

Figure 5.30. Dunton’s overall ego-centric network

213 Since it is neither actually attested in 1458, Burton’s election of Lambert is taken for granted in this case. 287

Looking at Dunton’s overall ego-centric network in order to find a possible explanation for his behaviour, his close-knit relationships are remarkable. At first sight, influence on his advanced behaviour in 1450-51 may be exclusively allotted to his strong link with early adopter Hugh Wiche; not only is Dunton probably elected by Wiche in 1438 but also both share office in 1450-51 and again in 1456-57. However, attention must also be paid to two special contacts: John Harrow and Thomas Steel. Both Harrow and Steel are actually Robert Large’s apprentices, and Robert Large’s master is the same as Dunton’s: Richard Herry. Consequently, the link between Dunton and Harrow and Steel is in fact stronger than a mere successor tie; they are in a way part of the same network.

Figure 5.31. Dunton’s network of masters and apprentices

John Harrow’s profile is particularly interesting as well. A fourth- generation mercer-warden, he is second warden when LS first occurs (1449-50). Consequently, he also acts as an innovator as well as being one of the mercers ahead of the linguistic change. In this case, Dunton would act as an early adopter of Harrow’s LS rather than as a late adopter of Wiche’s adoption.

Table 5.12. Mixed variants with Large in office

1420-21 Wardens iiiButler iiCavendish iiiLarge iiiTrimnel Switches AM Y+MA MO 1 BS LS 1427-28 Wardens iiWhatley iiiLarge iiiBatail iiPidmell Switches AM Y+MA 1 MO 29 BS 6 LS 1430-31 Wardens iiiLarge iiiE. Fleet iiiCotford iiiSeymour Switches AM Y+MA 7 MO BS LS 1435-36 Wardens iiiLarge iiiHales iiiDautre iiiOliver Switches AM Y+MA 34 MO 2 BS LS

288

It is also important to notice that most of the times Harrow’s master (Robert Large) serves office, switching rates rise and even BS variants occur. Certainly acting as a switcher and possibly as both an innovator and a mercer ahead of the linguistic change, Large as well as Harrow, Steel and, to a lesser extent, Dunton could take part in another network of mercers promoting the use of English. If a look is given at the mixing results when Lovey and Herry are in office, however, they are not especially high (AM in 1390-91, and 2 Y+MA in 1413-14); the fact that both Lovey and Herry score negatively (-1 and -3) does not contribute to their performance as innovators. Another option would be a partial rather than a complete network in the style of the Shadworth-Domenyk one, where advancement in the linguistic change is triggered by mercers with high network scores (Large’s +2 and Harrow’s +2).

V.2.4.3. John Goodson

The last of the four mercer-wardens who autograph sections with mixed variants is John Goodson. He seems to follow Dunton’s mixing practices since the same N Adj+N combination is switched (rent decrece) (MWA 1440-41: 137v). Despite his negative network score (-3), Goodson acts as an adopter; nevertheless, the fact that this is a second-stage (Y+MA) variant may have helped the adoption by this fourth-generation mercer-warden. William Estfeld’s apprentice, again only one fiscal year in office prevents from seeing the evolution of this mercer-warden’s linguistic behaviour in a more appropriate way, and particularly whether Goodson spreads the BS variants previously adopted by his master (§ V.2.2.3.2). At least in this first year he does not do it, what probably points to his negative score as the reason.

V.2.5. THE INCORPORATION OF TEXTUAL EVIDENCE

The group of autographers also provides valuable information about which particular sections are kept by each warden. During these fiscal years (1437-43), the autographed entries are concentrated around the same sub-sections (vacancies, rent decrease, and repairs) and deal with disbursements in 289

collaboration with the rent-collector (William Haxay in 1437-39 and William Rumbold in 1438-43) (Jefferson 2009: 40). The responsibilities for the rents from properties and for the repairs to properties are sometimes allotted to the second warden (Onehand, Wiche, and Dunton), on some occasions to the third warden (Goodson), but also to three wardens jointly (Sturgeon, Thornhill, and Steel in 1441-42) or to two of them (Fielding and Burton in 1442-43).214 The fact that these mercers do not occupy the same position in the list of wardens impedes any extrapolation of results; as a consequence, the rest of the entries on rental properties in the MWA before these dates may have been kept by any of the fourth wardens since it is not possible to find an established pattern.

Table 5.13. Renter-wardens from Christmas 1442 to 1463-64

Rental year Renter-warden(s) Xmas 1442-Xmas 1443 Olney, Fielding, Boleyn, and Burton Xmas 1443-Mmas 1444 Oliver Mmas 1444-Mmas 1445 Oliver Mmas 1445-Mmas 1446 Thornhill Mmas 1446-Mmas 1447 Thornhill Mmas 1447-Mmas 1448 Thornhill Mmas 1448-Nov. 1449 Nov. 1449-Midsu. 1450 Baron and Muschamp Midsu. 1450-Mmas 1451 Baron and Muschamp Sep. 1451-Easter 1452 Baron and Muschamp Sep. 1452-Easter 1453 Fielding, Burton, Gosse, and Lambert Easter 1453-Easter 1454 Littleton and Scrayningham Easter 1454-Easter 1455 Shipton and Redknap Easter 1455-Easter 1456 Redknap Easter 1456-Easter 1457 Donne Easter 1457-Easter 1458 Ward Easter 1458-Easter 1459 Marshall Easter 1459-Easter 1460 Berby Easter 1460-Easter 1461 Middlemore Easter 1461-Easter 1462 Gardiner Easter 1462-Easter 1463 Kemp Easter 1463-Easter 1464 Shelly

214 These two groups have not been included in my previous analysis of autographers since they do not switch any particle to English. 290

By contrast, from the management of Whittington’s estate by the MC (Christmas 1442) onwards, the names of those wardens taking charge of the MC’s rental properties are clearly provided by the RWA (Jefferson 2009: 40). The list is in Table 5.13 above. Nevertheless, when the renter-warden keeping the RWA is not one of the four mercer-wardens in office, it is not clear who actually keeps the entries on rental properties in the MWA. This occurs in 1444- 48 and in 1450-52. Does any of the mercer-wardens keep the entries related to rental properties or are they reserved to the renter-warden(s)? Although it is difficult to say now, an analysis of the mixing practices of the renter-wardens in the MWA and of the social profiles of the possible authors will give further evidence on the actual identity of the most likely author (p. 360).215 The fact that from Easter 1455 onwards it is the fourth-named warden who each year takes charge of the estates deserves my attention.216 Consequently, from this fiscal year onwards, the fourth warden is supposed to have written all the entries concerning rental properties. Sutton (2005: 172) specifies the duties of the fourth wardenship as including “the oversight of ‘the reckoning of the livelode’ and the rent-gatherer each week, the repairs and works in hand, and the payment of the almsmen’s stipends”. This is the only case in which there is proof that a warden’s responsibilities are taken on in a date within the period covered; neither are the first nor the second wardens’ duties defined in a specific point of time. As seen above (§ III.2.4.1.2, pp. 169- 70), only the third-warden’s responsibilities are further specified but under a date of 1465 in the MC’s Acts of Court.217 Whether these responsibilities are (or not) in place before this date is something difficult to claim. Anyway, in the same way as entries related to rental properties are nearly always kept by one single warden (the fourth one from 1455-56), it can be stated that so will one single warden write everything dealing with “þe charge, the rule, and oversyght of alle suche goodis, mynumentis, and bokes as be withynne þe halle [...] with alle maner of writinges and acomptes longyng to þe hole bodie of the same [...]” (Jefferson 2009: 39).

215 Uncertainty in 1450-51 and 1451-52 is not relevant for authorship attribution since in these two fiscal years, all mercer-wardens directly shift to SE. 216 Laurence Hampton is recorded handing rental profits to the successors after being fourth warden in office (MWA 1405-06: f. 42v). Nevertheless, the system does not seem to be in force yet due to inconsistency in the next fiscal years. 217 Both the third and the fourth warden’s duties are also defined in the Book of Ordinances in an undated ordinance, probably in the late fifteenth century (Parker 1980: 248-9). 291

If attention is paid again to the typology of sections and sub-sections found in the MWA (Table 4.2, p. 186), entries concerned with topics other than rentals and bureaucracy, attributed above to the third and fourth mercer- warden, are the following: fiscal year opening; ready money and balance (argent sek); admissions and issues of apprentices; monies from fees and fines; bequests, gifts and legacies, and debtors; monies for salaries; costs of communal events; debts; and new wardens’ election. Most can be grouped under the heading of financial operations, and on some occasions wardens work together, as in the energetic collection of unpaid fees by Wiche, Dunton, Lock, and Donne in 1456-57 (Sutton 2005: 174). Both facts point to a difficult distinction between the first and the second warden’s duties. Nevertheless, an attempt of division can be made by introducing the nuance of prestige. In the previous list, there are some tasks which could require being performed by the most eminent warden in office; for instance, receiving a bequest, a gift, or a legacy from a man of excellence and/or attending the king’s arrival at Westminster after a victorious battle are likely to be recorded by the first warden. The rest of lowly administrative duties are likely to be allotted to the second warden in the MWA. This more or less clear-cut distinction based on hierarchical presumptions apparently only works, as Jefferson (2009: 38-40) argues, in the latter part of the MWA; more specifically, she suggests that at least a. 1441-42, when the first mention of a first mercer-warden (Henry Frowyk) being an alderman occurs (f. 138v),218 a ranking order is not clearly in place and responsibility is shared entirely between equal-status wardens. Sutton (2005: 172) also introduces experience as a variable which may play a role in the assignment of duties to each warden: “[F]or a man’s first appointment was a baptism of fire in the form of the fourth or renter wardenship”. According to this reasoning, it may be inferred that neophytes tend to take charge of lowly tasks, whereas experienced mercers make sure that the most relevant duties are correctly fulfilled. Again from 1441-42 and until the end, a correlation can be actually seen between the number of years serving office and the place in the ranking order. As can be seen in Table 5.14 below, the

218 And, curiously enough, when John Mortham is about to hand over Whittington’s charity to the MC. 292

most experienced wardens tend to occupy the first positions, whereas the third and/or the fourth wardenship are held by new wardens.

Table 5.14. Wardens in office p. 1441-42

F. year Wardens and times in office 1441-42 Frowyk5 Sturgeon2 Thornhill1 Steel1 1442-43 Olney5 Fielding2 Boleyn1 Burton1 1443-44 Melreth5 Batail4 Oliver2 Harrow1 1444-45 Chalton5 Wiche2 A. Stratton1 J. Middleton II1 1445-46 Wandesford3 Cantelowe2 Roo1 Dukmanton1 1446-47 Rich4 Cotford3 Reynkyn1 Baron1 1447-48 Fielding3 Sturgeon3 Verney1 Penne1 1448-49 Frowyk6 Steel2 Kirkby1 Lock1 1449-50 Cantelowe3 Harrow2 Muschamp1 Hallum1 1450-51 Wiche3 Dunton2 Stokton1 Grond1 1451-52 J. Middleton II2 Roo2 Nedeham1 Rike1 1452-53 Fielding4 Burton2 Gosse1 Lambert1 1453-54 Boleyn2 Verney2 Littleton1 March1 1454-55 Olney6 Baron2 Scrayningham1 Shipton1 1455-56 Cantelowe4 Sturgeon4 Reynkyn2 Redknap1 1456-57 Wiche4 Dunton3 Lock2 Donne1 1457-58 J. Middleton II3 Steel3 Nedeham2 Ward1 1458-59 Verney3 Burton3 Stokton2 Marshall1 1459-60 Wiche5 Lambert2 Muschamp2 Berby1 1460-61 Nedeham3 Scrayningham2 Tate1 Middlemore1 1461-62 Cantelowe5 Reynkyn3 Niche1 Gardiner1 1462-63 Stokton3 Donne2 Gregory1 Kemp1 1463-64 Verney4 Redknap2 Hende1 Shelly1

Before this date, a correlation is not displayed at all; as mentioned above, the ranking system appears not to be in force yet. Here are some examples:

Table 5.15. Wardens in some fiscal years before the ranking system

F. year Wardens and times in office 1398-99 Waldern1 Leenge2 Fauconer1 Dyster1 1406-07 Speleman1 More3 Cotton2 Marchford3 1414-15 Cotton3 Bertelot1 Ernton2 Chalton1 1422-23 J. Coventry3 Abbot2 Hales1 Fauntleroy3 1431-32 Melreth3 Washborne4 Prentice2 Cantelowe1

293

With all these preliminary considerations into account, Table 5.16 displays the assignment of sections to each warden in a more schematic way.

Table 5.16. Wardenships and sections and sub-sections in the MWA

Sections and sub-sections Fiscal year opening Ready money and balance (argent sek) 1st Wardenship Gifts, legacies, and bequests Special texts New wardens’ election Fees and fines Admissions and issues of apprentices Salaries 2nd Wardenship Debts and debtors Profits and increases Legal matters 3rd Wardenship Scribal work Alms payments 4th Wardenship Quit-rents Repairs and vacancies in rental properties

As can be seen, two sub-sections pose particular problems: fees and fines, and legal matters. As mentioned earlier, fines cannot be attributed to one single warden. As for legal work, since many times legal matters recorded consist of advice on or even the proper drafting of documents, the boundary between scribal and legal work is sometimes fuzzy. What has been done is to place these problematic sections in between their most likely authors for a later suggestion of authorship based on the mercer-wardens’ mixing behaviour.219

V.2.6. A SUGGESTION OF AUTHORSHIP

The attempt to designate switching and shifting practices in the MWA must be divided into two periods, according to accuracy. Only SHLE can be trusted a. 1441-42;220 after this fiscal year, textual evidence is incorporated and reinforces everything. The designation must also be carried out in several steps, something to be developed in the following sections.

219 Even after the fiscal year when the hierarchical system is certain to be in place (1455-56), mixing occurring in these two sections has not been automatically allotted. 220 From 1437-38 onwards, information on the renter-wardenship is also provided. 294

V.2.6.1. Step 1

First of all, it is useful for this research to analyse the switching practices of those mercer-wardens whose profile has been revealed in previous sections, especially that of the innovators, second innovators, and early adopters. Since all of them have shown an inclination to switch, when a switched variant occurs in a section that is likely to have been kept by one of the innovators (or switchers), the assignment is automatic. Table 5.17 presents an example:

Table 5.17. Assignment of mixed variants for 1403-04

1403-04 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 2 Mixed MO variants BS LS Shadworth T. Aleyn A. Everard Hawe Authorship Y+MA 2 AM X AM X AM X

Shadworth is considered to be the author of 2 Y+MA because, apart from his attested switching behaviour, both switched variants occur in a special text recording the admission by redemption of William Coventry, former pinner, into the MC (ff. 39v-40r). It is not always as straightforward as the example of 1403-04, though. Not just because a switching occurs while an innovator (or a switcher) is in office, it has to be immediately allotted to him. Sometimes the switched particle appears in a section which is unlikely to be kept by him. This is what happens, for instance, in 1417-18, when Thomas Fauconer is first warden but 1 Y+MA variant appears in the legal section and 1 Y+MA variant in an entry dealing with rents. Nor has he to be the author of all switches in a single fiscal year. This happens in 1400-01, when John Whatley (fourth-named warden) introduces 1 MO variant and also switches 2 Y+MA, but there is still 1 Y+MA variant kept in sections traditionally kept by the first warden. Table 5.18 below presents the first list of fiscal years with all the mixed variants attributed to their most likely author; in this case, the switchers are already identified innovators and early adopters, and the mixed variants occur 295

in sections likely to have been kept by them; only the years when they are suggested as the authors of all the switched tokens have been considered.

Table 5.18. First assignment of mixed variants for innovators and early adopters

1392-93 Sheringham L. Andrew Authorship Y+MA 1 AM X 1393-94 Sheringham L. Andrew Authorship Y+MA 1 AM X 1395-96 Whittington Otley T. Aleyn Prudance Authorship Y+MA 1 AM X AM X AM X 1396-97 Shadworth Northbury A. Everard Walsingham Authorship Y+MA 1 AM X AM X AM X 1398-99 Waldern Leenge Fauconer Dyster Authorship AM X AM X Y+MA 1 AM X 1403-04 Shadworth T. Aleyn A. Everard Hawe Authorship Y+MA 2 AM X AM X AM X 1404-05 Waldern Domenyk R. Middleton Hampton Authorship AM X MO 1 AM X AM X 1405-06 Fauconer Cressy Ernton Elys Authorship Y+MA 1 AM X AM X AM X 1407-08 Woodcock J. Middleton I Whatley Eton Authorship AM X AM X Y+MA 1 AM X 1409-10 Shadworth J. Aleyn Tickhill Fauntleroy Authorship Y+MA 1 AM X AM X AM X 1411-12 Fauconer A. Everard Washborne Aylmer Authorship Y+MA 2 AM X AM X AM X 1420-21 Butler Cavendish Large Trimnel Authorship AM X MO 1 AM X AM X

This first assignment constitutes an extremely important step insofar as the complete mixing (and non-mixing) practices of a high number of mercer- wardens are established. Not only is some of the innovators’ diachronic evolution completely covered, but also that of those mercer-wardens always appearing in office in fiscal years with already-distributed tokens. Some of the latter’s complete mixing behaviour can also be obtained since they always serve 296

as wardens in years with no mixes at all. Although it may seem otherwise, this information is also extremely valuable since it enables to research what extralinguistic variables make a mercer-warden behave conservatively from a linguistic point of view.

Table 5.19. Wardens in office when AM prevails

1390-91 Lovey Woodcock Newenton Leenge Authorship AM X AM X AM X AM X 1391-92 Organ Sheringham Sibille L. Andrew Authorship AM X AM X AM X AM X 1394-95 Parker More Sonningwell Marchford Authorship AM X AM X AM X AM X 1397-98 Woodcock Butte Shirewynd Hamme Authorship AM X AM X AM X AM X 1399-1400 Cotton White J. Middleton I Bacon Authorship AM X AM X AM X AM X 1401-02 Whittington Roos Lane Sedgeford Authorship AM X AM X AM X AM X 1402-03 Parker Northbury Alderford J. Aleyn Authorship AM X AM X AM X AM X 1408-09 Whittington J. Coventry W. Foucher Welles Authorship AM X AM X AM X AM X 1410-11 Waldern Roos Harper Knottingly Authorship AM X AM X AM X AM X 1412-13 Lane Marchford J. Stratton Cavendish Authorship AM X AM X AM X AM X 1416-17 J. Coventry Bures Knottingly Whaddon Authorship AM X AM X AM X AM X 1418-19 Waldern R. Coventry Clitherowe Washborne Authorship AM X AM X AM X AM X

Next, mixing practices by the (1437-41) autographers have also been taken into consideration. Particularly useful at this stage have been (i) those years in which the only switched variants are those kept by the autographers themselves (e.g. Hugh Wiche in 1438-39 [2 MO]), and (ii) those informants who 297

appear only this time in office (e.g. Thomas Onehand in 1437-38 [1 Y+MA; 4 MO] and John Goodson in 1440-41 [3 Y+MA]). Those mercer-wardens who only serve office while SE is being used as the matrix language of the MWA (LS) are also revealing insofar as their complete shifting practices can also be established.

Table 5.20. Wardens only in office with SE as matrix language

Warden F. year(s) Muschamp 1449-50 and 1459-60 Hallum 1449-50 Stokton 1450-51 and 1458-59 Grond 1450-51 Rike 1451-52 Marshall 1458-59 Berby 1459-60 Tate 1460-61 Middlemore 1460-61 Niche 1461-62 Gardiner 1461-62 Gregory 1462-63 Kemp 1462-63 Hende 1463-64 Shelly 1463-64

Some of these mercer-wardens appear in office p. 1455-56, the year when the hierarchical system is certain to have been in place. Special attention must also be paid to those wardens whose appearances in office occur only after this year but do not simply shift to SE, since the sections (and the mixes occurring in them) have already been well limited through the hierarchical system.

Table 5.21. Mixing practices for wardens only in office p. 1455-56

Redknap 1455-56 AM Y+MA 5 MO 1 BS LS 1463-64 AM Y+MA MO BS LS X Donne 1456-57 AM Y+MA 5 MO BS LS 1462-63 AM Y+MA MO BS LS X Ward 1457-58 AM Y+MA 5 MO 2 BS LS

298

With this information in mind, the first list of mercer-wardens with their complete linguistic usages can be found in Table 5.22. As a variationist study, these usages are expressed in relative terms; variationism has demonstrated that linguistic differentiation is determined by the relative frequency with which particular variants are used in relation to their potential occurrence (Tagliamonte 2006).

V.2.6.2. Step 2

As can be seen in Table 5.22, five different patterns of variation can be distinguished regarding the use of language mixing in the MWA by the 63 informants identified so far: (i) predominance of AM, (ii) preference for Y+MA variants, (iii) preference for MO variants, (iv) preference for BS variants,221 and (v) predominance of LS. These five patterns represent five consecutive diachronic stages in the evolution from AF (and BL) dominance to LS to SE.

Table 5.22. Mixing practices of the firstly identified 63 mercer-informants

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS Lovey 100% Woodcock 100% Newenton 100% Leenge 100% Organ 100% Sheringham 33.33% 66.67% Sibille 100% L. Andrew 100% Parker 100% Sonningwell 100% Whittington 66.67% 33.33% Otley 100% Prudance 100% Shadworth 100% Northbury 100% Walsingham 100% Butte 100% Shirewynd 100%

221 Although no mercer-warden shows preference for BS variants in this list, they are likely to be found. 299

Table 5.22 (continued)

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS Hamme 100% Waldern 100% Dyster 100% White 100% Bacon 100% Roos 100% Sedgeford 100% Alderford 100% J. Aleyn 100% Hawe 100% Domenyk 100% R. Middleton 100% Hampton 100% Cressy 100% Elys 100% W. Foucher 100% Welles 100% Harper 100% Knottingly 100% J. Stratton 100% R. Coventry 100% Clitherowe 100% Trimnel 100% Onehand 20% 80% Orable 100% W. Fleet 100% Goodson 100% Muschamp 100% Hallum 100% Stokton 100% Grond 100% Rike 100% Redknap 41.67% 8.33% 50% Donne 50% 50% Ward 71.43% 28.57% Marshall 100% Berby 100% Tate 100% Middlemore 100% Niche 100%

300

Table 5.22 (continued)

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS Gardiner 100% Gregory 100% Kemp 100% Hende 100% Shelly 100%

V.2.6.2.1. Linguistic variation in the individual mercer-warden: Social networks and language mixing – Take 1

I now turn my attention to analyse to what extent the extralinguistic variables proposed in the dissertation influence properly the mixing behaviour of these mercer-wardens. That is to say, whether generation and ego-centric and socio- centric networks play a relevant role in their linguistic behaviour. This verification is extremely important insofar as the comparison between informants with a similar profile for the assignment of switched variants to the rest of the mercer-wardens in step 3 (§ V.2.6.3) crucially depends on these results.

V.2.6.2.1.1. Socio-centric networks

Table 5.23 brings together the results from Table 5.22 and correlates them with the mercer-wardens’ socio-centric network scores.

Table 5.23. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores of the firstly identified 63 mercer-informants

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS NSS sc. Shadworth 100% +4 Tate 100% +3 Sheringham 33.33% 66.67% +3 Stokton 100% +2 Redknap 41.67% 8.33% 50% +2 Whittington 66.67% 33.33% +2 Woodcock 100% +2 Newenton 100% +2 Organ 100% +2

301

Table 5.23 (continued)

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS NSS sc. Parker 100% +2 Waldern 100% +2 Domenyk 100% +1 Sonningwell 100% +1 Northbury 100% +1 Muschamp 100% 0 Marshall 100% 0 Gardiner 100% 0 Shelly 100% 0 Ward 71.43% 28.57% 0 J. Aleyn 100% 0 Hampton 100% 0 W. Fleet 100% 0 Berby 100% -1 Gregory 100% -1 Donne 50% 50% -1 Lovey 100% -1 Leenge 100% -1 Sibille 100% -1 Otley 100% -1 Prudance 100% -1 Butte 100% -1 White 100% -1 Hawe 100% -1 R. Middleton 100% -1 Elys 100% -1 J. Stratton 100% -1 Orable 100% -1 Hallum 100% -2 Grond 100% -2 Rike 100% -2 Middlemore 100% -2 Niche 100% -2 Kemp 100% -2 Cressy 100% -2 W. Foucher 100% -2 Knottingly 100% -2 Hende 100% -3 Onehand 20% 80% -3 Goodson 100% -3

302

Table 5.23 (continued)

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS NSS sc. L. Andrew 100% -3 Walsingham 100% -3 Shirewynd 100% -3 Hamme 100% -3 Dyster 100% -3 Bacon 100% -3 Roos 100% -3 Sedgeford 100% -3 Alderford 100% -3 Welles 100% -3 Harper 100% -3 R. Coventry 100% -3 Trimnel 100% -3 Clitherowe 100% -4

At first sight, the results displayed do not seem to comply strictly with the straightforward correlational pattern between linguistic usages and network structure found in other SN studies (e.g. L. Milroy 1980/87; Cheshire 1982; Díaz Vera 1999). Of course, there are mercer-wardens such as John Tate and John Stokton with higher network scores who show a preference for LS as well as informants’ very low network scores predicting closeness to the most conservative stage (e.g. Ellis Clitherowe, among many others). However, a vast number of informants behave in a way not accounted for by socio-centric networks. For instance, with scores of +2, John Woodcock, Thomas Newenton, John Organ, William Parker, and William Waldern approximate more to AF- dominant stages. In a similar vein, far from indicating AM, a score of -2 in Robert Hallum, William Grond, Thomas Rike, Roger Middlemore, Thomas Niche, and Ralph Kemp implies LS to SE. In another research with a similar outcome, Bergs (2006: 255-60) places blame for incongruence in his informants on three main reasons:

First, there may be simple performance fluctuations which lead to different patterns in different speakers. The ideal speaker-hearer in a completely homogeneous speech community is, after all, only an idealisation. Second, some items or variables may be perceived differently by different speakers [...] [Third,] the NSS [...] is derived from the individual actors’ biographies in toto. In other words, they do not 303

take any diachronic factors and developments into account. But networks change (original italics).

As Bergs (2006: 255) further discusses on these points, the network roles are understood as prototypes. No informant is always and in every respect an innovator, early adopter, maintainer, or late adopter; the network actor may (i) play different roles with respect to different variables, and (ii) make changes in his/her usage of sociolinguistic variables after passing through all the identity changes of a lifetime (Eckert 1997: 152). Certainly, changes in SN have implications for patterns of variation; however, neither Bergs’s nor my NSS take diachronic factors and developments into consideration. I would also add to this group of shortcomings in the NSS the fact that they are build upon poor social data. When very few (or even no) biographical information on a mercer-warden has survived, negative numbers are inevitably assigned and, consequently, a close-knit socio-centric network is hinted; this obviously runs counter to Wang’s (1969: 21) platypus metaphor but, in this case, I have to assume that if a mercer- warden has never been recorded in close contact with aristocratic circles or shipping goods out to the Low Countries, it is because he has not done it. Despite these shortcomings, Bergs (2006: 260-1) remains optimistic, as far as SN being preserved as tools for research is concerned. Following Hymes (1974) and Romaine (1984: 30-1), he then resorts to separating as many factors as possible and interpreting later the new results in a less empirical way. The same will be done in this dissertation, the couple of extralinguistic variables to be tested being generation and ego-centric networks once again.

V.2.6.2.1.2. Generation and ego-centric networks

On the one hand, Tables 5.24, 5.26, 5.28, 5.30, and 5.31 below differentiate between the five generations of mercer-wardens and show the correlation between mixing preferences and NSS scores for each generation separately. On the other hand, Tables 5.25, 5.27, 5.29, 5.33, and 5.34 below compile the degree of contact with English particles in the MWA each mercer-warden is exposed to through his ego-centric ties.

304

Regarding Generation I in Table 5.24, a much more uniform pattern than in Table 5.23 can be discerned; the ordering of mercer-wardens conforms in a way to the expectations.

Table 5.24. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation I (1)

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS NSS sc. iShadworth 100% +4 iSheringham 33.33% 66.67% +3 iWhittington 66.67% 33.33% +2 iWoodcock 100% +2 iNewenton 100% +2 iOrgan 100% +2 iNorthbury 100% +1 iLovey 100% -1 iLeenge 100% -1 iSibille 100% -1 iAlderford 100% -3

Wardens born a. 1359 vary between the first two stages (AM and Y+MA). Language mixing is absent from accounts by first-generation mercer-wardens with negative NSS scores; but not only from theirs. Several informants with positive scores (between +1 and +2) also prefer not to mix at all. Richard Whittington (+2) does switch Y+MA (33.33%) but a preference for AM remains (66.67%). A very high network score (>+2) appears to be required for a first- generation mercer-warden to switch and to prefer advanced variants. Mercer- wardens on top of the ranking are precisely those who are ahead of the linguistic change and, what is more, those who innovate (John Shadworth and William Sheringham). This fact may point to a further correlation between socio-centric networks and innovative linguistic behaviour; among those ranking very high in their network scores there will be probably innovators as well. If the reasons why informants scoring +2 behave conservatively are further searched for, ego-centric networks emerge as a possible answer to the question. In Table 5.25 below, it can be seen how at this period very few informants have any kind of frequent contact with English particles in the MWA before serving office. The only exceptions are epitomised by Woodcock, Northbury 305

and, in a different way, by the trio of innovators (Sheringham, Shadworth, and Whittington).222

Table 5.25. First-generation wardens’ contact with mixed variants before serving office

Contact with mixed variants Wardens Y+MA MO BS LS iShadworth 1 iSheringham iWhittington ?223 iWoodcock 1 ? iNewenton iOrgan iNorthbury 1 iLovey iLeenge iSibille iAlderford

John Woodcock serves as a mercer-warden in 1390-91, 1397-98, and 1407-08.224 He comes into contact with Y+MA variants in 1397 (just before his second term in office) through a weak successor tie with Shadworth, who in 1396-97 has switched shopes (f. 22r). Despite his positive network score (+2), Woodcock does not adopt this variant. However, interest on him does not stop here. During his last year as a warden (1407-08), when he shares office with John Middleton I, John Eton and, particularly, John Whatley, the first ordinances and oaths of the MC are recorded in SE (ff. A4v-A5v). Given his innovative behaviour, Whatley is thought to be the introducer (and instigator) of LS in the ordinances and oaths; nevertheless, as the most experienced (and very probably first) warden, Woodcock should have the final say on such a relevant decision. And it appears to have been affirmative. Two significant conclusions can be drawn from this interesting process. Firstly, as argued before (§ V.2.6.2.1.1, p. 303), Bergs (2006: 255) is absolutely right when he writes that “some items or variables may be perceived differently by different speakers”. This is the case of Woodcock; to him, LS in other text

222 To be part of a network of innovators has not been represented in this kind of tables. 223 Question marks mean that the mercer-warden’s contact with the English-origin variants is not sure, since there are still variants to be assigned to an author. 224 This is why each stage in Woodcock’s row in Table 5.25 is divided into three slots. 306

types (ordinances and oaths) is much more salient than adopting Y+MA variants in the MWA. On the contrary, Whittington (introducer of Y+MA variants) displays the exact opposite behaviour. In 1408-09, with Whittington as the first warden, more ordinances are recorded but this time with AF as matrix language (f. 50r). Concerning this process of LS in the MC’s ordinances, some relevant results can be confirmed. As already mentioned in § V.2.2.1.3, John Coventry’s behaviour is noteworthy. Selected for office by Whatley in 1408 (the same date of the first LS in the ordinances), J. Coventry serves office again in 1416-17 (probably as first warden). During this fiscal year, the second group of ordinances in SE are kept (f. 71v), what clearly points to J. Coventry as an early adopter of this variable. Furthermore, the (1407-08) ordinances in SE are actually rewritten in 1423-24. During this year, Thomas Fauconer (introducer of BS variants) serves office again as first warden. For the second time, Fauconer is selected to office by J. Coventry himself (the other one in 1417), what certifies (i) a close tie between them, and (ii) Fauconer’s role as a late adopter of SE as matrix language in ordinances. And secondly, what can be discerned is that the decision to shift to SE does not seem to be taken by one single individual; a minimal consensus between the mercer-wardens (probably not the four but, at least, two of them) is required. This case presents a situation not far from what Labov (1994: 84) calls a communal change: “[A]ll members of the community alter their frequencies together, or acquire new forms simultaneously”. In here, mercer-wardens from different generations adopt LS for the MC’s ordinances and oaths at the same time. Furthermore, these apparently irrelevant data may have far-reaching implications for this dissertation insofar as it remains to be tested whether LS in the MWA occurs typically in a communal manner rather than individually. Richard Northbury’s behaviour does not differ vastly from John Woodcock’s. Despite his contact with Y+MA variants by sharing office with switcher John Shadworth in 1396-97 and his positive network score (+1), he does not adopt or use them in his second year in office (1402-03). Once again, this may be due to linguistic variables being perceived differently by the writer. Together with the draper John de Northampton, one of his closest associates, Northbury is the only mercer commoner sitting in the “Ordinances’ Committee” involved in the creation of the Jubilee Book (Sutton 2005: 107). What is relevant 307

from this information is the fact that, as proved by Barron (2002), the Jubilee Book was actually written in English. Consequently, like Woodcock, Northbury behaves conservatively in the MWA, whereas he is one of the promoters of English in City ordinances. William Sheringham, John Shadworth, and Richard Whittington have been clearly identified as innovators in the MWA.225 They are the first- generation members of a group of mercers who are the responsible for introducing the earliest attestation of each mixing stage and variable. As such, their behaviour cannot be compared with that of their contemporaries. The reason for their innovative behaviour can be firstly attributed to their socio-centric networks. According to literature on SN, innovators are those marginal members of the speech community who do not belong to any close- knit group, hence their independent linguistic behaviour; they tend to be located at the intersection of several strongly tied networks and, as a consequence, act as bridges through which linguistic items from one group may end up entering another one. Thus, Whittington’s +2 and, especially, Sheringham’s +3 and Shadworth’s +4 comply with the loose-knit social atmosphere the prototypical innovator moves around. But in addition, there should be a written source acting as the origin of English language from which variables would have been channelled through by these three innovators. From a sociological point of view, information on the three mercer- wardens a. 1390-91 is extant, even abundant in the case of Richard Whittington. Linguistically speaking, this is a priori quite a different thing. At this point, I would like to focus on one piece of evidence that has been ignored so far but that may mark a watershed in the evolution of this particular research and, why not, of future researches as well. There is actually a fiscal year a. 1390-91 in which John Shadworth and William Sheringham share office as mercer-wardens. This year appears to be 1384-85. In her Appendix 3 (“List of Wardens before 1578”), Sutton (2005: 555) provides a list of the names for that year:

1385 Jan., John Bosham, John Shadworth, William Sheringham, Thomas Austin, John Lovey (?). H, pp. 257-59.

225 Shadworth and Whittington are labelled “second innovators” simply for a question of order of appearance in the MWA. Sheringham is the first to serve as a warden since 1390-91. 308

Two aspects in this extract are worthy of further comment. First of all, the information is not directly collected from any MC’s manuscript but from a secondary source: the Calendar of Letter-Books Preserved among the Archives of the Corporation of the City of London at the Guildhall: Letter-Book H, 1375- 99. Sharpe’s (1907: 257-9) edited letter begins as follows:

FOLIO clxxxvii b. Amissio lib tatis certai personar qui admissi fue runt in ean dem libertatem indebite. 10 Jan., 8 Richard II [A.D. 1384-85], came John Bosham, John Shadworth, William Shiryngham, Thomas Austyn, John Loveye, and other good folk of the Mercers, before Nicholas Brembre, the Mayor, and the Aldermen, and complained that certain men, lately foreigners, using the mistery of mercery had obtained the freedom of the City through certain folk of another mistery, contrary to the custom of the City, making the Chamberlain believe that they were of some other mistery than they actually were, to wit, John Lynne and Nicholas Marchant of Berkyng, who had been received into the freedom by the “Haberdassheres”, as if using the mistery of “haberdassherie”, whereas they had been using and were at the time using the “art” of mercery, and therefore they had not been duly enfranchised, and had deceived the officials of the City, to the great hurt of the art of mercery and the whole Commonalty, wherefore they prayed a remedy (original italics).

And secondly, judging by the question mark indicating uncertain information, Sutton herself has serious doubts as to whether among the five mercers keeping an eye on haberdashers, the four wardens serving office that year would be found. Personally, I will be optimistic and think of those complaining before the Lord Mayor of London as those temporarily holding the reins of power in the MC. Who of the five leading complainers does not act as a warden is a completely different topic. In the online version of her account of John Bosham’s biography for The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1386-1421 (Roskell et al. 1993), Rawcliffe (1993a) assures that Bosham is serving as a mercer-warden by the 22nd of October 1384. Her statement is based on the following entry from the Calendar of the Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London, 1381-1412 (CPMR 1381-1412):

John Boseham and others, masters of the mistery of Mercers, brought before the Mayor and Aldermen the following mercers: John Feraunt, John Chedder, Richard Guy, John Vyne, Thomas Everard, William Willesdon and John Toke, as men accustomed to speak maliciously of the Mayor and Aldermen and their government. They were delivered under bail to the said John Boseham, Robert Warbulton, John Organ, 309

John Eston and John Shadeworth, on the above conditions and under penalty of £40 each (H. Thomas 1932: 64).

However, from the quotation, it is not completely clear whether Bosham is one of the masters or, conversely, the masters of the MC are the others. Moreover, at the bottom of the entry the names of “the others” are given: Robert Warbulton, John Organ, John Eston, and John Shadworth. Are these the four mercer-wardens during 1384-85 at last? Unfortunately, this is not completely sure. In another CPMR 1381-1412 entry kept on the 5th of November 1383 (i.e. the previous fiscal year [1383-84]) some of them (Warbulton and Shadworth, and also Lovey) are mentioned as masters again:

Testimony was given by Robert Warbelton, John Shadeworth, John Eston and John Loveye, masters of the mistery of Mercers, that the said William was in prison in Calais, that his shop in London was sequestrated and that his wife had no means of providing for the apprentice. Thereupon, according to the custom, the said John was exonerated from his apprenticeship, on condition that he made no claim on his master for the unexpired portion (H. Thomas 1932: 70).

Does this mean that at this period one single mercer could hold office several years in a row? Probably yes. Even though in the ordinances of 1347-48 it is stipulated that none of the wardens is to hold office again within five years (ff. 1r-2v), Imray (1969: 177) and Parker (1980: 75-6) clarify that this rule is later relaxed. And what about the possibility of more than four mercers serving as wardens at the same time? Probably yes as well. A. 1328, as many as nine wardens holding office are once recorded (Sutton 2005: 89 fn. 97). After that year, a drastic reduction occurs, but seen the looseness of the previous policy, the scenario of an overcrowded office would not be unreasonable at all. In any case, what is really relevant for this research is the fact that Sheringham and Shadworth might have held power while the MC was engineering “The Folk of Mercerye”, first parliamentary petition in English language (Fisher 1996: 45). As mentioned above (p. 156), the Wonderful Parliament in November 1386, the parliamentary session in 1387, and the Merciless Parliament of February through June 1388 are thought to be the session where the petition is submitted. Unfortunately, records giving details of who holds wardenship during these years are extinct. But in any case, a petition 310

of such a remarkable significance should have been prepared for some time before. Furthermore, such an anti-Brembre diatribe, it should have been presented at the right moment by the right people, i.e. mercer-wardens united against the then-Lord Mayor. In my view, there exists substantial evidence in support of Sheringham and Shadworth’s participation at least in its composition. Firstly, apart from being more than probable that both of them serve as wardens for the MC in 1384-85, Sheringham and Shadworth seem to have maintained a quite close and lasting relationship with each other. In March 1379, Sheringham is a party to the purchase of dwellings in the parish of St Vedast by Ellen Cornerth, the widow of Thomas Cornerth, Shadworth’s master, being also named as her trustee and executor in the following year (Rawcliffe 1993d); in July 1392, Sheringham joins with two other mercers (one of them John Lovey) in offering the massive joint sureties of £3,000 on behalf of Shadworth, then in custody at Odiham Castle, to save the latter harmless within one month (Rawcliffe 1993c). And secondly, both had borne an animus against Nicholas Brembre, the victim of the petition. Sheringham and Shadworth are connected with the draper John de Northampton, Brembre’s greatest enemy, and John More, one of de Northampton’s keenest supporters, since very early times. In an inquest of 1387, Sheringham appears among those indicted as de Northampton’s “maintainers, advisors, and helpers” together with More. In turn, Shadworth assumes personal liability for £1,000 of the securities taken from More in August 1384 (Rawcliffe 1993c).226 So far, I have analysed Sheringham and Shadworth’s prospective connection with “The Folk of Mercerye”. But what about Richard Whittington, the other innovator?227

226 Another aspect which could have been included as evidence of their implication in “The Folk of Mercerye” is the fact that Adam Pinkhurst, the scribe responsible for penning the MC’s petition, is the same who rewrites the MWA from 1391-92 (first fiscal year of Sheringham in office as well) (Mooney 2006). However, this is perhaps not as close a link as first thought since Mooney (2006: 111) suggests that Pinkhurst might have been introduced into the MC by John Organ (first warden in 1391-92). 227 An analysis of Austin’s and Lovey’s connections is not going to be carried out here since social information on them with the same degree of accuracy is not available. Nevertheless, references on them do exist and will be exploited later due to their interest. 311

If attention is paid to Sheringham’s and Shadworth’s biographies, every year during the 1380s they hold important civic offices (mainly alderman and auditor), except for 1384-85, when they only serve as common councillors. The same happens with Whittington in 1385-86; from July 1384 to July 1386 he is common councillor of Coleman Street Ward (Rawcliffe 1993f).228 Regardless of its date of submission (late 1386 or early 1388), Whittington could have eventually served office during the years of composition and, at least, had contact with the well-known petition in English.229 I am not venturing into the establishment of a strict relationship between animosity towards Nicholas Brembre and promotion of the English language though. As a matter of fact, Brembre himself writes three proclamations in English in the aftermath of the Peasants’ Revolt (1383-84) (R. Chambers and Daunt 1931: 31-3). But it is true that underlying the whole dispute between factions, languages play an important role as tools in order to gain as many followers as possible. Some events point in this same direction. For instance, Scase (1998 in Sutton 2005: 110) mentions the involvement of some mercers in a campaign of writing and circulation of vernacular bills, broadsides, pamphlets, and poems during this period. Moreover, Thomas Usk, de Northampton’s secretary and later traitor, writes his two most significant documents in English: “The Appeal of Thomas Usk against John de Northampton” (R. Chambers and Daunt 1931: 22-31) and The Testament of Love (Allen Shoaf 1998). To sum up, in SN terms, with their loose-knit socio-centric networks, Sheringham, Shadworth, and Whittington may have acted as bridges through which the Englishness of this parliamentary petition could have been channelled to the MWA. In a text type with such a long-standing acrolectal tradition, the English influence is necessarily gradual. Sheringham, Shadworth, and Whittington, all first-generation mercer-wardens keeping the MWA, initiate the introduction of mixed variables. Their apprentices, and in some cases their apprentices’ apprentices, seem to have followed suit and introduced the earliest variants of the successive mixing stages until the complete shift to SE.

228 The habit of appointing an alderman as first warden begins in the MC in 1441-42. Before this date, and especially during this period, a less busy warden could have prevailed over a prestigious one. 229 No kind of further evidence of a close relationship with Sheringham or Shadworth or of support towards Brembre or de Northampton is recorded for Whittington. 312

As for Generation II, results in Table 5.26 seem to confirm some tendencies already hinted in Table 5.24 from the previous generation.

Table 5.26. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation II (1)

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS NSS sc. iiParker 100% +2 iiWaldern 100% +2 iiDomenyk 100% +1 iiSonningwell 100% +1 iiJ. Aleyn 100% 0 iiHampton 100% 0 iiOtley 100% -1 iiPrudance 100% -1 iiButte 100% -1 iiWhite 100% -1 iiHawe 100% -1 iiR. Middleton 100% -1 iiElys 100% -1 iiCressy 100% -2 iiW. Foucher 100% -2 iiKnottingly 100% -2 iiL. Andrew 100% -3 iiWalsingham 100% -3 iiShirewynd 100% -3 iiHamme 100% -3 iiDyster 100% -3 iiBacon 100% -3 iiRoos 100% -3 iiSedgeford 100% -3 iiWelles 100% -3 iiHarper 100% -3 iiR. Coventry 100% -3 iiClitherowe 100% -4

First, like those born a. 1359, second-generation mercer-wardens with negative network scores tend to show a conservative behaviour, and most prefer not to mix at all. Secondly, also in this generation non-mixing wardens with positive scores (<+2) can be found. 313

If a closer look is taken at these mercer-wardens’ contacts with English particles in the MWA, it can be seen how in most of the cases, no mixed variant has run through the warden’s ego-centric network.

Table 5.27. Second-generation wardens’ contact with mixed variants before serving office

Contact with mixed variants Wardens Y+MA MO BS LS iiParker 1 iiWaldern 2 1 1 iiDomenyk 1 iiSonningwell 1 iiJ. Aleyn iiHampton iiOtley iiPrudance iiButte iiWhite iiHawe iiR. Middleton iiElys iiCressy 1 iiW. Foucher 1 iiKnottingly ? iiL. Andrew 1 iiWalsingham iiShirewynd iiHamme iiDyster iiBacon iiRoos ? iiSedgeford 1 1 iiWelles iiHarper iiR. Coventry ? iiClitherowe ?

Nevertheless, several mercer-wardens’ behaviour must be highlighted because it does not follow the expected pattern and, indirectly, may be revealing a new one. 314

In this second generation, among those who do not mix at all there are also negatively-scored wardens with some contact with mixed particles (e.g. Laurence Andrew). In this respect, Thomas Cressy’s behaviour is particularly relevant insofar as he does not switch in spite of being in contact with variants from a more advanced (MO) stage. A similar behaviour is displayed in the case of the innovators’ apprentices; despite being also linguistically influenced by their respective innovative masters, Nicholas Hamme (Sheringham’s apprentice) and Thomas Roos (Whittington’s apprentice) prefer not to switch.230 As mentioned, in all these cases, the informants’ network score is quite low (-2 for Cressy and -3 for the rest). It seems that, at least in these cases, the adoption of mixed categories may depend in a way on a positive network score. Once again, the mercer who innovates and is ahead of the linguistic change scores positively; but this time, Robert Domenyk does not need a score of >+1 to do it. Probably, the strong influence exerted by his master (Shadworth) may have been a factor here; Domenyk is one of the few wardens to be elected to office by his own master. Like him, Domenyk shows a complete preference (100%) for an advanced variant from MO sub-stage. Like in the first generation, in here there are also mercer-wardens with high scores (+2 and +1) whose uses are much closer to AM stage (e.g. William Parker or William Sonningwell). But on this occasion, these wardens have had a high degree of contact with English particles. A unique behaviour that stands out is that of William Waldern. Warden in 1398-99, 1404-05, 1410-11, and 1418- 19, Waldern does not mix at all in any of these fiscal years. And this is despite scoring +2 and being in contact with switched particles many times, whether that be with Y+MA variants through Thomas Fauconer and John Shadworth a. 1404-05 or MO variants via Robert Domenyk a. 1410-11 (all identified innovators and adopters).231 As for switching in the MWA, Waldern is extremely conservative. Could he be linguistically more advanced in other text types like John Woodcock? This does not appear to be the case since the ordinances of 1410-11 with him as first warden are still recorded in AF (ff. 55v-56r).

230 Thomas Sedgeford could be included in this group should his apprenticeship to an innovator be corroborated some day. 231 And again with Y+MA variants through John Shadworth a. 1410-11. 315

If more possible reasons are looked for elsewhere, the Brembre-de Northampton conflict inevitably re-emerges again. Waldern is John Fresh’s apprentice, the latter being notable as one of Brembre’s closest trading associates (Sutton 2005: 111). For instance, in February 1388 he is due to deliver wool worth £400 to Brembre’s agents at the Middelburg Staple; Waldern himself cooperates in this action as an agent for his master, in what constitutes his earliest mention ever (Rawcliffe 1993b, 1993e). Since both mercers’ strong ties with Brembre are unambiguous, this could reopen the possibility of a relationship between political factions and languages of power. As Brembre’s supporter, Waldern is singularly reluctant to adopt any kind of English particles in any text type. And this is so despite the fact that he also works hand in hand with innovators such as Thomas Fauconer; for example, both act as mainpernors for a group of Florentine merchants trading in England (Rawcliffe 1993e).232 The relation between social antagonism and ways of communication has already been brought to the fore by a series of recent researchers. Turner (2007a, 2007b) gives a picture of a late fourteenth-century textual environment where manifold problems in London are transformed into discursive turbulence. Interestingly, Turner (2007a: 11) alludes to the use of English as the language in which texts of opposition and resistance are penned as a response to the official forms of writing in the acrolectal varieties abused by privileged interests; among these subversive English written texts, “The Folk of Mercerye” can be found. Thus, Turner sides with Barron (2004b: 128), who suggests that the conflict is latent by the (1381) Revolt:

The Revolt of 1381 [...] had demonstrated not only that “peasants” were capable of co-ordinating a mass uprising using the clerkly tools of writing and reading, but also that the rebels believed that servitude could be eradicated by burning the written texts which recorded it,

and also with Ormrod (2003: 783), who writes that

it is particularly to be noted how frequently English tends to crop up in written submissions to the Crown of the 1380s, 1390s, and 1400s that

232 Their close relationship is also mirrored in their three-time mutual election for office in the MC (1405, 1411, and 1418). 316

themselves deal with criticism, opposition, and outright treason against church and state.

But then, why are the three (1383-84) English proclamations issued during the mayoralty of Nicholas Brembre? One possible explanation rests on an idea already dealt with in § II.2.1.2.1, namely Giles’s (1971, 1980) speech accommodation theory. Brembre may have opted for converging with the speech of his Anglophone interlocutors by using English; in addition, the topics of the proclamations themselves (the sale of fish, but especially conventicles and nightwalking) may have also motivated him to choose English in order to get his messages through. In fact, Brembre is aware of the symbolic power of texts and is credited for being one of those trying the hardest to control them (Turner 2007a: 20). To Barron (2004b: 128), the proclamations of November 1383 may be seen as part of a new-style propaganda war (i) in which the MC also engages, and (ii) which lasts for several decades. According to Turner (2007a: 28), the text type and LC in “The Folk of Mercerye” constitute a calculated strategy “to present themselves as oppressed victims, eliding their powerful position both as a rich guild and as supporters of the ascendant side”. In this respect, Barron (2004b: 128) also cites the example that, after the upheaval of the 1380s with the burning of the Jubilee Book, behind John Carpenter’s decision of writing his (1419) Liber Albus (Riley 1861) in BL would be the necessity of “govern[ing] the City in tranquillity without too much informed intervention from those [...] governed”. In this respect, Carpenter’s main advisor seems to be the then-Mayor (and innovator in this research) Richard Whittington, what would reinforce the already-anticipated idea of him showing a double linguistic behaviour (sometimes innovator and sometimes not). Probably, rather than being associated with a faction in particular, the English language simply becomes the tool of those who at the moment of using it aim to communicate a change in the status quo of the City, either be regressive (by reinforcing restrictions, as Brembre does in 1383-84) or progressive (by longing for the end of the oppression as declared, for instance, in the MC’s petition). Nonetheless, the polarised linguistic behaviour of Brembre’s associates, on the one hand, and de Northampton’s supporters, on the other, as far as CS in the MWA is concerned, gives food for thought. 317

Concerning Generation III, the first comment to be made is the lack of enough representative data on the wardens’ complete mixing practices. If compared with the two previous generations, the percentage of third-generation mercer-wardens whose linguistic usages have been completely identified is quite low. Whereas in Generation I and II 91.67% (11 out of 12) and 50.91% (28 out of 55) have been respectively disclosed, in Generation III the percentage drops to 8.82% (3 out of 34). Table 5.28 and Table 5.29 show the results for this generation in particular:

Table 5.28. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation III (1)

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS NSS sc. iiiW. Fleet 100% 0 iiiJ. Stratton 100% -1 iiiTrimnel 100% -3

Table 5.29. Third-generation wardens’ contact with mixed variants before serving office

Contact with mixed variants Wardens Y+MA MO BS LS iiiW. Fleet ? iiiJ. Stratton iiiTrimnel ?

As can be seen from Table 5.28, only negatively- or zero-scored mercer- wardens have been identified. As a consequence, sociolinguistic profiles from this generation of mercer-wardens are half-visible in here; complete data on positively-scored informants are missing. Despite these unrepresentative data, a modest extrapolation of results can be attempted, but guesses made on positively-scored mercer-wardens should be viewed with extreme caution. The same happens with results from Table 5.29. These wardens come into contact with other fellow wardens in fiscal years whose mixed variants have not been allotted yet. They could (or not) have mixed variants; this is the reason why their contact remains uncertain. Third-generation mercer-wardens scoring 0 (or below) in their NSS display again a very conservative behaviour with their absolute preference for 318

AM. Among them, William Fleet’s behaviour is to be highlighted. William Cavendish’s apprentice, W. Fleet belongs to a network of innovators. However, he prefers not to switch in 1438-39, in what seems to be again the influence of a non-positive (0) socio-centric network score like in the cases of Nicholas Hamme and Nicholas Bacon, for instance. Overall, as late as the third generation of wardens, the situation appears to be not very different from what can be found in previous periods. On the contrary, everything changes with the mercers born p. 1400, as will be seen right below.

Linguistic usage rates and network scores of all the fourth-generation mercer-wardens who have been completely identified are provided in Table 5.30:

Table 5.30. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation IV (1)

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS NSS sc. ivStokton 100% +2 ivRedknap 41.67% 8.33% 50% +2 ivMuschamp 100% 0 ivShelly 100% 0 ivWard 71.43% 28.57% 0 ivBerby 100% -1 ivOrable 100% -1 ivHallum 100% -2 ivRike 100% -2 ivMiddlemore 100% -2 ivNiche 100% -2 ivKemp 100% -2 ivOnehand 20% 80% -3 ivGoodson 100% -3

Unlike the three previous generations, in here there seems not to be a uniform pattern as such. Negatively-scored mercers can indistinctly show preference for variants from different stages. For instance, Alexander Orable (- 1) is closer to the most conservative stage (AM); John Goodson (-3) and Thomas Onehand (-3) also use variants from earlier stages, but the former exclusively from the Y+MA sub-stage (100%), and the latter from Y+MA (20%) and MO 319

(80%) sub-stages. In turn, John Berby (-1), Robert Hallum (-2), or Thomas Rike (-2), among others, are ahead of the linguistic change and have already completely shifted to SE in their accounts. Similarly, an irregular trend can be observed in zero-scored informants, with Thomas Muschamp and John Shelly shifting to SE, and John Ward, by contrast, showing a higher preference for Y+MA variants. Instead, positively-scored informants (John Stokton [+2] and William Reknap [+2]) seem to keep opting for the most advanced stages (LS) over the rest. Consequently, it is as if well-proved trends and valid extralinguistic explanations for previous generations were not operative any longer in a large amount of informants born p. 1400. Table 5.31, with linguistic usages and socio-centric networks from Generation V’s mercer-wardens, appears to confirm the loss of predictive force of socio-centric network scores:

Table 5.31. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation V

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS NSS sc. vTate 100% +3 vMarshall 100% 0 vGardiner 100% 0 vGregory 100% -1 vDonne 50% 50% -1 vGrond 100% -2 vHende 100% -3

As can be seen, regardless of their actual NSS scores (from +3 to even -3) all mercer-wardens from the fifth generation show a preference for LS stage. Consequently, results may even be pointing to a gradual profound change in the network influence. It seems as though in the fourth and fifth generations a new socio-centric network structure were already making its way. Negative network scores have gone from constraining language mixing in wardens born a. 1400 to promoting stages closer to LS to SE in mercers born p. 1420. In the case of positive scores, however, collected data seem to indicate that positive network scores continue to boost predominance of variants from later stages (e.g. ivJohn Stokton [+2] and vJohn Tate [+3] with 100% in LS, and ivWilliam Redknap [+2] with 50% in LS). 320

As for the reversal of the role of networks in linguistic change c. 1400, Bergs (2006: 54-5) interestingly reflects upon the following:

Until the seventeenth or eighteenth century, loose-knit networks structures fostered movements away from any kind of language norm, and therefore gave support to the development of idiosyncratic language systems and diversity. It was smaller groups who exerted normative pressures on their network members and thus promoted group-specific language use. [...] Those who were members of close-knit networks felt normative pressures within these groups. [...] With the advent of the notion of an overtly prestigious language standard, loose-knit networks resulted in the opposite effect.

Two far-reaching ideas can be extracted from this paragraph. Both are applicable to this dissertation; however, the second one needs to be slightly modified. Firstly, as the results obtained throughout this analysis have proved so far, mercer-wardens located in close-knit socio-centric networks, i.e. with negative network scores, tend to approximate to conservative linguistic norms, i.e. earlier mixed-language stages. In turn, mercer-wardens who normally give support to deviations from the norm by introducing mixed particles belong to loose-knit socio-centric networks. In this respect, it is important to clarify that most mercer-wardens who mix have a positive network score; but this does not mean that all mercer-wardens with a positive network score are going to mix automatically. And secondly, Bergs provides an answer to the reason behind the change in the network structures: the standardisation of the English language. He further adds that

loose-knit networks (according to the Milroys) foster movements towards the standard (at least among the middle class), while close-knit networks help to maintain vernacular norms in contrast to the standard. Thus, loose-knit networks up to c. 1600 must have led to language diversity, from c. 1600 onwards they have led to widespread, supra-local language standards (Bergs 2006: 55).

Does the same happen in this case? In an interview by David Boulton with John Fisher, one of the exponents of the Chancery norm (§ III.1.1.1.4.2), the latter answers the following:

John Fisher: Having decided that standardisation must come from the written form of language, I began to look much more closely in my 321

manuscripts and my people in the 14th century. It suddenly came through to me something that no history of the language had pointed out before: that the standardisation of English and manuscripts written in English, which grew rapidly more and more standard, came at the time of the Lancastrian Rebellion in England. We had dialects up until 1400. Right after 1400 we have the beginning of standardisation and this is the time that Henry IV and then Henry V took over the power in England (Fisher 2009).

Thus, both Fisher’s position and results in this dissertation converge at first sight; by the time mercers born p. 1400 assume office as wardens (from the 1420s), the standardisation of English must have been underway for a relatively long time. To what extent are the mercer-wardens’ network structures affected by this standardisation of English? Following Bergs’s reflection above, p. 1400, on the one hand, negative network scores denoting close-knit networks should gradually maintain vernacular (ME) norms, which is effectively the case in a way. On the other hand, positive network scores indicating loose-knit networks should promote movements towards the standard (SE). Arrived at this point, a doubt assails me: if ME is considered the vernacular and SE the standard, where can the space for AF/BL varieties be found on this new continuum? Apparently, there is no room for them. It gives the impression that Bergs’s hypothesis only works accurately in settings where the whole continuum is occupied by one single language.233 Nevertheless, Bergs’s model itself sheds light on a possible application to late medieval multilingual settings as this one. In my opinion, rather than the standardisation of English, what leads to the change in the role of network structures is the process of English becoming the norm for writing p. 1400. As Fisher further argues in the above-mentioned interview,

John Fisher: English continued to be the spoken language but everything written until 1400 was in French and in Latin. [...] I mean, all of the function in England having to do with trade, having to do with law, having to do with literature, was all in French and Latin. The only things we have in English up until 1400 are “patois” [...]. Any kind of business in London until 1400 had to be carried on in French or in Latin. There wasn’t a vocabulary to carry on [business] in English (Fisher 2009).

233 Accordingly, Bergs intends his hypothesis with the eModE period in mind (c. 1500-c. 1700), hence his monolingual scenario. 322

Unlike Bergs and Fisher, the close tie between norm and standard traced by the former has to be severed in this case. In the MWA, it has been perceived how, exactly as Bergs (2006: 54) maintains, loose-knit network structures foster movements away from any kind of linguistic norm; as the norm for wardens born a. 1400 is to write in AF/BL matrices, all informants introducing ME diversity score positively in their NSS. The norm changes little by little p. 1400, and the network forces change with it; on this occasion close-knit network structures begin to act as maintainers of English, i.e. the new norm. Obviously, a domain such as business which had been dominated by AF/BL varieties for almost 400 years must be gradually replaced by ME;234 this is the main reason why to find negatively- and positively-scored fourth-generation mercer-wardens being either conservative or ahead of the linguistic change is something recurrent. In the same way as the ancient and the new linguistic norms coexist in a way for a period of time, the ancient and the new network forces do as well. Nevertheless, the change in the norm in the MWA seems to be completed by the fifth generation of informants (wardens born p. 1420). These mercers show an absolute preference for LS when scoring negatively. In reverse, fifth-generation mercer-wardens in loose-knit socio-centric networks are expected to move away from the new norm and not to approximate exclusively to LS stage. As for the positively-scored fifth- generation informants in the MWA, John Tate does not comply with this behaviour (100% in LS); among those not identified yet, it is worth anticipating Robert Scrayningham’s behaviour. Warden in 1454-55 and 1460-61, his linguistic usages and network score can be established as follows:235

Table 5.32. Scrayningham’s mixing practices and NSS score

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS NSS sc. vScrayningham 50% 50% +2

As may be noted in Table 5.32, Robert Scrayningham does not approximate strictly to LS stage; whether his preference for Y+MA variants

234 As a matter of fact, L. Wright (1996b: 11, 1998b: 115) locates the date of AF and BL becoming moribund as a whole as written varieties c. 1450 and c. 1550 respectively. 235 The fact that all mercer-wardens in 1454-55 switch Y+MA variants, as well as the fact that LS occurs in 1460-61, helps the identification of Scrayningham’s mixing practices. 323

might be due to that influence of new loose-knit network structures (+2) is a very viable option. In any case, movements towards AF and/or BL by mercer-wardens located in loose-knit socio-centric networks should be over once the standardisation of English is complete. At the end of this process, (i) new SE must have incorporated into its word-stock those AF/BL-origin items where there is no vocabulary for them in ME, and (ii) a new basilect/acrolect continuum must have been established. From that date onwards, loose-knit networks will foster movements towards the proto-standard, whereas close-knit ones will tend to maintain regional English items. Thus, in my model, norm and standard are considered two separate notions that, nevertheless, evolve at the same time. As L. Wright (2005) argues, the activities of traders and their daily interactions with users of other dialects and languages come to form a proto-standard for commerce and business, which later contributes to the development of the written SE, together with other text types. Another important implication of the change in the writing norm concerns the education and training of those in charge of keeping business documents. If, as Fisher (2009) maintains and my results appear to point, c. 1400 is assumed as the period when English starts to be massively used in writing, the transmission of French and Latin written varieties must have been extended as late as (or even past) this date. Ingham (2009), who also mentions c. 1400 as the end of French being frequently used in aristocratic households and court, argues that in this and other domains, the input provided to new generations acquiring L2 must have occurred in a naturalistic communicative setting. If, as Ingham (2012) further details, naturalistic context also comprises formation in school institutions, the transmission in business circles is likely to have been very similar and lasted roughly for the same time as the above- mentioned courtly environments.

Unlike socio-centric networks, ego-centric networks have not lost their predictive force in mercer-wardens born p. 1400. As can be noticed in Table 5.33 and in Table 5.34 below, most fourth- and fifth-generation mercer-wardens mix variants from stages with which they have been previously in contact. 324

Table 5.33. Fourth-generation wardens’ contact with mixed variants before serving office

Contact with mixed variants Wardens Y+MA MO BS LS ivStokton ? ? 1 1 2 ivRedknap 1 1 1 ivMuschamp 1 1 1 2 ivShelly 1 ivWard 1 ivBerby 1 ivOrable ? ivHallum ? ? ? ivRike 1 ivMiddlemore 1 ivNiche 1 ivKemp 1 ivOnehand ? ? ivGoodson ?

Table 5.34. Fifth-generation wardens’ contact with mixed variants before serving office

Contact with mixed variants Wardens Y+MA MO BS LS vTate 1 vScrayningham ? 1 1 vMarshall ? ? vGardiner 1 vGregory 1 vDonne 1 vGrond 1 vHende 1

Particularly relevant is the case of LS. Only those informants who have been in contact with English as the matrix language of the MWA before serving office adopt it later. Those who have not been either tend not to adopt it (e.g. ivWard [5 Y+MA; 2 MO], ivOrable [AM], ivOnehand [1 Y+MA; 4 MO], and ivGoodson [3 Y+MA]) or still adopt it. In the case of the latter, they tend to belong to a network of innovators, where the influence is supposed to be exerted by their master; this is the case, for instance, of Robert Hallum (100% in LS but 325

0 previous contacts with it).236 As a whole, wardens’ mixing practices are then better explained in terms of the contacts they have had with mixed categories in the MWA before and during their years in office. Results in these last two generations uncover other important facts which are in marked contrast with findings thus far: (i) a negative (or zero) network score does not preclude any more the non-adoption and non-use of mixed variants, and (ii) a mercer-warden does not have to score positively either to act as an innovator or to be ahead of the linguistic change (e.g. both Thomas Muschamp [0] and Robert Hallum [-2] in 1449-50).

V.2.6.3. Step 3

As the third and final step in the authorship attribution, following the habits and tendencies observed in the two previous stages, the mixes in the remaining fiscal years will be finally allotted to their most likely author. A series of preliminary considerations have to be expressed though:

(i) Even though no well-established system is perceived a. 1441-42, at least one (or more) mercer-warden(s) will be discarded based on the factors of prestige and experience hinted above.

(ii) Special attention will be paid to the mixing practices of already- identified mercer-wardens from a similar generation, with similar network scores, and with similar contacts with English as the mercer-warden under review.

(iii) In the case of mixed tokens in the disputed entries (fees and fines, and legal matters) and potentially kept by two mercer-wardens with similar profiles, the number of mixes will be shared as equally as possible by each of them. The assignment is complicated by an odd number of switches, and in it, the fact that several mixed

236 The other mercer-warden is vJohn Marshall (100% in LS and 0 previous contacts), whose master’s identity is unfortunately unknown. 326

categories in the same entry and bracketed paragraphs are obviously recorded by the same person will be taken for granted.

V.2.6.3.1. Fiscal year 1400-01

In Table 5.35, the wardens serving office and the number and nature of switches occurring in 1400-01 are shown:

Table 5.35. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1400-01

1400-01 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 1 2 Mixed MO 1 variants BS LS Wardens iMore2 iiR. Everard1 iiMarchford2 iiWhatley1

John Whatley has already been identified as the author of both 2 Y+MA (aldermans) and 1 MO switches (For drawynge of knyfes) in the sections concerning fines. The mercer-warden who switches 1 Y+MA variant remains to be identified. According to the type of entry where the switch occurs (communal events), a prestigious or, at least, an experienced warden is expected to carry out this duty. This rules Richard Everard out as the possible switcher; a second- generation warden first appearing in office, his network score of -3 and his absolute lack of previous contact with English do not contribute to the opposite. As a consequence, there are only two options open: John More and William Marchford. More and Marchford have both the same contact with English particles (1), when they receive the accounts of William Sheringham (switcher of Y+MA) and Laurence Andrew in 1394. Their network scores (More’s +1 and Marchford’s 0) do not clarify either who can be the switcher; there are both first-generation wardens scoring >+1 (e.g. Organ and Newenton) and second- generation wardens scoring 0 (e.g. J. Aleyn and Hampton) who do not switch at all. However, some first-generation informants with a similar network score as More’s have displayed a rather advanced behaviour in other text-types (e.g. 327

Woodcock and Northbury). The factor underlying this behaviour is their degree of involvement in the social (and textual) turmoil following the Brembre-de Northampton conflict. John More’s participation in the dispute as one of de Northampton’s closest supporters has been widely credited (Sutton 2005: 103- 17) and, unlike his close associate Northbury, he may have decided to adopt ME particles in his accounts as mercer-warden. For all these reasons, John More is here proposed as the second mercer

responsible for switching 1 Y+MA variant (mommer) in 1400-01 (f. 32v).

V.2.6.3.2. Fiscal year 1406-07

These are the wardens in office and the switches for this fiscal year:

Table 5.36. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1406-07

1406-07 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 2 2 Mixed MO variants BS LS Wardens iiSpeleman1 iMore3 iiCotton2 iiMarchford3

Interestingly enough, John More and William Marchford serve office together again, this time with Stephen Speleman and Walter Cotton. Seen More’s behaviour in the previously analysed fiscal year, he has many options for being one of the switchers. Since in the two sections where switching occurs, the same number and nature of particles arise (2 Y+MA), these can be directly allotted to More (MWA 1406-07: f. 45v). There exists more doubt about the other couple of switches. They appear in a section traditionally kept by more prominent wardens. However, the fact that a neophyte appears first in the list of wardens, while more experienced ones do it at the end complicates everything. In terms of socio-centric networks, Marchford is ruled out by his 0 network score again, but Speleman (+2) and Cotton (+3) still remain. Both second-generation mercer-wardens and without direct contact with English in the MWA before this date, the differentiating factor has to be searched elsewhere. 328

Whereas Speleman’s master is unfortunately unknown, the evolution of Cotton’s ego-centric networks is worthy of comment here. His master is John Fresh, already credited in this dissertation for being one of Nicholas Brembre’s closest advisors. Moreover, in view of William Waldern’s extremely conservative behaviour, Fresh has also been thought of as exerting an influence on his apprentice towards the non-use of English particles; as a matter of fact, Cotton does not switch at all in his first appearance in office (1399-1400). All this would provide enough material for choosing Speleman as the switcher rather than Cotton. However, at the end of his first year in office (June 1400), Cotton elects nothing less than John More (one of Brembre’s fiercest foes) as his successor in office; but this is only half the story since in June 1407 he elects another pro-de Northampton mercer: John Whatley (Sheringham’s apprentice). These elections lead to think of (i) an estrangement between Cotton and his original pro- Brembre network, and (ii) Cotton’s rapprochement to the pro-de Northampton’s network. The corresponding increase in Cotton’s contact with English in this new network and his quite high network score (+3) lead to choose him as the other switcher of 2 Y+MA in 1406-07 (f. 45r). As explained above (p. 303), Walter Cotton is the very picture of that kind of informant who acts as a linguistically conservative user at the beginning of his career but may end up using rather innovative forms or, at least, equating his uses to those of his own generation as a result of changes in his SN.

V.2.6.3.3. Fiscal year 1413-14

In 1413-14, one of the four mercer-wardens serving office (Stephen Speleman, John Middleton I, Richard Herry, and Martin Kelom) switches 2 Y+MA variants. As the entry in which the switches occur deals with the aournementz des auters, i.e. rental repairs, the 2 Y+MA variants (auterclothes) are expected to be switched by an inexperienced warden. A priori this would rule out Speleman and J. Middleton I, and point to either Herry or Kelom as the switcher. Both second-generation wardens, however, their lack of contact with English and, especially, their negative network scores (both -3) are not cause for optimism. 329

The only warden fulfilling the traditional requirements for being chosen as the switcher (a positive score as well as previous contact with switched categories) is Speleman; nevertheless, it is quite improbable that a first-listed warden like him carries out duties related to rental properties.

Table 5.37. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1413-14

1413-14 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 2 Mixed MO variants BS LS Wardens iiSpeleman2 iiJ. Middleton I3 iiHerry1 iiKelom1

A more in-depth analysis of Richard Herry’s ego-centric network provides interesting insights which may eventually lead to the answer. As appears in Figure 5.31 above (p. 287), Herry’s master is John Lovey. Lovey has been previously identified as one of the four possible wardens serving office while “The Folk of Mercerye” is being engineered (1384-85); then, he may have been in contact with English exactly like Sheringham, Shadworth, or Whittington, but he does not innovate in his only year in office in the MWA (1390-91) probably because of his negative network score (-1).237 In spite of his non-use of mixed variants, Lovey may have transmitted the innovation to his apprentices. If so, this would mean (i) that a negatively- and zero-scored NSS constrains the use but not the transmission of mixed categories in some mercer- wardens, and (ii) that adoption in the MWA may consist of two sub-processes (use and transmission) which work independently. As a matter of fact, if Figure 4.1 (p. 206) is recalled in here, it can be noticed how when an innovation is not adopted, one of its two possible outcomes is to be spred slowly, the other being to die out. Despite his very low network score (-3), Herry does switch but, unlike the rest of innovators’ apprentices, he is not ahead of the linguistic change. A second-generation mercer-warden, he does not go beyond second-stage (Y+MA)

237 The appointment to office of Richard Herry by William Cavendish (Whittington’s apprentice) in 1413 reinforces the idea of a close relationship between the mercer-wardens responsible for introducing mixed-language variants in the MWA. 330

variants. Consequently, a negative or zero score in the NSS can at least constrain the advancement of the linguistic change on some occasions. Furthermore, if a look is taken at Herry’s apprentices, it can be seen how he also transmits the linguistic change to them. At least, iiiRobert Large has a high chance of using advanced mixed variants again since in one of his years as a warden (1427-28), the number of BS variants (6) is remarkably high for his time. The same happens with Large’s apprentices; ivJohn Harrow, for instance, is part of the group of mercer-wardens in office when the first LS to SE occurs (1449-50). Consequently, in spite of a slower pace at the beginning, the Lovey- Herry-Large-Harrow network regains ground against the rest of innovators’ networks; the reason behind probably being the higher network scores obtained by the successive generations (Large’s and Harrow’s +2). As a result of all the aforementioned, I suggest that the mercer-warden who switches 2 Y+MA variants during 1413-14 (f. 63v) is Richard Herry.

V.2.6.3.4. Fiscal year 1414-15

In this fiscal year with Walter Cotton, Simon Bertelot, William Ernton, and Thomas Chalton as wardens, the number of switches (5) is particularly higher compared to the adjacent years. All of them appear in the sub-section of rental properties, what points to a single author. Since these duties are traditionally allotted to inexperienced wardens, Bertelot and Chalton are likely to keep the mixed accounts. Second-generation wardens, their respective network scores ([- 3] and [+1]) lead to think of Chalton as the switcher.

Table 5.38. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1414-15

1414-15 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 5 Mixed MO variants BS LS Wardens iiCotton3 iiBertelot1 iiErnton2 iiChalton1

In addition, Chalton is appointed successor by Richard Herry; as a matter of fact, this appointment may mean (i) an influence of Herry’s switching over 331

Chalton’s practices, and (ii) that it is made between renter-wardens. Due to all this, Thomas Chalton is suggested as the responsible for switching 5 Y+MA variants in 1414-15 (f. 66r).

V.2.6.3.5. Fiscal years 1415-16 and 1417-18

These are the switched variants and the wardens for the fiscal year 1415-16:

Table 5.39. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1415-16

1415-16 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 1 Mixed MO variants BS LS Wardens iiT. Aleyn3 iiiButler1 iiiAbbot1 iiFauntleroy2

Once again, like in the two previous fiscal years, the only switch (1 Y+MA variant) occurs in entries dealing with rental properties. This may suggest that the mercer-warden appointed by the previous switcher is also the renter-warden and, consequently, the switcher on this occasion. The mercer selected by Thomas Chalton (previous switcher) is John Fauntleroy; a second-generation warden, his score of -1 and a previous year in office without switching (AM) are not encouraging though. If both the network score and the previous contact with English particles are the most decisive factors for the attribution of switches in this case, there is only one informant who fulfils both requirements: John Butler. It is remarkable to underline that John Butler is one of the two mercer- wardens appearing in office for the first time in 1415-16 who belong to the third generation, the other one being John Abbot. In step 2, third-generation wardens with negative and zero scores in their NSS and without any kind of English influence have shown preference for AM; since this is the case of Abbot (0 in his NSS score and 0 contacts with particles), everything seems to point to Butler.238

238 The fact that it is not very clear which warden occupies third place on the list also contributes to the final suggestion. While in the opening of the fiscal year this is for John Abbot, at the election of the new wardens John Butler occupies it. 332

On the one hand, it is true that Butler has a high network score (+2); one the other hand, the only contact he may have with switched variants in the MWA is through Thomas Chalton’s accounts, his predecessor in renter- wardenship. Non-mixer William Marchford’s apprentice, he is elected to office by Simon Bertelot (non-mixer as well). These data lead me to suspect that positively-scored third-generation wardens (born p. 1380) easily adopt variants from earlier stages such as Y+MA. In order to confirm (or refute) this hypothesis, I now analyse the behaviour of another positively-scored third-generation mercer-warden appearing in office for the first time in 1417-18. This mercer is William Estfeld, very likely early adopter of BS variants late in his career (§ V.2.2.3.2). These are his fellow wardens and the switched variants in his first fiscal year:

Table 5.40. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1417-18

1417-18 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 1 1 Mixed MO variants BS LS Wardens iiFauconer4 iiiE. Fleet1 iiiEstmond1 iiiEstfeld1

1 Y+MA variant occurs in legal sections, and 1 Y+MA variant appears in entries dealing with rental properties. At least, the latter can be allotted to one inexperienced warden. Apart from Estfeld, the other neophyte in office is Everard Fleet. Both born p. 1380 and without any contact with switched variants prior to their first year in office whatsoever, they only differ in their network scores. Whereas Estfeld scores +2, E. Fleet gets a 0. But could the Y+MA variant have been kept by another warden? John Estmond is mentioned third on the list of wardens. A second- generation warden, his lack of previous contact with English and, above all, his very low network score (-3) traditionally mean that informants from his same generation prefer not to mix at all. The last warden (first on the list) to be mentioned is Thomas Fauconer. Clearly identified as an innovator in 1423-24 for introducing BS variants in the 333

MWA, his fourth year in office sets him far from keeping the rental section where 1 Y+MA variant occurs, but not the legal entry where the other Y+MA variant appears. Responsibility later shared between the second and the third wardens, during these earlier years legal matters could be managed by the first warden, should they be serious enough. For all this, Thomas Fauconer is proposed as the switcher of 1 Y+MA variant (MWA 1417-18: f. 73r), and William Estfeld as the responsible for switching the other Y+MA variant (f. 73r). Furthermore, John Butler is also considered the responsible for switching 1 Y+MA in 1415-16 (f. 68v). Estfeld’s behaviour leads me to conclude that positively-scored third- generation wardens (born p. 1380) should even already be able to code switch at most Y+MA without direct further previous contact with these switched particles. Does this conclusion mean that ego-centric networks loss their predictive force in informants born p. 1380? Not really. One must take note that Estfeld and Butler are switching variants from earlier stages. They have not used variants from their corresponding stage (MO variants for third-generation mercer-wardens) so far; both will probably do it once they have come into contact with more advanced variants in the MWA through their ties. Consequently, even though a mercer born p. 1380 does not need to be in close contact with English particles to mix, ego-centric networks are still operative insofar as they appear to influence third-generation informants’ advancement of the linguistic change. Informants will behave conservatively probably until more advanced mixed-language variants flow through their ego-centric networks and reach them; once there, they will probably adopt them due to their loose-knit socio-centric networks.

V.2.6.3.6. Fiscal year 1419-20

In this fiscal year, the wardens appearing and the switches occurring in the MWA can be seen in Table 5.41 below. Since once again the switched category (1 Y+MA) occurs in the sub- section related to the MC’s rental properties, the profiles of informants in their first year in office can be immediately analysed. As mentioned above (p. 294), 334

the fact that a well-known innovator serves office in a year where switching occurs does not mean that he is going to be the switcher; as a matter of fact, on this occasion, John Whatley, appearing for the third time as a mercer-warden, is unlikely to keep entries dealing with rental properties.

Table 5.41. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1419-20

1419-20 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 1 Mixed MO variants BS LS Wardens iiLane3 iiWhatley3 iiiOlney1 iiMelreth1

John Olney and William Melreth are the new wardens to serve in the MC’s office. Whereas Melreth belongs to the second-generation of wardens, Olney is born p. 1380. Melreth’s 0 score apparently rules him out; instead, Olney scores a high +3. Although he has no previous contact with mixed variants,239 Olney’s network score as well as his generation may reveal a sociolinguistic behaviour similar to that of William Estfeld. Third-generation mercer-wardens without any previous contact with English but who switch second-stage Y+MA variants appear to become quite recurrent in the MWA from this period. Therefore, John Olney is proposed as the switcher of 1 Y+MA variant (shope) in 1419-20 (f. 77r).

V.2.6.3.7. Fiscal years 1421-22 and 1422-23

In Table 5.42 below, the switched variants and the mercer-wardens for the first fiscal year (1421-22) are displayed. According to the sections where these mixes occur, the mixed-language tokens must have been switched by both experienced and inexperienced wardens. Attention will be firstly paid to the wardens’ socio- centric and ego-centric networks.

239 John Olney’s master is unknown. 335

Table 5.42. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1421-22

1421-22 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 4 4 Mixed MO variants BS LS Wardens iiT. Aleyn4 iiAylmer2 iiiFrowyk1 iiiBatail1

The first warden on the list (Thomas Aleyn) is worthy of comment here. Already analysed in this dissertation (§ V.2.3.2), through his ego-centric links he has been in contact with Y+MA variants; his high network score (+3) even points to him as a likely adopter of second-stage variants. Nevertheless, if he is one of the switchers during this fiscal year, it has taken him time to use Y+MA variants since he prefers not to mix at all in 1403-04 and 1415-16. Unlike Richard Northbury or William Waldern, this conservative behaviour during his career cannot have been due to his master’s influence: Thomas Austyn. Austyn supports de Northampton and is hostile to Brembre (Sutton 2005: 112-3); as a matter of fact, he also seems to have shared office with, at least, Sheringham and Shadworth in 1384-85 (Sutton 2005: 555). As a consequence, Austyn might have also taken part in the composition of “The Folk of Mercerye”, a factor which has explained quite well many other mercer- wardens’ preference for switching. Moreover, Austyn has strong links with Sheringham and especially with his son-in-law Woodcock, both mercers using English in their texts (Rawcliffe 1993d, 1993g). Like several mercers with similar ego-centric networks, Austyn is then expected to have promoted the use of the vernacular among his close-knit contacts.240 In sum, the sociolinguistic environment seems ideal for Thomas Aleyn to behave linguistically like John Whatley, Robert Domenyk, or William Cavendish. However, his behaviour turns out to be quite different from theirs. Unlike them, T. Aleyn does not introduce variants from later stages or is ahead of the linguistic change either. He could be one of those informants not behaving prototypically (Bergs 2006: 255).

240 Unfortunately, no trace of Austyn’s textual behaviour p. 1385 has survived since he is dead by 1391, first fiscal year in the MWA. 336

The other experienced warden who competes for the authorship of one group of switches is Richard Aylmer. A second-generation mercer, his negative network score (-1) as well as AM in his previous year in office (1411-12) cause me to be pessimistic about his chance of switching on this occasion. Consequently, this could mean that Thomas Aleyn may have been the responsible for switching at least the 4 Y+MA variants found in the sections dealing with the weirs on the River Thames. Furthermore, the other 4 Y+MA variants are found in sub-sections dealing with legal matters, which cannot be directly allotted to the third warden due to their fuzzy nature. The warden listed on the third place is Henry Frowyk, whereas on the fourth one Thomas Batail appears. Both third-generation mercer-wardens and with low network scores (0 and -3 respectively), the only difference between them is their previous contact with mixed particles in the MWA. Whereas Frowyk has no contact at all whatsoever, Batail is appointed to office by William Cavendish, who has just introduced MO variants in the MWA. Since he is then in contact with a third-stage variant, could Batail be switching despite his negative score? So far, it has been seen how third-generation mercer-wardens seem to be capable of switching variants from earlier stages without being in contact with any kind of switched variants. Could it also be possible for negatively-scored third-generation wardens with direct contact with English variants to mix categories from earlier stages? In the light of the switching scenario during this year, I lean in favour of it. Thomas Batail is suggested as the switcher of 1 Y+MA variant in 1421-22; and I write down 1 since switches in the disputed legal section have to be shared between the switchers. Since 3 of them appear in the same string, they must have been kept by one single person; in this case, 3 more Y+MA variants have been assigned to Thomas Aleyn, totalling 7 Y+MA for him. Undoubtedly, this is a very high number of switches for one single warden. But here the question arises as to whether, rather than advancing qualitatively in the linguistic change, in the case of T. Aleyn, the linguistic influence from his master results in a quantitative increase of mixed variants from his corresponding stage. 337

Thomas Aleyn elects John Coventry as his successor in office in 1422. This is not the first time both wardens appoint each other; in 1417 J. Coventry chooses T. Aleyn, what points to a quite close relationship between them.241

The wardens and mixes in 1422-23 are as follows:

Table 5.43. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1422-23

1422-23 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 5 1 Mixed MO 1 variants BS LS Wardens iiJ. Coventry3 iiiAbbot2 iiiHales1 iiFauntleroy3

As can be noticed, the number of switches occurring in sections and sub- sections traditionally kept by the first warden (the position occupied by John Coventry) is also large. In this dissertation, J. Coventry has already been credited for acting as the prototypical early adopter of SE in another text type (ordinances). He might be acting again as such and being influenced by Thomas Aleyn’s mixing practices. This would explain the switching of 5 Y+MA variants, but not of 1 MO variant. In this last respect, to mix a third-stage would mean being ahead of the linguistic change, a behaviour only displayed by first- and second-generation mercer-wardens belonging to close-knit networks of innovators (a characteristic not fulfilled by J. Coventry). The other experienced wardens in office who could have used this third- stage variant are John Abbot and John Fauntleroy. Like J. Coventry, Fauntleroy’s generation (second) rules him out. Concerning Abbot, this third- generation mercer-warden’s network scores and contact with English are not cause for optimism; a low NSS score (0) and lack of previous contact with MO variants would rule Abbot out as well. However, since at least a suggestion is necessary, I focus on Abbot’s profile, and more specifically on his network score. After all, what a network score of 0 indicates is a balanced network, i.e. neither extremely close-knit nor extremely loose-knit. In the case of third-generation

241 In 1409, J. Coventry also chooses another Aleyn (John, this time) as his successor. John might be connected to Thomas by a kin tie. 338

informants, it could be possible for them to switch variants up to their corresponding stage with a zero (non-positive) network score and without any previous contact with switched particles, in the same way as they appear to be capable of switching variants from earlier stages with negative network scores. This might the case of John Abbot; hence, I propose him as the switcher of the MO sub-stage variant. Concerning William Hales, also a third-generation mercer-warden, his negative score of -2 and his possible previous contact with Y+MA variants via Thomas Batail point to him as the switcher of the remaining 1 Y+MA. Furthermore, since the variant concerns repairs, it is very likely that this neophyte is the responsible for keeping the entry where it occurs.

V.2.6.3.8. Fiscal year 1423-24

These are the switched tokens that occur and the mercers serving office during the fiscal year 1423-24:

Table 5.44. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1423-24

1423-24 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 2 4 3 Mixed MO variants BS 1 LS Wardens iiFauconer5 iiiEdmond1 iiOsborne1 iiiPrentice1

Thomas Fauconer (first warden on the list) has been widely acknowledged as the innovator introducing BS variants for the first time in this year;242 his positive network score (+2) and his more than probable belonging to a network of innovators suggest so.243 Apart from 1 BS variant, it is quite unlikely that Fauconer switches any other particle since the rest of switched tokens occur in sub-sections dealing with more menial tasks, and the other

242 Like T. Aleyn, Fauconer’s innovative behaviour late in his career is to be noticed. 243 To know Fauconer’s master’s identity would have provided valuable insights into this research, but once again, the lack of data prevents a full appraisal. 339

fellow wardens also have similar characteristics to other informants acting as switchers. Second on the list of wardens, John Edmond is a third-generation warden with a network score of -1 and in slight contact with MO variants via John Abbot, switching this variant and choosing Edmond the previous year. If, as has just been argued, non-positively-scored third-generation wardens are able to mix categories from earlier stages, Edmond is likely to use 2 Y+MA variants in his accounts. Third on the list of wardens, Thomas Osborne makes his first appearance in office. Osborne’s profile deserves further comment in here. His case reveals that no research is completely free from unavoidable shortcomings, and this one was not going to be an exception. As far as this research is concerned, the quantification of the variable of generation presents problems. Since in this fiscal year, switches occur in abundance and in almost all sections, Osborne is certain (as far as possible) to have switched. With a poor network score of -4 and slight contact with Y+MA variants via William Hales, only third-generation wardens have switched under these circumstances; however, Osborne has been classified as a second-generation mercer-warden. Does this fact cast doubt on the whole group of conclusions drawn so far? Not really. To quantify categorically a concept like generation involves risks; one of them consists of those informants (like Osborne) who were born at the turn of the decade. Osborne’s earliest mention is found in the MWA in 1395-96, when he is recorded as one of Thomas Hawe’s apprentices (f. 18r). An approximation to Osborne’s date of birth can be made from this data. Since apprentices tend to join the MC at the age of 16 (Imray 1969), he must be born c. 1379-80; hence, he falls within the group of second-generation mercer-wardens. Even though his label says that he belongs to the group of wardens born a. 1380, there are much more things that link him with informants born p. 1380; the most important one is the sociolinguistic environment in which he must have grown up. This seems to be borne out by his mixing behaviour in the MWA. According to his third position on the list and since in this year the variable of experience does not play a relevant role for the distribution of switches, Osborne must have switched the 4 Y+MA variants occurring in the sub-sections related to scribal 340

work (third wardenship) since, with the exception of Fauconer, all of the wardens are serving office for the first time. William Prentice is the last on the list. As the fourth-listed mercer- warden, he is expected to be the author of the remaining 3 Y+MA variants in the sub-sections dealing with rental properties. A mercer born p. 1380, his score of - 3 as well as his previous contact with English variants (1 Y+MA in the previous fourth-warden’s accounts) have been enough for other informants to switch second-stage variants.

V.2.6.3.9. 1424-25 and other fiscal years

The number and the nature of switches, as well as the mercer-wardens serving office for this fiscal year, are shown in Table 5.45:

Table 5.45. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1424-25

1424-25 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 1 Mixed MO variants BS LS Wardens iiiEstfeld2 iiiE. Fleet2 iiBures2 iiWashborne3

As displayed, the number of switches (1 Y+MA) returns to pre-1420s levels. The reason behind this involution seems to be the reappearance in office of wardens with a conservative linguistic behaviour. For instance, Richard Bures (-4) and John Washborne (-2) belong to that second generation of wardens who, with negative network scores and hardly any contact with switched categories, decide not to mix at all. Because the switch occurs in an entry dealing with foreign costs arising from communal events (bargeman [f. 88r]), it must have been kept by either the first or the second warden; William Estfeld and Everard Fleet are then the strongest candidates. According to their network backgrounds, Estfeld is located in a looser socio-centric network (network score of +2 against E. Fleet’s 0), has had contact with more advanced variants through his strong ego-centric tie with Thomas Fauconer, and also has already displayed a mixing behaviour in 1417-18 341

(E. Fleet has yet to do it). Even though a third-generation warden like E. Fleet could very well have switched the Y+MA variant, in all these attributions the most likely authors are always proposed; if, as in this case, another mercer- warden has more real chance of mixing, he will be eventually selected. Therefore, William Estfeld is the mercer-warden tipped to be switching 1 Y+MA variant in 1424-25.

This fiscal year does not seem to provide any new evidence relating to deviant mixing behaviour in any of the mercers serving office; that is to say, mixed variants tend to appear in sections and sub-sections whose most likely potential author presents a sociolinguistic profile which is very similar to that of other analysed informants who have ended up using similar mixed variants. Consequently, the assignment of mixed tokens has been in a way straightforward. The same happens in a series of pre-1441-42 fiscal years. From Table 5.46 to Table 5.53, the attribution of authorship for all of them is shown:

Table 5.46. Assignment of mixed variants for 1425-26

1425-26 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 1 1 Mixed MO variants BS LS iiiFrowyk2 iiiWandesford1 iiKelom2 iiiChurch1 Authorship AM X Y+MA 1 AM X Y+MA 1

In 1425-26, Thomas Wandesford and John Church appear in office for the first time. Their non-negative network scores (0 and +1 respectively), together with their generation, facilitate this direct attribution. In addition, the fact that Martin Kelom previously works as the scribe responsible for producing fair copies of the MWA (Table 3.4, p. 171) may help his appointment as the third warden dealing with familiar scribal work, sub-sections where CS does not occur. In 1428-29 (Table 5.47 below), apart from attributing the switching of 4

Y+MA variants to Estfeld, the MO variant (divers persones beyng absent fro

dirigez, ridyng & sommouns) occurring in fees and fines (f. 99r) is also assigned 342

to him for reasons of higher network score (+2) than John Abbot (0), who, in turn, could very well have switched 1 Y+MA. New mercer-warden, Rich belongs to the third generation of wardens and scores +2; therefore, he is also very likely to switch 1 Y+MA in the rental sub-sections.

Table 5.47. Assignment of mixed variants for 1428-29

1428-29 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 4 1 1 Mixed MO 1 variants BS LS iiiEstfeld3 iiiAbbot3 iiFauntleroy4 iiiRich1 Authorship Y+MA 4 Y+MA 1 AM X Y+MA 1 MO 1

In 1430-31, all the switches (in this case, Y+MA variants) are directly attributed to the most likely author. For instance, it can be seen how the 3 Y+MA switches in legal matters are distributed; 1 Y+MA has been assigned to E. Fleet, whereas the other 2 Y+MA to Cotford. The main reason behind this choice is (now and always) to balance the use of mixed tokens in wardens with similar chances of mixing. In this case, since no English particles occur in third- wardenship sections, 1 more switch (2 Y+MA) is assigned to Cotford (third- generation warden and a NSS score of 0) than to E. Fleet (1 Y+MA).

Table 5.48. Assignment of mixed variants for 1430-31

1430-31 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 2 1 1 3 Mixed MO variants BS LS iiiLarge3 iiiE. Fleet3 iiiCotford1 iiiSeymour1 Authorship Y+MA 2+1 Y+MA 1+1 Y+MA 2 AM X

In 1431-32 (Table 5.49 below), it is relevant to briefly highlight William Cantelowe’s behaviour in his first year in office. A well-known innovator, the number of switches he uses (5) is higher than average, even if all of them belong 343

to variants from the second stage (Y+MA). Concerning the rest of mercer- wardens, no new relevant information to report, just as there is no for the next fiscal year (1432-33) (Table 5.50), with third-generation mercer-wardens switching second-stage variants.

Table 5.49. Assignment of mixed variants for 1431-32

1431-32 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 2 5 Mixed MO variants BS LS iiMelreth3 iiWashborne4 iiiPrentice2 iiiCantelowe1 Authorship Y+MA 2 AM X AM X Y+MA 5

Table 5.50. Assignment of mixed variants for 1432-33

1432-33 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 3 1 2 Mixed MO variants BS LS iiiOlney3 iiiAbbot4 iiChalton3 iiiFielding1 Authorship Y+MA 3 Y+MA 1 AM X Y+MA 2

In 1437-38, all the switches occurring in entries concerning rental issues (1 Y+MA; 4 MO) have already been allotted to Thomas Onehand, one of the autographers.

Table 5.51. Assignment of mixed variants for 1437-38

1437-38 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 2 1 Mixed MO 4 variants BS LS iiiOlney4 ivOnehand1 ivM. Foucher1 iiiTownland1 Authorship Y+MA 2 Y+MA 1 AM X AM X MO 4

344

As for the 2 Y+MA variants in first-wardenship sections, they are attributed to John Olney, third-generation warden with a network score of +3 and who has already switched Y+MA in his accounts (1432-33). The fiscal year 1437-38 perfectly exemplifies the absence of any kind of hierarchical system a. 1441-42, insofar as the renter-warden turns out to be listed on second position. Other examples where autographed entries also help determine the absence of hierarchy are 1439-40 and 1440-41:244

Table 5.52. Assignment of mixed variants for 1439-40

1439-40 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 1 4 Mixed MO variants BS LS iiChalton4 iiiDunton1 iiTickhill2 ivIrwilliam1 Authorship Y+MA 1 Y+MA 4 AM X AM X

Table 5.53. Assignment of mixed variants for 1440-41

1440-41 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 3 3 Mixed MO variants BS LS iiiEstfeld5 iiiRich3 ivGoodson1 iiiJ. Andrew1 Authorship Y+MA 3 AM X Y+MA 3 AM X

Both in 1439-40 and 1440-41, Y+MA switches occur in entries traditionally kept by first-generation wardens. Since Chalton and Estfeld fulfil the necessary requirements to switch these second sub-stage variants, the attribution has been directly made. Unlike the fiscal years just analysed, in the following years some mercer- wardens’ mixing behaviour supplies new information which deserves to be evaluated in detail.

244 It is not necessary to graphically represent the assignment of mixed tokens for 1438-39 since the only 2 MO variants occurring have been previously allotted to Hugh Wiche (§§ V.2.4.2, p. 286, V.2.6.1, p. 296). 345

V.2.6.3.10. Fiscal year 1426-27

The results for this fiscal year are presented in Table 5.54:

Table 5.54. Assignment of mixed variants for 1426-27

1426-27 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 1 3 3 Mixed MO variants BS LS iiMelreth2 iiiOlney2 iiCavendish3 iiChalton2 Authorship Y+MA 1 Y+MA 3 AM X Y+MA 3

William Melreth’s switching of Y+MA variants (1) has to be particularly highlighted since, as analysed above (p. 334), he is a second-generation warden scoring 0. After not switching in his first year in office (1419-20), Melreth seems to have been influenced by John Olney via a strong tie; both share office in 1419-20 and again in this fiscal year.245 Then, Melreth may have acted as an adopter of Olney’s practices, and this may be so in spite of his non-positive network score, demonstrating that on some occasions, a 0 score does not have to be immediately associated with close-knitness. After all, it indicates a balanced network which, in this particular case, may allow a second-generation like Melreth to switch. William Cavendish’s preference for AM in this year is also remarkable, even more so if his innovative behaviour six fiscal years before is borne in mind. His socio-centric NSS score of -4 may be the reason behind this linguistic conservativeness. After all, in relative terms, Cavendish approximates closely to AM than to variants from any other advanced stage (Table 5.55).246

Table 5.55. Cavendish’s mixing practices

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS iiCavendish 66.67% 33.33%

245 Both also appoint each other to office later (1432, 1438, and 1443). 246 Cavendish’s complete linguistic behaviour can be established here since 1426-27 is his last year in office. 346

It is true that, as a core member of a network of innovators, Cavendish uses variants from advanced stages (MO); however, the influence of his close- knit socio-centric networks is noticeable in his average preference for more conservative stages (AM).

V.2.6.3.11. Fiscal year 1427-28

Table 5.56 provides an overview of the mixed tokens and the mercers in office during the fiscal year 1427-28:

Table 5.56. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1427-28

1427-28 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 1 Mixed MO 29 variants BS 6 LS Wardens iiWhatley4 iiiLarge2 iiiBatail2 iiPidmell1

In this fiscal year, the high amount and the predominance of MO and BS variants in the section of fees and fines is to be emphasised, all the more so as one of the experienced wardens occupying the two first positions on the list is John Whatley, well-known introducer of the third-stage (MO) variants.

Table 5.57. (1427-28) mercer-wardens’ contact with mixed variants before serving office

Contact with mixed variants Wardens Y+MA MO BS LS iiWhatley 1 2 iiiLarge 1 1 1 iiiBatail 1 1 iiPidmell 1

The fact that Whatley has not been in contact with any BS variant before proves that his innovative behaviour goes further than introducing MO 347

variants.247 His belonging to a widely identified network of innovators as well as his socio-centric network score of +5 (the highest of all mercer-wardens in the MWA) may explain this propensity for advancement in the linguistic change. Robert Large’s background turns out to be not very different from Whatley’s. A third-generation mercer-warden with a high network score (+2), neither is he in contact with BS variants before this date. As has already been hinted at some moment, Large’s belonging to a network of innovators in the same manner as that composed by Sheringham, Whatley, and Cantelowe is quite likely. Unlike Lovey and Herry probably for their negative network scores, Large is the first member of this network who is ahead of the linguistic change. He is then in line with the tendency among the members of innovative networks to be one stage (or even two like Whatley and Cantelowe) ahead of the linguistic change. The fact that ivJohn Harrow and ivThomas Niche (Large’s apprentices) follow this trend and shift to SE (fifth-stage variable) seems to corroborate this idea of network. As a matter of fact, Harrow and Niche are not the only Large’s apprentices who show an advanced linguistic behaviour; there is another one who, with his decision of printing books in English as well as in French and Latin, makes history: William Caxton (Blake 1966; Sutton 1994a).248 Concerning Large’s innovative behaviour, I just want to hint his possible involvement in the engineering of the Book of Ordinances. Probably created in 1436-37 (f. 126r), it is unlikely that Large, first warden during the previous fiscal year (1435-36), had not had a say in the engineering of this book kept completely in English (pp. 173-4, 177). Since both Whatley and Large have the same chance of mixing both MO and BS variants, these are evenly split between the two mercer-wardens. The results are as follows: 1 Y+MA, 15 MO, and 3 BS for Whatley; 14 MO and 3 BS for Large.249

247 His switching of Y+MA and MO variants are not considered as proper contacts via ego- centric ties; this is why they have not counted as such in Table 5.57. 248 Obviously, it would be extremely ambitious to try to trace a connection between the first parliamentary petition in English (“The Folk of Mercerye”) and the printing of the first works in English. But there may be evidence that the responsible for both actions could have been linked through master-apprentice ties in the same SN. 249 Contrary to what was expected (p. 283), Pidmell does not switch. Consequently, this points to Pidmell’s SN having a higher influence on the transmission of innovations than on their use. 348

V.2.6.3.12. Fiscal year 1429-30

In 1429-30, it is particularly important to analyse the occurrence of fourth-stage (BS) variants among third-generation mercer-wardens:

Table 5.58. Assignment of mixed variants for 1429-30

1429-30 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 7 3 1 1 Mixed MO 3 1 variants BS 1 2 LS iiiFrowyk3 iiiHales2 iiiBoston1 iiiDautre1 Y+MA 7+1 Y+MA 1+2 AM X Y+MA 1 Authorship MO 1 MO 2 MO 1 BS 1+2

As can be seen in Table 5.58, Henry Frowyk is the warden tipped to be the responsible for switching all BS variants. His higher degree of contact with Y+MA and MO particles, his non-negative score (0), the occurrence of mixes in special texts and in the fees and fines’ sections, and the authorship dispute with a negatively-scored third-generation mercer-warden as William Hales are the main arguments. Not only does Frowyk act as a switcher but is also ahead of the linguistic change; once again, a zero-scored NSS does not constitute an obstacle to the linguistic advancement. Even though he is not in direct contact with BS variants in his previous years as a mercer-warden, Frowyk’s close link with William Estfeld may also explain his use of them. As exposed before (§ V.2.2.3.2), Estfeld is actually in direct contact with Fauconer’s earliest use of a switched independent sentence in 1423-24 (f. 84v), when Fauconer elects him as successor in office at the end of this fiscal year (MWA 1424: f. 86v). Although Estfeld does not use it in his accounts of 1424-25 and 1428-29, he may have (early) adopted Fauconer’s innovation insofar as he may have transmitted it to one of his close contacts: Frowyk. Answers to two previously raised questions seem to be then provided: (i) can an innovation be spred if the supposed early adopter does not use it in his accounts? (§ V.2.2.3.2, p. 278), and (ii) may an informant have an influence on 349

others’ linguistic behaviour without being the latter in actual contact with the switched linguistic item? (§ V.2.3.1, p. 280). Both seem to be affirmative. As for the first one, this is also corroborated by the description of adoption as a twofold process (§ V.2.6.3.3, p. 329); as for the second one, this seems to be true at least for informants closely linked with early adopters, like in the Estfeld- Frowyk case analysed above. As for the rest of the mercer-wardens, all of them are third-generation informants with negative network scores. Once the corresponding distribution of an odd number of switches is done, it reveals that iiiHales and iiiDautre limit themselves to using switched variants from both their corresponding and earlier stages; none of them is ahead of the linguistic change, and even iiiBoston prefers not to mix at all (AM).

V.2.6.3.13. Fiscal years 1433-34 and 1434-35

From 1433-34 onwards, fourth-generation mercers begin to appear in office. Therefore, their behaviour deserves to be studied in here in order to see if it reveals new information on mixing practices.

Table 5.59. Assignment of mixed variants for 1433-34

1433-34 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 3 4 1 4 Mixed MO 1 1 1 2 variants BS LS iiiEstfeld4 iiiBatail3 iiiRich2 ivDerham1 Authorship Y+MA 3 Y+MA 4 Y+MA 1 Y+MA 4 MO 1 MO 1+1 MO 2

In 1433, ivJohn Derham is elected warden by Geoffrey Fielding for the first (and only) time. As the only neophyte in office, he is very likely to keep accounts related to rental properties. In these sub-sections, 4 Y+MA and 2 MO are switched. In addition, Derham scores -2 in his NSS, and his contact with switched particles limits itself to the Y+MA variants kept by his predecessor in office. Consequently, his profile and mixing practices seem to concur with the 350

behaviour expected of the conservative group of fourth-generation wardens with a slight contact with English and a negative network score.

Table 5.60. Assignment of mixed variants for 1434-35

1434-35 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 3 2 Mixed MO variants BS LS iiiFrowky4 ivDyke1 iiOsborne2 ivSturgeon1 Authorship Y+MA 3 AM X AM X Y+MA 2

At the end of this fiscal year, Derham elects another fourth-generation mercer as warden; he is John Sturgeon. In this first year in office, Sturgeon displays a conservative behaviour since he only switches 2 Y+MA variants. Like in 1434-35, in the rest of fiscal years when he serves office (1441-42, 1447-48, and 1455-56) the most advanced variants belong to the fourth stage (BS); consequently, John Sturgeon seems to prefer variants from earlier mixing stages. Nevertheless, it is risky to put him into one of the two different groups of fourth-generation wardens from these earliest results, since a 0 NSS score denoting a balanced network as his has both constrained and facilitated the linguistic change. If Derham’s conservative behaviour is partly influenced by his negatively- scored network score, in the case of Hugh Dyke (the other fourth-generation warden in 1434-35 who does not mix at all), it must be his positively-scored network score (+2). In other words, whereas Derham belongs to the group of fourth-generation informants in whom previous network forces are still operative, Dyke seems to belong to the new group of wardens for whom network forces might already be changing as a result of the change in the linguistic norm. Despite his loose-knit socio-centric networks, Dyke’s linguistic practices approximate exclusively to AM. The other mercer-wardens both in 1433-34 and 1434-35 are attributed their mixed variants on the basis of what has been done so far.

351

V.2.6.3.14. Fiscal years 1435-36 and 1436-37

These two fiscal years are highlighted here since only in them a very particular phenomenon occurs. This is the concentration of a large number of switches in one single section and, consequently, the possibility of them being the work of one single author.

Table 5.61. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1435-36

1435-36 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 3 3 1 27 Mixed MO 1 1 variants BS LS Wardens iiiLarge4 iiiHales3 iiiDautre2 iiiOliver1

Table 5.62. Mixed variants and mercer-wardens in 1436-37

1436-37 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 5 1 19 Mixed MO 1 variants BS LS Wardens iiiWandesford2 iiiE. Fleet4 iiiCotford2 iiiLovelace1

In Table 5.61 and in Table 5.62 displaying the results for both fiscal years, it can be seen how in the sections traditionally kept by the fourth warden 28 variants (27 Y+MA and 1 MO) are switched in 1435-36 and 20 variants (19 Y+MA and 1 MO) in 1436-37. The wardens more likely to keep rental properties are William Oliver in 1435-36 and Richard Lovelace in 1436-37.250 None of them seems to have an extraordinary circumstance which makes them behave so differently from the rest in quantitative terms. Both are third- generation wardens and score negatively (-1 and -2 respectively). As for their ego-centric networks, it is true that Oliver belongs to a network whose members

250 Regarding the 3 Y+MA variants in the disputed sections of 1435-36, both Large and Hales have the same chance of switching them. As a result, 1 Y+MA is for Large and 2 Y+MA are for Hales because the number of switches is uneven, and the Y+MA variants pre-assigned to Large are higher. The total amount is as follows: 4 Y+MA for Large, and 3 Y+MA and 1 MO for Hales. As for 1436-37, the assignment is 5 Y+MA for Wandesford and 1 Y+MA for E. Fleet. 352

have always been in direct contact with advanced variants but have never switched, probably due to their negative network scores (Figure 5.27 above). As mentioned before (§ V.2.3.4), Thomas Sedgeford is appointed to office by John Whatley in 1401, just after introducing MO variants. Ralph Middleton is in office when Robert Domenyk uses MO variants in 1404-05, and so is John Pidmell in 1427-28 with John Whatley and Robert Large switching BS variants. What is more, one of Pidmell’s apprentices, Robert Hallum, is one of the four mercer-wardens who decide to shift to SE in the MWA in 1449-50. To affirm that this particular circumstance could explain his behaviour would entail complications, insofar as the network of masters and apprentices to which the other mercer-warden using the same amount of switches (Richard Lovelace) belongs has little or nothing to do with Oliver’s.

Figure 5.32. Lovelace’s network of masters and apprentices

John More is in direct contact with Sheringham’s first switches but he does switch, and so does William Melreth do. By contrast, Lovelace’s master, William Foucher, prefers AM in his accounts. Nevertheless, Lovelace’s mixing practices may be very influenced by Oliver’s, since the latter chooses the former as successor. But the extralinguistic variables presented in this dissertation do not appear to provide a valid explanation to Oliver’s and Lovelace’s behaviour. Jefferson and Rothwell (1997: 280) make particular reference to the higher presence of English in sections listing building repairs than in others and long before the final LS in the Merchant Taylors’ Master and Wardens’ Accounts. It could be the case that language mixing in the MWA was also constrained by the type of sections kept by the mercer-wardens. Like in the case of the Merchant Taylors, English particles could have become much more recurrent in sections reserved for the fourth warden (at least during these two fiscal years).

353

V.2.6.3.15. Fiscal years p. 1441-42 and 1442-43

These two fiscal years have important implications for two aspects of this dissertation: (i) authorship attribution, and (ii) ego-centric networks. First of all, from these fiscal years onwards to the end of the accounts, the likelihood of establishing with certainty the authorship of all sections vastly increases. A prestige- and experience-based hierarchical system where the most experienced wardens occupy the first posts of wardenship and keep entries on most prestigious topics seems to be in place. In addition, every warden in office seems to elect as his successor the warden appearing in the same position as him on the list;251 as a matter of fact, this could also be the reason why the outgoing wardens do not feel the need to record the election of the incoming wardens any longer. Furthermore, certainty is increased even more in the case of the warden dealing with rental issues with the incorporation of the RWA to the MC’s written sphere after the inheritance of Whittington’s charity made effective in 1442- 43.252

Table 5.63. Mercer-wardens before becoming renter-wardens

Warden(s) Fiscal year253 Rental year Olney, Fielding, Boleyn, and Burton 1442-43 Xmas 1442-Xmas 1443 Oliver (3rd warden) 1443-44 Xmas 1443-Mmas 1445 Thornhill (3rd warden) 1441-42254 Mmas 1445-Mmas 1448 Baron (4th warden) 1446-47 Nov. 1449-Easter 1452 Muschamp (3rd warden) 1449-50 Nov. 1449-Easter 1452 Fielding, Burton, Gosse, and Lambert 1452-53 Sep. 1452-Easter 1453

On the one hand, in Table 5.63, it can be seen how from 1442-43 to 1452- 53 the mercer responsible for writing down the RWA has been previously (or simultaneously) appointed as mercer-warden. On the other hand, from 1453-54 onwards, it is the renter-warden who later serves office as mercer-warden

251 This happens in the four masters’ election ceremonies which are actually recorded from 1439 to 1463 (1443, 1449, 1450, and 1456). 252 Jefferson (2009: 578) notices an inconsistency in the original manuscript concerning the year when Whittington’s Charity is transferred to the MC. Rather than at Christmas 1441, she argues that John Mortham renders it at Christmas 1442 (during the fiscal year 1442-43). 253 Every fiscal year in the MWA begins and ends in Midsummer. 254 Rental duties are shared with John Sturgeon and Thomas Steel. 354

(Table 5.64). Consequently, it is very likely that he has dealt or will deal with the rental sections in the MWA. From Christmas 1443 to Easter 1454, most renter-wardens have also occupied the third position on the list of wardens (the only exception being Robert Baron [fourth warden in 1446-47]). In turn, from Easter 1454 onwards, all renter-wardens occupy the fourth position on the list. The tradition of the renter-warden in office being appointed as fourth warden by his predecessor the following Midsummer is certain to have begun by Easter 1455 with William Redknap being appointed by John Shipton, and followed by John Donne, John Ward, John Marshall, John Berby, Roger Middlemore, Richard Gardiner, Ralph Kemp, and John Shelly. The transition of rental matters from the third to the fourth wardenship must have taken place in Midsummer 1454 with the election to office as fourth warden of John Shipton (still incumbent renter-warden).

Table 5.64. Renter-wardens before becoming mercer-wardens

Warden(s) Rental year Fiscal year Littleton (3rd warden) Easter 1453-Easter 1454 1453-54 Scrayningham (3rd warden) Easter 1453-Easter 1454 1454-55 Shipton (4th warden) Easter 1454-Easter 1455 1454-55 Redknap (4th warden) Easter 1455-Easter 1456 1455-56 Donne (4th warden) Easter 1456-Easter 1457 1456-57 Ward (4th warden) Easter 1457-Easter 1458 1457-58 Marshall (4th warden) Easter 1458-Easter 1459 1458-59 Berby (4th warden) Easter 1459-Easter 1460 1459-60 Middlemore (4th warden) Easter 1460-Easter 1461 1460-61 Gardiner (4th warden) Easter 1461-Easter 1462 1461-62 Kemp (4th warden) Easter 1462-Easter 1463 1462-63 Shelly (4th warden) Easter 1463-Easter 1464 1463-64

And second of all, the fact that some mercer-wardens have kept the RWA in SE before the MWA (or simultaneously) makes then necessary a modification of the sources of contact with English for these informants. From 1442-43 onwards, when it comes to allocating mixed variants from the disputed sections, previous direct contact with the SE matrix in the RWA will also be taken into consideration in the count of ego-centric network ties. But not only account- keepers can be in direct contact with the SE matrix of the RWA. In September 355

1452, the figure of the auditor emerges. As Jefferson (2009: 17-8) argues, as a result of the chaotic situation of the RWA even with accounts wrongly dated, Geoffrey Fielding, John Burton, Thomas Gosse, and John Lambert (mercer- wardens since Midsummer 1452) realise that they need to take charge jointly of them. In order to ensure greater clarity and further control of the RWA, an audit process should be implemented by the four above-mentioned mercers. This is the complete list of auditors of the RWA:

Table 5.65. Rental years and auditors of the RWA

Rental year Auditors Sep. 1452-Easter 1453 Harrow, Roo, March, and Denton Easter 1459-Easter 1460 Verney, Stokton, and Marshall Easter 1460-Easter 1461 Wiche, Lambert, Muschamp, and Berby Easter 1461-Easter 1462 Nedeham, Scrayningham, Tate, and Middlemore Easter 1462-Easter 1463 Reynkyn, Niche, and Gardiner Easter 1463-Easter 1464 Stokton, Donne, Gregory, and Kemp

There is actually a gap where no audit is performed. After Easter 1453, next time auditors are recorded occurs in Easter 1460;255 from this later date to the last fiscal year (1463-64), every Easter the four mercer-wardens in office when the rental year begins are required to audit the accounts.256

Table 5.66 to Table 5.80 below show my proposal of allocation of mixed variants for the remaining fiscal years until the end of the MWA. Let me remind of the fact that this assignment is an interesting personal attempt to uncover the mixing practices of all the mercer-wardens serving office in the MC; the mixed categories will always be eventually allotted to the most likely author. This does not mean that there are not other alternatives for authorship which can also be valid; however, my suggestion is strongly based on results from the previous empirical analysis of the influence of generation and SN on similar informants’ mixed-language usages.

255 There remains the question of why from Easter 1453 to Easter 1459 auditors are unrecorded. Either absence or omission seems to be the possible explanation. 256 The auditors in Sep. 1452-Easter 1453 (Harrow, Roo, March, and Denton) are not the wardens in office at that moment. In Easter 1459-Easter 1460, Burton does not act as auditor either. 356

According to the linguistic usages discovered in the analysis so far, from third-generation mercer-wardens onwards, informants are able to switch Y+MA variants regardless of their network scores and previous contact with English particles; as for MO variants, switching is apparently possible with non-negative scores and/or with previous direct contact. Regarding BS and LS variants, all informants should have been previously in contact with mixed variants from these stages, and in the case of third-generation wardens, have a positive network score as well. Therefore, when two informants have a similar fair chance of switching them, Y+MA variants occurring in disputed sections will be equally shared between them without further discussion.257 By contrast, the attribution of variants from more advanced stages, especially BS and LS, does need a further explanation.

Table 5.66. Assignment of mixed variants for 1441-42

1441-42 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 1 5 Mixed MO variants BS LS iiiFrowyk5 ivSturgeon2 iiiThornhill1 ivSteel1 Authorship Y+MA 1 Y+MA 3 Y+MA 1 Y+MA 1

In 1441-42, the assignment of 1 Y+MA in a string traditionally kept by first wardens (Frowyk, in this case) is straightforward. The same cannot be said of 5 Y+MA occurring in entries dealing with rental repairs insofar as in this fiscal year, renter-warden’s tasks are shared by three wardens (John Sturgeon, William Thornhill, and Thomas Steel). To all this, the fact that 3 of these Y+MA variants appear in the same entry and, consequently, belong to the same keeper has to be added. For reasons of seniority in office, higher NSS score (0), and previous mixing (1434-35), ivSturgeon is proposed as the switcher of the 3 Y+MA. In turn, iiiThornhill (-1) and ivSteel (-4) are allotted 1 Y+MA each.

257 Of course, those switches occurring in the same string of information are grouped together since they are still considered the work of a single author. 357

As far as 1442-43 is concerned, like in 1441-42, switched variants in entries dealing with rental issues (4 Y+MA; 1 MO) are autographed by two different authors (Geoffrey Fielding and John Burton) and, therefore, have to be distributed between them. In this specific case, it seems that Fielding has been required to help Burton (first year in office) in these rental tasks, but without being diverted from his core tasks as second warden (monies and fees and fines). Concerning the 4 Y+MA variants, 2 Y+MA are allotted to each candidate. In turn, 1 MO variant is attributed to Fielding for his higher network score (+1 against Burton’s -2) and more previous contact with mixed particles (Fielding is elected to his first office in 1432 by innovator William Cantelowe). Concerning the rest of variants (other than Y+MA) in disputed sections, 2 MO variants (1 in the fines’ section and 1 in the legal sub-section) are to be allotted. Candidates are John Olney and Geoffrey Fielding for the MO variant in a fine, and Fielding and Geoffrey Boleyn for that in the legal sub-section. Beginning with the MO variant in the legal sub-section, Geoffrey Boleyn scores a positive +2 in his NSS and belongs to the fourth generation of mercer- wardens. According to what has been observed, Boleyn is likely to be the switcher; as a result, this MO variant is allotted to him. As for the MO variant in the fines’ section, Fielding scores positively in his NSS (+1) but has no direct contact with MO variants before this date. If his profile is compared with Olney’s, the latter meets more conditions for being the user of this MO variant since not only are his socio-centric networks looser (+3) but he is also in contact with third-stage variants in 1437-38. Thus, I propose Olney as the informant responsible for switching 1 MO in the fines’ section. The complete proposal of switching attribution for 1442-43 is as follows:

Table 5.67. Assignment of mixed variants for 1442-43

1442-43 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 5 2 1 11 4 4 Mixed MO 1 1 1 1 variants BS LS iiiOlney5 iiiFielding2 ivBoleyn1 iiiBurton1 Authorship Y+MA 5+1 Y+MA 1+1+6+2 Y+MA 5+4 Y+MA 2 MO 1+1 MO 1 MO 1 358

From 1443-44 to 1445-46, only Y+MA variants occur in the disputed sections. Thus, always with the restriction of switches occurring in the same string of information in mind, the switches are equally shared between both candidates, except when the total number is uneven; in this case, the informant having fewer switches will be assigned the extra one. These are the results suggested for these fiscal years:

Table 5.68. Assignment of mixed variants for 1443-44

1443-44 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 3 1 1 4 1 1 Mixed MO variants BS LS iiMelreth5 iiiBatail4 iiiOliver2 ivHarrow1 Authorship Y+MA 3 Y+MA 1+1+2 Y+MA 1 Y+MA 2+1

Table 5.69. Assignment of mixed variants for 1444-45

1444-45 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 3 2 3 1 8 Mixed MO 2 1 variants BS LS iiChalton5 iiiWiche2 iiiA. Stratton1 ivJ. Middleton II1 Authorship Y+MA 3 Y+MA 2+1 Y+MA 8 Y+MA 2+1 MO 2 MO 1

Table 5.70. Assignment of mixed variants for 1445-46

1445-46 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 6 2 6 Mixed MO 1 variants BS LS iiiWandesford3 iiiCantelowe2 ivRoo1 ivDukmanton1 Authorship Y+MA 6 AM X Y+MA 6 Y+MA 2 MO 1

359

In 1446-47, 2 MO and 1 BS variants appear in sections dealing with fines. During this fiscal year, the first warden is Richard Rich, and the second warden is John Cotford. Rich is a third-generation warden with 0 points in his network score and has already switched MO variants (in 1433-34); in turn, Cotford is also born p. 1380, scores 0 points in his NSS as well, and has also got into contact with MO variants. Both informants have identical profiles; the differentiating factor appears to be their indirect contact with BS variants. In the same way as Estfeld may have influenced Frowyk’s use of BS variants with the former only transmitting (not using) this fourth-stage mixed variant, by 1446-47 Rich’s link with Estfeld has also become strong enough to exert some kind of influence from the early adopter of BS; in fact, Rich shares office with Estfeld in 1428-29, in 1433-34, and again in 1440-41 (p. 278). Consequently, I suggest that 1 MO has been kept by Rich and the other MO variant by Cotford. I also propose Rich as the switcher of the BS variant.

Table 5.71. Assignment of mixed variants for 1446-47258

1446-47 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 1 3 5 Mixed MO 1 2 1 variants BS 1 LS iiiRich4 iiiCotford3 ivReynkyn1 ivBaron1 Y+MA 1 Y+MA 3 Y+MA 5 Authorship MO 1+1 MO 1+1 BS 1

In 1447-48, 4 MO and 7 BS variants are found in the fines’ section, and 1 Y+MA and 1 MO in the legal section. The former can be allotted to Geoffrey Fielding and/or to John Sturgeon, and the latter to John Sturgeon and/or to John Penne. Once again, Fielding is a third-generation mercer-warden with a network score of +1; he has certainly switched MO variants in previous fiscal years and has also direct contact with BS variants through his link with Richard Rich in

258 In this fiscal year a. 1454-55, switches occurring in rental sections are exceptionally allotted to the fourth warden (Robert Baron), rather than to the third one, since it has been been implied in Table 5.63 that mercer-wardens serving later as renter-wardens should have dealt with rental sections in their previous fiscal year keeping the MWA. 360

1447. For his part, John Sturgeon belongs to the fourth generation of wardens and has a network score of 0; he has been in direct contact with MO but not with BS variants. Since direct contact seems to be quite important for the assignment of BS variants, Fielding will be considered the author of the 7 BS variants, whereas the 4 MO variants will be shared between both the first and the second warden. As a fourth-generation mercer-warden with a negative score of -1, John Penne may have perfectly switched the Y+MA and the MO variant. Since Penne is certain to have used 2 Y+MA variants and Sturgeon 6 MO, the Y+MA variant will be attributed to Sturgeon and the MO variant to Penne.

Table 5.72. Assignment of mixed variants for 1447-48

1447-48 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 2 1 2 8 Mixed MO 3 4 6 1 8 variants BS 7 LS iiiFielding3 ivSturgeon3 ivVerney1 ivPenne1 Y+MA 2 Y+MA 1 Y+MA 8 Y+MA 2 Authorship MO 3+2 MO 6+2 MO 8 MO 1 BS 7

In p. 290 above, it had been mentioned that from 1444-45 to 1447-48 the renter-warden was not one of the four wardens in office keeping the MWA. More specifically, in the fiscal year 1444-45 the renter-warden is William Oliver; in 1445-46 renter-wardens are William Oliver (until Michaelmas [September] 1445) and William Thornhill; and in 1446-48 William Thornhill is again the renter-warden. Consequently, originally there were doubts as to who really kept rental sections in the MWA for these years; was it the renter-warden keeping also the RWA, or was one of the four wardens in office? While analysing the nature of the mixes occurring in the rental sections of the MWA during these fiscal years, I found nothing that did not allow the assignment of these mixes to the warden in office. In fact, all mixed variants belong to stages earlier than the generation of the mercer-warden in question; consequently, no switching entails being ahead of the linguistic change (Table 5.69 to Table 5.72).

361

As for 1448-49, 1 MO and 4 BS variants in the fines’ section, and 2 MO and 1 BS variants in the legal section have to be allotted to Henry Frowyk and/or to Thomas Steel, in first place, and to Thomas Steel and to John Lock, in the second place. Henry Frowyk has already used both MO and BS variants in previous fiscal years (1429-30). As Robert Large’s apprentice, Thomas Steel does belong to the network of innovators initiated by John Lovey. Despite representing the final link in the network, he seems not to be ahead of the linguistic change because of his negative network score (-4); consequently, Steel limits himself to mixing variants from his corresponding (fourth) stage. Overall, Frowyk and Steel have the same chance of using the 1 MO variant and the 4 BS variants. As for mixed variants in the legal sub-sections (2 MO and 1 BS), Steel and Lock have also the same chance of being the switchers, the latter being a fourth- generation mercer-warden with a network score of 0. The switched tokens for this fiscal year are distributed as follows:

Table 5.73. Assignment of mixed variants for 1448-49

1448-49 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 1 1 1 Mixed MO 23 1 37 2 5 33 variants BS 9 4 14 1 1 9 LS iiiFrowyk6 ivSteel2 ivKirkby1 ivLock1 Y+MA 1 Y+MA 1 Y+MA 1 Authorship MO 23+1 MO 37+1 MO 33 MO 5+1 BS 9+2 BS 14+2 BS 9 BS 1+1

From 1452-53 to 1457-58,259 the only mixes in disputed sections which do not belong to the second stage (Y+MA) are 1 MO in the fines’ section of 1455-56 and 1 MO in legal entries of 1457-58. In the first case (1455-56), candidates are William Cantelowe and John Sturgeon. According to their sociolinguistic profiles, both may have switched the MO variant; since my assignment of switches is carried out in terms of likelihood, the MO is allotted to Cantelowe

259 The fiscal years going from 1449-50 to 1451-52 are analysed together with the period (1458- 64) since in all of them LS to SE occurs. 362

insofar as he promotes the use of English in a more defined way.260 In the second year (1457-58), the MO variant in entries on legal matters is assigned to Richard Nedeham rather than to Thomas Steel, since the former has no pre- assigned switches in spite of being a fourth-generation warden, having a positive network score (+2), and previously shifting to SE. After also sharing the Y+MA switches, these are the mixing results for all these fiscal years:

Table 5.74. Assignment of mixed variants for 1452-53

1452-53 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 2 2 1 Mixed MO 1 variants BS LS iiiFielding4 iiiBurton2 iiiGosse1 ivLambert1 Authorship Y+MA 2+1 Y+MA 1 Y+MA 1 AM X MO 1

Table 5.75. Assignment of mixed variants for 1453-54

1453-54 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 4 2 Mixed MO variants BS LS ivBoleyn2 ivVerney2 ivLittleton1 ivMarch1 Authorship Y+MA 4 Y+MA 2 AM X AM X

Table 5.76. Assignment of mixed variants for 1454-55261

1454-55 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 2 1 4 3 Mixed MO variants BS LS iiiOlney6 ivBaron2 vScrayningham1 ivShipton1 Authorship Y+MA 1 Y+MA 1+1 Y+MA 4 Y+MA 3

260 1 Y+MA variant is also directly allocated to Cantelowe since it occurs in the same string as the MO variant. 261 From this fiscal year onwards, the warden responsible for keeping entries related to rents is again listed on the fourth position. 363

Table 5.77. Assignment of mixed variants for 1455-56

1455-56 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 1 8 6 4 3 5 Mixed MO 1 1 variants BS LS iiiCantelowe4 ivSturgeon4 ivReynkyn2 ivRedknap1 Authorship Y+MA 1+4 Y+MA 4+6+2 Y+MA 3+2 Y+MA 5 MO 1 MO 1

Table 5.78. Assignment of mixed variants for 1456-57

1456-57 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 7 2 6 5 Mixed MO variants BS LS iiiWiche4 iiiDunton3 ivLock2 vDonne1 Authorship Y+MA 7+1 Y+MA 6+1 AM X Y+MA 5

Table 5.79. Assignment of mixed variants for 1457-58

1457-58 Sections 1st warden. 2nd warden. 3rd warden. 4th warden. AM Y+MA 2 1 7 Mixed MO 1 1 1 variants BS LS ivJ. Middleton II3 ivSteel3 ivNedeham2 ivWard1 Authorship Y+MA 2 Y+MA 1 Y+MA 7 MO 1 MO 1 MO 1

V.2.6.3.16. Fiscal years with language shift

There are two separate periods in the MWA where SE is established as their matrix language from the main heading in the opening of the fiscal year: (i) from 1449-50 to 1451-52, and (ii) from 1458-59 to the end of the accounts (1463-64). From 1452-53 to 1457-58, the mercer-wardens shift back to AF as the 364

main language of the MWA. These are the wardens in office when LS to SE occurs:

Table 5.80. Wardens in office when LS occurs

1449-50 Cantelowe Harrow Muschamp Hallum Authorship LS X LS X LS X LS X 1450-51 Wiche Dunton Stokton Grond Authorship LS X LS X LS X LS X 1451-52 J. Middleton II Roo Nedeham Rike Authorship LS X LS X LS X LS X 1458-59 Verney Burton Stokton Marshall Authorship LS X LS X LS X LS X 1459-60 Wiche Lambert Muschamp Berby Authorship LS X LS X LS X LS X 1460-61 Nedeham Scrayningham Tate Middlemore Authorship LS X LS X LS X LS X 1461-62 Cantelowe Reynkyn Niche Gardiner Authorship LS X LS X LS X LS X 1462-63 Stokton Donne Gregory Kemp Authorship LS X LS X LS X LS X 1463-64 Verney Redknap Hende Shelly Authorship LS X LS X LS X LS X

As widely mentioned in this dissertation, the presence of William Cantelowe (innovator John Whatley’s apprentice) as first warden in 1449-50 (first year of LS) is remarkable. But not only is this fact relevant in terms of LS. Likewise, in the same fiscal year, members of other networks of innovators and of other networks where English is promoted also appear in office. John Harrow is another of Robert Large’s apprentices, and Robert Hallum belongs to the same network as Thomas Sedgeford, Roger Middleton, and John Pidmell.262 A kind of consensus for the shift appears to be forged between at least the two experienced wardens (Cantelowe and Harrow); the fact that both have very similar sociolinguistic profiles (with positive network scores [+3 and +2

262 Thomas Muschamp’s master (John Somerey) never serves office as warden; nor does Somerey’s master (Thomas Middlemore) do. One of Muschamp’s apprentices (John Bleseby) only serves as the MC’s rent-collector from 1453-54 to 1458-59. 365

respectively] and members of networks promoting English) may have helped in this respect. In the same way as the LS to SE in the ordinances (p. 306), a communal linguistic change occurs on this occasion; mercer-wardens from different generations (third and fourth) shift to SE at the same time. Yet, there can be doubt that another factor may have influenced the LC of the MWA by these mercers: the keeping of the RWA. As mentioned earlier (pp. 174, 178), the RWA are entirely written in English.263 Even though the first item entered being a rental from Christmas 1442, the book is not in existence until November 1449, five months after the first LS to SE with Cantelowe, Harrow, Muschamp, and Hallum still in office (Jefferson 2009: 17). This information leads to an intriguing question: may contact with the RWA written in English have influenced the LS in the MWA in 1449-50 as a result of their compilation the same year, or was it vice versa?

V.2.6.3.16.1. Renter Wardens’ Accounts: A possible influence?

The four mercer-wardens serving office in late 1449 (Cantelowe, Harrow, Muschamp, and Hallum) decide to create a separate book for the accounts relating to the properties belonging to the mistery; the increasing paperwork load and the number of properties managed by the MC surely motivate this decision. When collecting the previous years’ rental accounts from scattered records for the scribe to make fair copies, they may have noticed the long- standing tradition of keeping the estates’ records in English. The innovative nature of, at least, William Cantelowe and John Harrow must have helped the choice of SE as the matrix language of the MWA; both of them may have acted as bridges transmitting the English matrix from the RWA to the MWA. In my opinion, the RWA may have influenced, at least partially, the MWA rather than the other way round; it is quite unlikely that the scribe in charge of compiling accounts and writing them out neatly translated everything into English. The influence of the RWA on the LS in the MWA has been more or less certified. Nevertheless, not all the mercer-wardens with a similar contact with the SE matrix in the RWA react in the same innovative way as Cantelowe,

263 BL as matrix language can be found in the preliminary pages and on f. 1r (Jefferson 2009: 16). 366

Harrow, Muschamp, and Hallum. The clearest example is epitomised by the wardens of 1442-43: John Olney, Geoffrey Fielding, Geoffrey Boleyn, and John Burton. These four wardens constitute the group who administers the rental properties and accounts the first year after John Mortham hands over Whittington’s estate to the MC in Christmas 1442.264 Rather than following suit in the establishment of SE in the MWA, all of them reappear in office for three fiscal years (1452-55) bringing AF back as matrix language; Fielding and Burton are first and second warden in 1452-53, and Boleyn and Olney also occupy the first place in the list of wardens in 1453-54 and 1454-55, respectively. Nevertheless, conclusions on this group of informants have to be clarified. Fielding’s and Burton’s behaviour is to be further highlighted for their contrast in the LC of the RWA. Apart from the MWA, both keep jointly the RWA again from September 1452 to Easter 1453, this time with Thomas Gosse and John Lambert.265 Contrary to what one would expect, they do keep their RWA in English. This means that at least Fielding and Burton are not merely reluctant to shift to English; rather, they are reluctant to any adoption that entails breaking a tradition. This appears to be one of the reasons why they (i) re- establish long-lived AF after only three fiscal years with SE as matrix language of the MWA, but (ii) prefer to maintain SE as the language of the RWA at the same time. In this respect, another piece of evidence that can prove that Fielding and Burton (and also probably Boleyn) are not against the use of English as matrix language is the Acts of Court (pp. 174-5, 178). Completely written in English, their engrossing seems to have begun in 1453. Since the date is not precise and comprises two different fiscal years (1452-53 and 1453-54), Fielding and Burton or Boleyn could have been the mercer-wardens in office when the engrossing began. In any case, in the same way as Large could have had a say on the engineering of the Book of Ordinances (c. 1436) (p. 347), Fielding and Burton

264 It is relevant to notice that none of them writes any entry in the estates’ accounts of 1442-43. The first renter-warden who actually follows Mortham in the use of English matrices in the RWA is William Oliver in 1443-44. Oliver has been known in this analysis for switching an extremely high number of Y+MA variants during his first year in office (1435-36) as well as for belonging to one of the networks of mercers favouring English categories. 265 Unlike Fielding and Burton, Boleyn and Olney do not keep the RWA when they return to office in 1453-54 and 1454-55 respectively. John Littleton and Robert Scrayningham are the renter-wardens in 1453-54, and John Shipton and William Redknap in 1454-55 (Table 5.13, p. 289). 367

and Boleyn could have equally played a role in these English manuscripts coming into existence. Apart from reluctance to break tradition, the other reason for Fielding, Boleyn, Olney, and Burton to shift back to AF in the MWA may be explained via the appointment of the auditor to the RWA. As explained earlier (p. 355), in 1452-53 the mercer-wardens (with Fielding and Burton among them) introduce this figure in view of the inconsistent situation of the accounts. This group of mercer-wardens could have associated the use of English language in the MWA with chaos; whereas the role of the auditor(s) may have ensured a sort of control over the organisation of the RWA in SE, in the MWA the only way of preventing a return to chaos might have been the re-establishment of AF as the matrix language. Furthermore, this association seems to extend to former SE shifters for a period of time, insofar as Cantelowe, Wiche, and J. Middleton II do not shift to SE the next time they serve office as first wardens (1455-56, 1456-57, and 1457-58). Interestingly for this research, from 1449-50 to the end of the accounts, it may be clearly seen how the maintenance and change of the matrix language depends on ego-centric networks. If ego-centric ties between mercer-wardens from 1452-53 to 1463-64 are traced, it can be seen how most wardens serving office in relevant positions when LS to SE occurs and when AF is brought back tend to (i) elect and/or share office with close-knit contacts, and/or (ii) elect as successors wardens with a similar shifting (or maintaining) behaviour.266 There are several revealing examples. As for the shifters, Cantelowe picks Wiche in 1450 (the other way round in 1445), and in 1462 Cantelowe elects Stokton (who had shifted to SE in 1450-51 and shift again in 1462-63). Wiche chooses J. Middleton II in 1451 (fellow wardens in 1444-45) and Richard Nedeham (shifting to SE in 1451-52) in 1460. In 1458, Nedeham appoints Stokton, who had done the same in 1451. Stokton further elects Thomas Muschamp (shifter in 1449-50) in 1459; in 1450, Muschamp had chosen Stokton. As for the maintainers, Fielding elects Boleyn in 1453, and Boleyn chooses Olney in 1454 (all of them fellow wardens in 1442-43).

266 In most cases, the warden’s exact election of his successor in office is taken for granted. Actually, it is only recorded in 1450. 368

It is as though the election of a member outside one’s strong ties could entail a change in the balance of the matrix languages. This practice leads to believe in the emergence of two linguistic trends regarding LS in the MWA in different networks of the MC. On the one hand, the last generations of the networks of innovators represented by informants such as Cantelowe, Harrow, and Verney would behave more progressively in this respect. If in the first LS to SE in 1449-50 the last link of two networks of innovators appear in office (Cantelowe and Harrow); and when LS re-occurs in 1458-59 without turning back, the first wardenship is held by Ralph Verney, Thomas Fauconer’s apprentice (introducer of BS variants in 1423-24). Furthermore, connecting with the comment on the Acts of Court right before, it is not just by coincidence that Verney and Burton are respectively first warden and second warden when LS re-occurs (1458-59). Both could have been perfectly involved in the decision of keeping the Acts of Court (from 1453) completely in English,267 and could have acted as bridges and transmitted the matrix language to the MWA in their first time together in office. Their role as bridges transmitting the Englishness from one text type to another seems to be their main difference with respect to Fielding, Boleyn, and Olney. These three informants, on the other hand, would epitomise a conservative attitude not so much on the use of English but mainly on the transmission of English to other text types. As hinted throughout the last part of my analysis, for LS to occur like in 1458-59, the four mercer-wardens have to agree on keeping all their sections with SE as matrix language; if not, it is a case of individual (not communal) change. This is what seems to happen, for instance, to Fauconer in 1423-24 and also to Whatley and Large (Cantelowe’s and Harrow’s master, respectively) in 1427-28; none of their fellow wardens joins in the gesture of choosing English as the matrix language of their entries. As a consequence for this research, their mixes have been counted as occurrences of BS variants rather than as LS.268

267 John Burton and Ralph Verney are second wardens in 1452-53 and 1453-54 respectively, what also points to the former electing the latter as his successor and, consequently, to a strong tie between both mercer-wardens. 268 The counting of variants in the fifth (LS) stage is not different from that for the first (AM) stage since also in the latter the whole fiscal year is considered as one instance of AM when the four mercer-wardens agree on not mixing any category at all. 369

In linguistic terms, LS in the MWA constitutes a twofold process also comprising two different phases which complies exactly with the image provided by Tandefelt (1992: 151):

One has to distinguish at least between a partial shift (shift in progress) and a total shift (a point of no return). It is also useful and enlightening to separate the macro level (language shift studied as a societal phenomenon) from the micro level (the shift that takes place in the life of an individual, clearly demonstrated as a development from one generation to another) (original italics).

First of all, the so-called partial shift occurs in the MWA from 1449-50 to 1451-52, whereas the total shift eventually takes place in 1458-59. And secondly, BS and LS stages represent the two levels of abstraction; the former corresponds with the micro-level, and the latter with the macro-level.

V.2.6.3.17. Linguistic variation in the individual mercer-warden: Social networks and language mixing – Take 2

The authorship attribution for every mixed category in the MWA deployed throughout previous sections of my dissertation has primarily aimed to provide valuable data for an analysis in relative terms of the influence of extralinguistic variables on the mixing behaviour of those mercer-wardens whose practices are not completely established at the beginning. As has been done in § V.2.6.2.1.2, the remaining 81 mercer-wardens are classified below according to their generation, and their mixing usages are correlated with their socio-centric network scores. As can be observed in Table 5.81 to Table 5.84 below, the new mercer- wardens’ sociolinguistic behaviour complies overall with what has been previously found out. In Tables 5.81 and 5.82, showing the remaining results for Generations I and II, there exists a quite direct correlation between linguistic innovation and advancement and use of English, on the one hand, and socio- centric network scores, on the other.

Table 5.81. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation I (2)

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS NSS sc. iMore 33.33% 66.67% +1 370

Table 5.82. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation II (2)

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS NSS sc. iiWhatley 25% 42.98% 28.07% 3.95% +5 iiCotton 66.67% 33.33% +3 iiT. Aleyn 75% 25% +3 iiFauconer 80% 20% +2 iiJ. Coventry 66.67% 33.33% +2 iiA. Everard 100% +2 iiSpeleman 100% +2 iiChalton 20% 80% +1 iiMelreth 40% 60% 0 iiMarchford 100% 0 iiTickhill 100% 0 iiJ. Middleton I 100% -1 iiFauntleroy 100% -1 iiAylmer 100% -1 iiPidmell 100% -1 iiWashborne 100% -2 iiHerry 100% -3 iiErnton 100% -3 iiR. Everard 100% -3 iiKelom 100% -3 iiBertelot 100% -3 iiCavendish 66.67% 33.33% -4 iiOsborne 50% 50% -4 iiWhaddon 100% -4 iiLane 100% -4 iiEton 100% -4 iiBures 100% -4

First- and second-generation mercer-wardens who introduce innovations (e.g. John Whatley or Thomas Fauconer), switch (e.g. Walter Cotton, Thomas Aleyn, or Thomas Chalton), and are ahead of the linguistic change (e.g. John More) score positively in their NSS. This is the reason why almost all of them tend to concentrate on the higher positions of the ranking. In turn, most informants scoring negatively do not switch at all. Nevertheless, individual exceptions can be noticed, namely Richard Herry (-3) and William Cavendish (-4). Both wardens switch, and Cavendish is also ahead of the linguistic change. Their deviant behaviour can be explained in terms of 371

their ego-centric networks. Both belong to close-knit networks of (second) innovators where the use of English seems to be highly promoted; in other words, on some occasions, personal ties do also have an influence apart from the overall frame where the individual is bounded.

Table 5.83. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation III (2)

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS NSS sc. iiiCantelowe 20% 36.66% 3.33% 40% +3 iiiWiche 32% 28% 40% +3 iiiDunton 66.67% 33.33% +3 iiiOlney 95.83% 4.17% +3 iiiLarge 25% 50% 20.59% 4.41% +2 iiiRich 25% 39.58% 29.17% 6.25% +2 iiiEstfeld 96% 4% +2 iiiButler 50% 50% +2 iiiFielding 70.05% 17.45% 12.50% +1 iiiChurch 100% +1 iiiFrowyk 33.33% 44.91% 12.50% 9.26% 0 iiiCotford 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 0 iiiAbbot 25% 50% 25% 0 iiiWandesford 100% 0 iiiE. Fleet 50% 50% 0 iiiOliver 98.22% 1.79% -1 iiiEdmond 100% -1 iiiDautre 50% 25% 25% -1 iiiThornhill 100% -1 iiiSeymour 100% -1 iiiBurton 66.67% 33.33% -2 iiiHales 78.33% 21.67% -2 iiiLovelace 95% 5% -2 iiiA. Stratton 100% -2 iiiBatail 25% 70% 5% -3 iiiPrentice 50% 50% -3 iiiGosse 100% -3 iiiEstmond 100% -3 iiiBoston 100% -3 iiiTownland 100% -3 iiiJ. Andrew 100% -4

From Generation III onwards, the mere act of mixing ceases to depend on socio-centric networks. There are many third-generation informants who use 372

mixed variants regardless of a negative NSS score (e.g. Thomas Gosse and Richard Lovelace). At this stage, ego-centric networks seem to account better for these particular cases. Both Gosse and Lovelace had had previous contact with English particles through their interpersonal ties; for instance, Gosse is in direct contact with SE matrix at the beginning of his only year in office (1452), and Lovelace is also in direct contact with William Oliver’s massive CS in 1436.269 Nevertheless, the correlation between innovativeness and advancement of the linguistic change and socio-centric network scores continues to occur. As can be seen, non-positively-scored third-generation mercer-wardens switch more often, but most of them do not go beyond their corresponding third (MO) sub-stage. In addition, once again, innovators such as William Cantelowe and wardens ahead of the linguistic change (e.g. Hugh Wiche, Thomas Dunton, Robert Large, or Richard Rich) score higher, or at least non-negatively, in their corresponding generation. The only informant who does not appear to follow this tendency is John Burton; he is ahead of the linguistic change despite his negative score of -2. Mercer-wardens with a similar profile as him are iiWilliam Cavendish (-4) and many informants born p. 1400. But Cavendish is located in a network of innovators that cannot be compared with Burton’s; therefore, Burton’s reason for his deviant behaviour must be searched for elsewhere. As a matter of fact, he appears to be born c. 1397, what would mean that his education and training might bear more similarity to those of future fourth and fifth generations than to the previous ones. Like in the previous case of iiThomas Osborne (pp. 339-40), informants born in a period very close to the point of contact between two generations, especially c. 1400 when the change of the written norm is taking place, may be anticipating in a way the behaviour of the next generation.

In Generation IV, the old and the new network patterns coexist. Firstly, there exist positively-scored informants who show a preference for later stages (e.g. Richard Nedeham or Ralph Verney), as well as others who approximate more to earlier stages (e.g. Geoffrey Boleyn and Hugh Dyke).270 And secondly,

269 And also one of the types of sub-sections Lovelace keeps (rental properties) may have had an impact on his mixing practices (Jefferson and Rothwell 1997). 270 John Lambert’s example of switching back to AF within a SE matrix ([95] in p. 285) with his positive network score of +3 is also quite illustrative. 373

negatively-scored wardens who are ahead of the linguistic change (e.g. John Reynkyn and John Roo) and those who prefer earlier stages (e.g. Ralph March or John Littleton) can be equally found. The idea of a reversal in the network forces c. 1400 with close-knit networks fostering English and loose-knit networks promoting now the use of new non-normative languages of record (AF and BL) due to a change in the writing norm is taking more and more shape.

Table 5.84. Correlation between mixing practices and NSS scores for Generation IV (2)

Warden AM Y+MA MO BS LS NSS sc. ivLambert 50% 50% +3 ivNedeham 16.67% 16.67% 66.67% +2 ivVerney 37.50% 12.50% 50% +2 ivHarrow 50% 50% +2 ivBoleyn 95% 5% +2 ivDyke 100% +2 ivJ. Middleton II 58.33% 8.33% 33.33% 0 ivLock 50% 37.50% 12.50% 0 ivSturgeon 77.78% 22.22% 0 ivReynkyn 66.67% 33.33% -1 ivPenne 66.67% 33.33% -1 ivIrwilliam 100% -1 ivRoo 42.86% 7.14% 50% -2 ivKirkby 2.33% 76.74% 20.93% -2 ivDerham 66.67% 33.33% -2 ivBaron 100% -2 ivShipton 100% -2 ivMarch 100% -2 ivM. Foucher 100% -2 ivDukmanton 100% -3 ivLittleton 100% -3 ivSteel 33.94% 56.37% 9.70% -4

In this last respect, Robert Scrayningham’s sociolinguistic profile (Table 5.32, p. 322) seems quite promising insofar as this fifth-generation informant scores +2 in his NSS, and he does not show an absolute preference (50%) for SE as matrix language. Nonetheless, this is not enough evidence to take for granted such a relevant statement.

374

On a separate and final issue, there is no correlation other than the already-mentioned ones in the analysis; nor is there between variables such as generation and socio-centric networks. As can be seen in Table 5.85, the ratio of positively-scored mercer-wardens in later decades is rather constant from the second generation and even much lower than in the first generation; it does not increase with the passage of time. The number of negatively-scored wardens is always higher after Generation I.

Table 5.85. Mercer-wardens by generation and NSS score

Mercer-wardens’ NSS score generation Positive (+) Balanced (0) Negative (-) I (8) 66.67% (4) 33.33% II (12) 21.82% (5) 9.09% (38) 69.09% III (10) 29.41% (6) 17.65% (18) 52.94% IV (8) 22.22% (6) 16.67% (22) 61.11% V (2) 25% (2) 25% (4) 50%

Therefore, the increase in loose-knit SN as a result of the ensuing commercialisation of English society, the growing urbanisation of London, and the turmoil caused by the Wars of the Roses which are depicted by Nevalainen (2000b) and Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2000) is not actually mirrored in the case of the MC’s wardens, but even the opposite situation arises. Far from producing an acceleration of the major linguistic changes, the MC particularly slows down the evolutionary process of adoption of LS as the matrix language of the MWA. In earlier times, the MC does not behave as a conservative guild from a linguistic point of view though; as a matter of fact, the first parliamentary petition in English (“The Folk of Mercerye”) belongs to the Company. However, the situation has been changing over the years; and this change is perfectly reflected by the increasing dominance of wardens who belong to close-knit socio-centric networks (negative scores in their NSS) over those with more open networks (positive network scores) from the second generation. Despite the existence of innovators as well as informants ahead of the linguistic change, the mixing behaviour of almost the entire group of mercer- wardens is rather conservative. As observed in Tables 5.24, 5.26, 5.28, 5.30 to 5.32, and 5.81 to 5.84 above, many mercers who innovate and are ahead of the 375

linguistic change show a stronger preference for earlier stages. For instance, the most used variants by iiJohn Whatley are still from the second stage (42.98% for Y+MA); the same happens with iiThomas Fauconer (80% for Y+MA) and iiiThomas Dunton (66.67% for Y+MA), and also with iiWilliam Cavendish and iRichard Whittington for AM (both 66.67%). In fact, only 27 out of the 145 wardens (18.62%) approximate more closely (50% or over) to later stages in relative terms. The linguistic behaviour of many mercer-wardens is deemed progressive because (i) it is expressed in absolute terms, and (ii) it has been compared with much more conservative ones; a different picture emerges in relative terms and when the comparison is made with actual advanced informants. This is what happens, for example, at the macro-level when the date of total LS in the MWA (1458-59) is compared with that of other late medieval London guilds such as the Brewers (1429-30), the Grocers (1432-33), the Goldsmiths (1435-36), the Drapers (1436-37) or the Merchant Taylors (1444-45) (Jefferson 2003: xxviii; Alcolado Carnicero 2009: 82); the MC is the last to shift to SE.

Chapter VI FINAL CONCLUSIONS

379

VI.1. REVISITING AIMS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This chapter closes the analysis of the influence of SN as a fully fledged extralinguistic variable, as well as its correlation with the variable of generation, on the mixing behaviour between French (and Latin) and English of the MC’s wardens as keepers of the Company’s business accounts from 1390-91 to 1463- 64. First of all, a summary of the most relevant research results in the form of responses to the three research questions posed at the beginning of this dissertation (§ I.3, pp. 15-6) is provided. Derived from these findings, the implications for the different fields of research composing my study receive further attention in the second place. Finally, some paragraphs are devoted to outlining the possible lines of future research suggested by this work.

VI.1.1. HOW DO LATIN, FRENCH, AND ENGLISH COEXIST IN THE MERCANTILE RECORDS OF THE MERCERS OF LONDON DURING THE LATE MEDIEVAL PERIOD?

Provided below is a succinct description of the most relevant results of my dissertation concerning the progressive incorporation of English in the MWA and the resulting mixture of the vernacular with French and Latin. Implications of these findings are discussed in second place.

VI.1.1.1. Main findings

Data analyses in my dissertation have proved that there is a close relationship between the process of Anglicisation in the domain of business writing, on the one hand, and the way French (and Latin) and English are mixed during this process. It is concluded that CS between AF (and BL) and ME in the MWA is part of the process of LS to SE as the official language of business record- keeping in Late Medieval London (A. Thomas 1982; Myers-Scotton 1998; L. Wright 1998b). Depending on the quantity and quality of speech categories or of syntactic constituents involved in the mixing, three different major phases have been identified. They can be graphically represented in the style of Table 2.4 above (p. 93) as follows: 380

Table 6.1. View of mixed-language stages in LS in the MWA

Stages in LS Type of language mixing AF or BL monolingual accounts without Stage 1 presence of ME particles CS of ME particles at the boundary of Sub-stage 2.1. the nominal group and within AF or BL matrices Stage 2 CS of ME function words and/or ME Sub-stage 2.2. particles beyond the nominal group CS of ME independent clauses with a Sub-stage 2.3. finite verb SE monolingual accounts from the Stage 3 opening of the fiscal year

Focusing on their empirical diachronic evolution, it can be seen how these successive stages towards the complete establishment of English in the MWA have been perfectly mirrored by Figure 5.1 above (§ V.1.1, p. 217). Whereas AF and BL monolingual accounts (stage 1) tend to be concentrated in fiscal years until the end of the 1410s (1418-19), SE monolingual accounts (stage 3) appear from the late 1440s (1449-50) onwards. Concerning relative preferences at the individual level, it can be clearly seen in Table 6.2 how whereas the ratio of maintainers, i.e. those mercer- wardens who show higher preference for AM, decreases with the passage of generations,271 mercer-wardens approximating more closely to LS (shifters) increase particularly from Generation IV (born p. 1400) until they prevail in Generation V. In turn, switchers’ evolution is much more irregular; after rising markedly, switchers gradually decrease from Generation III onwards.

Table 6.2. Mercer-wardens’ sociolinguistic profiles by generation272

Generation Profile I II III IV V Maintainers (9) 75% (48) 88.89% (8) 27.59% (6) 20% Switchers (3) 25% (6) 11.11% (21) 72.41% (14) 46.67% Shifters (10) 33.33% (6) 100%

271 But even then, a remarkable 20% of fourth-generation wardens still show preference for AM. 272 Mercer-wardens who show equal preference for two (50% and 50%) or the three (33.33%, 33.33%, and 33.33%) major stages/variables have not been included in the calculation. Despite this non-inclusion, only 14 informants (9.66%) are left out. 381

As a matter of fact, a closer focus on preferences for variants in CS sub- stages (Y+MA, MO, and BS) by individuals (switchers) reveals trends which are different from those found in major stages.

Table 6.3. Switchers’ preferences for CS sub-stages by generation273

Generation CS sub-stage I II III IV V Y+MA (3) 100% (5) 83.33% (20) 100% (11) 78.57% MO (1) 16.67% (3) 21.43% BS

In all generations, most wardens who approximate more to CS prefer Y+MA stage. Far from approximating to later variants (MO and BS), third-, fourth-, and even fifth-generation mercer-wardens continue to overwhelmingly prefer Y+MA variants. These conservative switching preferences have also been actually reflected in Figure 5.2 (§ V.1.1, p. 218). On the one hand, it has been noticed that rates in both MO and BS variants do not increase but, quite the contrary, even decrease with the passage of time. On the other hand, particularly relevant are the high percentages scored by Y+MA variants (always over 72%), unlike the low rates of MO variants (once slightly over 23%) and of BS variants (never over 6%). In absolute terms, individual patterns have not complied either with what has been revealed at the community level. A clear example has been the established correlation between generation and mixed-language stage: with five generations of mercer-wardens and five mixed-language variables (dividing CS into its three sub-stages), the more mercers from a specific generation serve office of wardenship, the higher variants from the same corresponding stage appear on the ranking. For instance, contrary to the expected results, wardens bringing innovations belong to generations earlier than the mixing variants they actually use, i.e. they are always ahead of the linguistic change (§ V.2.2.2, pp. 271-4). Therefore, the extralinguistic variable of generation plays a very important role in the sociolinguistic evolution of the mixing practices within the

273 In the case of switchers, the only mercer-warden who has been excluded for showing equal preference for two CS sub-stages is iiiJohn Cotford (33.33% for Y+MA and 33.33% for MO). 382

process of LS in the MWA, but it has not been able to explain in itself the whole process; other independent variables have been proved to impact mixed- language: ego-centric and socio-centric networks. While I will discuss the influence of SN in § VI.1.2 below, I shortly outline further possible implications on the degree of bilingualism of users of business writing and record-keeping in § VI.1.1.2.

VI.1.1.2. Relevant implications

English language achieves the status formerly attributed to the acrolectal varieties (French and Latin) as the official language of record in the MWA only in the mid-fifteenth century. However, the pure strict and stable compartmentalisation of language roles characteristic of narrow diglossic (or digraphic, in written domains [de Francis 1984]) situations such as that in post- Conquest England seems to be over in the case of business writing in the MC by the end of the fourteenth century. From that period onwards, the presence of vernacular English is recurrent in the form of switched variants within the boundary of the nominal group (Y+MA sub-stage) at the beginning, switched function words (MO sub-stage) later, and independent clauses (BS sub-stage) at the end. In this respect, the periods when switched variants from these sub-stages make their appearance in the MWA deserve to be emphasised. Y+MA variants are already recurrent (50%) in fiscal years of the first decade (1390-1400), what could point to their weak presence in manuscripts kept in the 1380s or even in the 1370s.274 MO variants occur for the first time in the 1400s, and BS variants appear in the 1420s. Furthermore, concerning the two other mixed-language stages (AM and LS), while the dominant position of AM is certain to be seriously threatened in the 1390s (but acrolect-only accounts may have perfectly prevailed over CS in earlier decades), all fiscal years with LS are found p. 1449- 50. All this combined, a 20- or 30-year interval between the emergence of the earliest variants of each stage is to be noticed. As a matter of fact, this time

274 Even though these documents are not part of my analysis, switched Y+MA variants do actually appear in the MC’s ordinances of 1376-77 (e.g. Aldermans [f. A3r]), with innovator John Shadworth as one of the wardens undersigning them, by the way, and also in those of 1347-48 (golbeter and pedders [f. 1r]). 383

interval is in direct relationship with the age range at which mercers start to be elected for the post of warden for the first time: 20-30 years.275 1400 has been mentioned as the year in which English became the norm for business writing (pp. 318-25), i.e. the moment when a situation of diglossia with bilingualism (quadrant 3) changes to a situation of bilingualism without diglossia (quadrant 2), and according to Fishman (1967: 36), the preference for a particular language in a domain changes, and the transition towards LS is set. Evidence in my study bears witness to this. First of all, the MC’s first ordinances completely in English are kept in 1407-08. Second of all, the number of wardens showing preference for LS as mixed-language variant (shifters) increases vastly (more than 30%) among those wardens born p. 1400 (fourth generation); only among fifth-generation mercer-wardens, shifters constitute the majority. As mentioned before (p. 116), this fact has also pointed to widespread written functional bilingualism in the fourth generation of mercer-wardens (at least in those born as late as the 1410s) (Ingham 2009, 2012). And third of all, p. 1400 LS in the MC takes less than the three generations considered by Fishman (1967) as the precondition for a relatively stable diglossia.

VI.1.2. TO WHAT EXTENT DO THE EGO-CENTRIC AND SOCIO- CENTRIC NETWORKS OF WHICH THE MERCER-INFORMANT IS PART CONTRIBUTE TO HIS MIXING PRACTICES AND TO THE RE- EMERGENCE OF ENGLISH AS THE LANGUAGE SANCTIONED FOR BUSINESS WRITING?

Successive stages in the process to LS in the MWA have proved to correlate with extralinguistic variables proposed and, consequently, constituting themselves as meaningful sociolinguistic variables carrying social meaning. Below, attention is paid to generation and, especially, to SN in form of ego-centric and socio-centric networks. Finally, implications derived from my research concerning the topic of use and transmission of English in the sociopolitical environment of late medieval London are also addressed.

275 If, as has been reviewed (§ III.2.1.2, p. 145), apprentices joined the MC at the age of 16 and entered an apprenticeship of 7 years (extended to 10 in 1448-49), as brand-new mercers, they were ready to pay for the three-instalment livery fee and to become eligible for wardenship at around 26. 384

VI.1.2.1. Main findings

The intergenerational shift (Fishman 1991) to SE in the MC seems clear. At the beginning, ME begins to be increasingly used in the MWA, once exclusively reserved for AF and BL. At a later period, encroachment of ME into the domain of business writing through switched function words and independent clauses (L. Wright 2002: 475-6) is pervasive; AF and BL are certainly destabilised as official languages of record. Finally, LS completes when the MWA are kept in SE from the very beginning of the fiscal year under audit. However, generation is not the only extralinguistic variable that exerts an influence on the process of LS. Both ego-centric and socio-centric networks have proved to be decisive in speeding up or slowing down this process. It has been widely demonstrated in the main data analysis that there are mercer-wardens who are ahead of the linguistic change by using mixed variants from later stages. Among those born a. 1400 (belonging to Generations I, II, and III), most wardens ahead have been characterised (i) by being in direct contact with English variants in their ego-centric networks, and (ii) by scoring positively in their socio-centric NSS. These mercer-wardens can be further divided into three different groups: the innovators of the first mixed variant, these innovators’ apprentices, and the adopters. As for the first group, first-generation wardens such as William Sheringham, John Shadworth, and Richard Whittington have been identified as the independent introducers of earlier attestations of second stage (Y+MA) variants in the 1390s. A possible relationship between them and the composition during the 1380s of one of the first English documents authored by the MC (“The Folk of Mercerye”) has been traced (pp. 307-11). Owing to their positive NSS scores revealing loose-knit socio-centric networks, Sheringham, Shadworth, and Whittington might have acted as bridges and brought the use of English of that text to the MWA. Furthermore, and now talking of the second group, their roles as the first link in the same number of networks of innovators have also been well established. Connected via the strong master-apprentice tie (F. Scott 1912: 180), second-generation wardens such as John Whatley (Sheringham’s apprentice), 385

Robert Domenyk (Shadworth’s apprentice), and William Cavendish (Whittington’s apprentice) have been recognised as the wardens responsible for using the earliest variants of MO mixed-language stage. However, whereas the evolution of both the Shadworth-Domenyk and the Whittington-Cavendish networks does not go beyond MO variants, third-generation William Cantelowe (Whatley’s apprentice) is first warden in the first (and partial) LS to SE (last stage) in the MWA.276 Arrested development in the former’s networks has been attributed to two different causes: in the case of the Shadworth-Domenyk network, to Domenyk’s apprentice (John Hartwell) not being elected to wardenship, and in the Whittington-Cavendish case, to Cavendish’s negative NSS score (-4). In this last respect, it is important to recall the distinction made between use and transmission within the concept of adoption (p. 329) insofar as in the case of the networks of innovators, a negative (and also a balanced) NSS score in informants has been believed to constrain either the transmission of language mixing to future apprentices (William Fleet in the Whittington-Cavendish network) or the use of mixed-language variants from later stages in their own accounts. Conservative linguistic behaviour due to close-knit socio-centric networks and despite belonging to an ego-centric network of innovators has been epitomised by different wardens (e.g. Nicholas Hamme [Sheringham’s apprentice], Nicholas Bacon [Shadworth’s apprentice], or Thomas Roos [Whittington’s apprentice]). But the most relevant example has come from John Lovey. Recognised as a warden in office during the engineering of the MC’s first parliamentary petition in English, he is also the first link of another network of innovators, composed by Lovey himself, Richard Herry, Robert Large, and John Harrow. First-generation Lovey and second-generation Herry are not ahead of the linguistic change in their mixing practices ([AM] 100% and [Y+MA] 100%, respectively) because of their negative NSS scores (-1 and -3, respectively). Nevertheless, they are able to transmit innovativeness to later generations, since third-generation Large uses BS variants, and fourth-generation Harrow shifts to

276 Like in the Sheringham-Whatley-Cantelowe network, the same happens with second- generation Thomas Fauconer (innovator of BS variants) and his fourth-generation apprentices Ralph Verney (first warden when the total LS to SE takes place in 1458-59) and John Berby ([LS] 100%). 386

SE (fifth stage). As soon as these members of the network score positively in their NSS (both +2), mixed variants belong to later stages. Master-apprentice ego-centric ties and socio-centric networks definitely have a relevant impact on members of these two groups. Firstly, the linguistic instruction (and consequent influence and transmission) of masters on apprentices in the course of their apprenticeship as one of the routes to the provision of accounting skills suggested by Barron (1996: 224) has been reflected in the MC by the gradual advancement in the linguistic change by new generations of apprentices. And secondly, when members of these innovative networks have been in contact with other English matrices in other text types elsewhere, their socio-centric networks (loose-knit a. 1400 and close-knit p. 1400) have enabled them to act as bridges and to transmit this Englishness to the MWA (and also from the MWA to other texts). This seems to have been the case of the above-mentioned transference of English from “The Folk of Mercerye” by Sheringham, Shadworth, Whittington, and Lovey, but also (i) of the LS in ordinances and oaths of 1407-08 with Whatley in office, (ii) of the possible role played by Large in the decision of keeping the Book of Ordinances (c. 1436) in English, (iii) of the partial LS in the MWA (1449-50) by Cantelowe, Harrow, Muschamp, and Hallum after being in contact with English matrix via the compilation of the RWA, and (iv) of the total LS in the MWA (1458-59) by Verney and Burton after beginning the engrossing of the Acts of Court in English in 1453. Concerning the third group (adopters), innovations tend to reach them via weak (or strong) successor ties or fellow warden ties. On the one hand, if their socio-centric network scores are positive (or balanced),277 the innovation is more likely to be both used and transmitted to adopters’ strongly linked contacts. Several mercer-wardens have been identified as prototypical early adopters, who are also ahead of the linguistic change. For instance, iiiHugh Wiche seems to adopt LS from iiiCantelowe and to transmit it to iiiThomas Dunton, ivWilliam Redknap, and ivJohn Shelly. iiJ. Coventry also adopts SE as matrix language in ordinances of 1416-17 from iiWhatley in 1407-08 and also

277 Cases of balanced (or zero) network scores a. 1400 both constraining linguistic change (e.g. iiiWilliam Fleet) and exactly the opposite (e.g. iiiHenry Frowyk) have been found. This is because, after all, they reveal neither extremely close-knit nor extremely loose-knit socio-centric networks. 387

transmits it to iiThomas Fauconer, who is first warden when the latter are re- copied in 1423-24; this particular case of SE in the MC’s ordinances is very illustrative of the process of innovation, adoption, and transmission. On the other hand, negative (and balanced) socio-centric NSS scores have constrained either the use or the transmission (or both) of innovations. A clear example of non-use but transmission is the network initiated by Thomas Sedgeford. In contact with switching John Whatley in 1401, the successive members of the same network (Ralph Middleton and John Pidmell) do not mix at all due to their negative NSS scores; it is ivRobert Hallum (Pidmell’s apprentice), in office when the partial LS to SE takes place, who mixes and is also ahead of the linguistic change. Broadly speaking, it has become evident that a. 1400 most informants ahead of the linguistic change have had a degree of contact with English through their ego-centric networks and have always scored positively in the NSS. In Generation I, to be ahead of the linguistic change has been associated with the act of switching; in Generations II and III, there are many wardens who mix despite their negative (and zero) NSS scores and/or lack of previous contact with English variants, but never variants from later stages. This has been the overall sociolinguistic behaviour displayed by mercer- wardens. But this does not mean that there are no exceptions. It is important to remember cases where textual constraints seem to have played a role (e.g. William Oliver or Richard Lovelace), or in which informants have played different roles with respect to different variables (e.g. Richard Northbury or John Woodcock) or simply do not show a very prototypical behaviour (e.g. William Cavendish). In 1400, a change in socio-centric network forces has been attested to take place. Before this date, negative socio-centric NSS scores revealing informants located in close-knit networks had promoted French and Latin maintenance and discouraged the introduction of English. After this date, negatively-scored fourth-generation wardens shifting to SE and, consequently, being ahead of the linguistic change also emerge. As a result, in Generation IV both former and brand-new socio-centric network forces have been proved to coexist. In addition, the reversal of the roles in socio-centric networks seems more profound, since fifth-generation wardens scoring positively have appeared 388

to approximate also to AF and BL. Nevertheless, this alteration of network structures does not affect ego-centric networks, whose predictive force is still operative. As has been demonstrated (§ V.2.6.2.1.2, p. 323), most fourth- and fifth-generation mercer-wardens mix variants from stages with which they have been previously in contact. Evidence in this dissertation and elsewhere (Bergs 2006: 54-5; Fisher 2009) has strongly pointed to the fact that English begins to be considered the new norm for writing as the underlying reason. Close-knit networks continue to act as maintainers of the norm, and loose-knit networks continue to foster movements away from the norm. But from c. 1400 onwards, the norm has changed.

VI.1.2.2. Relevant implications

Henry V has been acknowledged as the main responsible for the re- establishment of English by a wide number of researchers (e.g. Galbraith 1941; Richardson 1980a; Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2000a) and has even been explicitly cited by the Brewers’ Company in its (1422) announcement of LS to SE (§ I.1.1, p. 5). His decision of using English as the main language of his missive letters from France in 1417 is said to have marked a watershed in the process of English language eventually earning the prestige necessary to be massively used as the official language of record for the whole country. King of England from 1413 to 1422, evidence in my work, nevertheless, suggests that some previous factor c. 1400 may have had an influence on the change in the written norm of, at least, business writing. Fisher (1977, 1996) also gives a prominent role to Henry V’s father, Henry IV, who ruled England from 1399 to 1413. According to Fisher, the use of English language is promoted through a number of gestures made by Henry IV himself. Amongst these, specific mention can be made of his own address in English (first ever by any English monarch) on the day of his coronation (Fisher 1977: 880) and of his financial support to poets writing in English such as John Gower, Geoffrey Chaucer, and Thomas Hoccleve (Fisher 1992: 1171). But Fisher goes further by arguing that all these decisions are part of a planned policy:

389

I do not believe that this sudden burst of production in English after 1400 was simply a natural evolution. I think that it was encouraged by Henry IV, and even more by Henry V, [...] and can be best explained as a deliberately instigated activity that laid the groundwork for the political actions of 1416-22 (Fisher 1992: 1170, 1174).

In sociolinguistic terms, the expansion of English as the official language of record to the detriment of French and Latin constitutes a change from above initiated by Henry IV and reinforced by his son Henry V’s LS in his personal correspondence. This would explain the rapid change in the norm for writing and, as a result, in the dynamics of network structures in the MC. Furthermore, Fisher also mentions the surrounding sociopolitical context as one of the reasons for the promotion of English:

[English] was encouraged [...] as deliberate policy intended to engage the support of Parliament and the English citizenry for a questionable usurpation of the throne. [...] The fragility of the reign of Henry IV is well known [...]. During the first four years he had to contend with three rebellions of barons who rejected his title to the throne. He countered these by appealing to the commons for support, thus ultimately strengthening parliamentary government. One aspect of this appeal was increased use of the English vernacular (Fisher 1992: 1170).

This scenario, together with the one described by Richardson (1980a: 740) where Henry V’s use of English might have been motivated by the need to gain support for war campaigns in France, constitutes good evidence of the extension of English as mother tongue among the rising middle and lower classes. This also leads to (i) conclude that at the beginning, the change is originated from below and is spred slowly until it accelerates when prestige is conferred by the monarchs, and (ii) explain the gradual emergence of English particles in the domain of business writing and, particularly, in the MWA a. 1400. Based on results in my research, I agree with Fisher’s conclusion and argue that decisions made c. 1400 with Henry IV on the throne have had an impact on the business writing of the MC. Henry V’s adoption of English is certain to have influenced the use of languages by the guilds, but Henry IV’s role as early adopter should also be incorporated in the account of the MC, at least. Traditionally, Henry V’s influence has been much more recognised due to (i) the explicit reference made to him by the subjects involved (e.g. the Brewers), (ii) the existence of flagship documents which bear witness to his decision (e.g. 390

Signet Letters), and (iii) his language use becoming the seeds of a standardised variety (Chancery English).

VI.1.3. WHO ARE THE AUTHORS OF THE MIXED-LANGUAGE MANUSCRIPTS UNDER STUDY?

Taking the role of the scribe as a scriptor for granted, the MWA present a constraint that clearly affects any linguistic study of these records: uncertain authorship. The MC’s business accounts are jointly rendered by the four mercer- wardens at the end of their term in office. Since the accounts are not undersigned either, there are doubts about the precise shares. The methods and techniques followed in my dissertation in order to overcome this limitation as much as possible are summarised, and other possible alternatives for authorship attribution are proposed.

VI.1.3.1. Main findings

The findings for this research question and the findings for the second question depend on each other. That is to say, in order to answer whether SN have an impact on the mixing practices of mercer-wardens, the previous “individualisation” of data which is necessary in SN research (Bergs 2006: 51) has been carried out. Authorship for the MWA has been suggested insofar as most yearly accounts were kept jointly by four wardens and, as a result, doubts about their precise shares arise. In a similar vein, since I have drawn upon Hope’s (1994) SHLE (and upon textual evidence available in the MWA) as the main authorship attribution technique, in order to ascribe linguistic data to single account-keepers, the path followed by mixed-language variants through mercer-wardens’ SN from their origin as innovations to being consolidated as changes in the community has had to be traced (Bergs 2006: 256). As a matter of fact, my means of action in the main data analysis has been conditioned by my goal of attributing the (more or less) clear-cut authorship to the MWA. It has been divided into two stages, the latter consisting of three further different steps. 391

First of all, I have identified the innovators, i.e. those wardens using for the first time the earliest attestation of each variable, and the early adopters, i.e. those wardens in contact with innovators and who spread the innovation through their ego-centric networks. The basic assumption has been made that informants with similar social characteristics (socio-centric NSS scores, previous contact [or not] through their ego-centric networks, and date of birth) must have had a rather similar mixing behaviour. Next, I have focused on the second innovators, i.e. those informants who introduce an already-attested mixed variant without any (apparent) kind of previous contact with the actual innovators. Also among those informants analysed in the preliminary stage of research, the nine wardens signing their names in the accounts (authographers) have been also incorporated, in what constitutes (i) the only previously “individuated” linguistic data, and (ii) the first use of textual evidence from the MWA. These last informants have revealed valuable information for the analysis; particularly, they have shed light on a prestige- and experience-based hierarchical system of the different sections existing from 1441-42 onwards, which has reinforced the authorship attribution after this fiscal year. Needless to say, the inclusion of the RWA from 1442-43 has also helped to clarify authorship matters. And secondly, based on the information provided by these first informants in what concerns influence extralinguistic variables (SN and generation) on their mixing practices, findings have been extrapolated to the rest of informants in order to find promising parallelisms in their social profiles. In step 1, mixed variants in fiscal years with the already-identified informants in office and in sections that are likely to have been kept by one of them have been assigned straightforward. As a result, the complete diachronic mixing practices of those innovators, adopters, and autographers, as well as many other informants, have been covered. In step 2, the relative preferences of the identified informants have been correlated with their NSS scores, their generation, and also a focus has been placed on the degree of Englishness of their ego-centric networks. In step 3, mixed-language variants have been finally allotted to their most likely author in the remaining fiscal years. Lastly, their relative variation in 392

mixing has been also correlated with the main independent variables under study. Concerning social data, textual evidence in the MWA has proved to be tremendously valuable in building informants’ ego-centric networks. The MC’s business records have helped me to reconstruct three of the possible relevant ties a mercer-warden can trace throughout his professional life. Sub-sections such as “entries of apprentices”, “issues of apprentices” or “election of wardens” have been extremely useful for this purpose. In turn, data available elsewhere has been equally relevant in order to reconstruct informants’ socio-centric networks and their NSS scales (e.g. I. Rogers 1975- ; Sutton 2005).

VI.1.3.2. Relevant implications

The application of SHLE to the MWA has proved quite efficient as a tool to uncover authorship. To trace firstly the origins of the mixed-language variants of each stage when they were innovations and to observe their later evolution in progress until they become established changes in the MC have constituted a useful approach in order to propose a plausible authorship for the MWA. Nevertheless, the impossibility of a comparison of the mercer-wardens’ accounts with other documents kept only by themselves has led me to base the authorship attribution on “best guesses”. As has been often said throughout the dissertation, the assignment of the mixed variants has always been made in terms of likelihood. The most likely author has been suggested, what does not mean that there are no other alternative and valid possible proposals. Apart from methodological implications, the choice of Hope’s (1994) SHLE as the authorship attribution technique has also had an impact on the results of my dissertation themselves. Since the attribution in Hope’s (1994) model is based on sociolinguistic evidence and this is exactly a sociolinguistic research, my authorship attribution can be regarded as slightly biased. That is to say, the search for the author is directly dependent on the actual future explanation for his linguistic behaviour. This leaves a priori little margin for deviant behaviour by informants not following the main trend. However, when cases of unexpected behaviour have been attested (e.g. the reversal of roles in socio-centric network forces because of change in the norm), sociolinguistic 393

evidence has been able to explain convincingly the new patterns observed. Under no circumstances, the assignment of mixed variants to mercer-wardens has been forced. The only (a priori) far-fetched guesses have been made when there were too many coincidences for a pattern to be the result of chance (e.g. the relationship apprenticeship-innovativeness). In any case and despite the fact that the unbiased textual evidence provided by autographers has shown very similar patterns, it would be also advisable to test other approaches to authorship on the MWA in the future in order to either reinforce the detection carried out via Hope’s (1994) methodology or to present a better alternative.278 All these potential methods must bear in mind a quite relevant shortcoming affecting the MWA: there are no text samples of undisputed authorship available for the set of candidate authors.

278 See Stamatatos (2009) for a detailed survey of modern authorship attribution methods which could be applied to the MWA. 394

VI.2. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Concerning the interplay between languages in the records of the late medieval London livery companies, there is a question that has been distressing both historical and linguistic researchers for years and that Creaton (1976: 22) plainly raises: “Why should the use of French have endured so long in the Wardens’ Accounts?”. More or less indirectly, this dissertation has hinted at possible reasons for both the acceleration and the retardation of the process towards the total LS to SE in the MWA. On the one hand, for example, mercer-wardens fully involved in the political reality and in the textual conflict of the 1380s have turned out to (i) use the earliest English (Y+MA) variants, and (ii) transmit that innovative mixing character to their apprentices. Both findings are completely in line with Pahta and Nurmi (2009), who argue that a higher frequency of CS corresponds with interlocutors having a close relationship, and also with Nurmi and Pahta (2010), where a correlation between the author’s various social roles and his/her use of CS is also attested; in the same way as civil servants acted as bridges transmitting English from one network (bureaucracy) to another (literature) (Kerby-Fulton and Justice 1997; Mooney and Stubbs 2013), innovative mercer- wardens and their apprentices might have acted as bridges of English between other text types in English and business writing. On the other hand, the fact that a communal change of four members from different generations is required for LS to SE, and that the use of English in the MWA is probably associated with documents in a muddle (Parker 1980: 12) by wardens shifting back to AF matrix in 1452-53 can be reasons for slowing down the final adoption of English as the official language of the MC’s business records. All of them are plausible but, in my opinion, they reveal only part of the whole picture. After all, my study focuses exclusively on the evolution of sociolinguistic variables at a micro-level. Personally, I have no doubt that patterns evolving at large-scale structures also exert an influence on the linguistic evolution of the MC. Following J. Milroy and L. Milroy’s (1985: 378-9) interest in the “institutional system of social stratification” emerging in England after the 395

Norman Conquest, I have already focused elsewhere (Alcolado Carnicero 2010) on the socioeconomic status of the London livery companies as a variable that may throw light on sociolinguistic aspects from a much more macro-level perspective. In Alcolado Carnicero (2010), I give attention to an excellent source of data for studying status stratification in the late medieval London guilds at the macro-level: the Orders of Precedence (Burrage and Corry 1981).279 These orders are lists issued by the City of London fixing the position of each livery company in the civic activities of the City as well as its contribution to the political and economic life. Burrage and Corry (1981: 388) also prove that the responsible factors for a company’s position in the Order of Precedence are wealth, antiquity, and political action. In my opinion, these orders can also contribute to partly clarify the case of the MC and its late total shift to SE in the MWA.

Table 6.4. Ranking of guilds by their year of total LS and their evolution in the Orders of Precedence

Position in Orders of Precedence Guild Fiscal year of total LS 1328 1422 1463 Brewers 1429-30 11th 14th Grocers 1432-33 4th 2nd 3rd Goldsmiths 1435-36 2nd 9th 5th Drapers 1436-37 3rd 3rd 2nd Merchant Taylors 1444-45 14th 7th 8th Mercers 1458-59 7th 1st 1st

In Table 6.4, the six London livery companies whose date of total shift has been identified above are (i) ranked, on the left, according to the fiscal year of their total LS to SE (from the earliest to the latest), and (ii) confronted, on the right, with their position in the three different Orders of Precedence covering the period under study and before. At first sight, the results appear to be inconclusive. A strict correlation between status and linguistic behaviour cannot be established insofar as the most linguistically advanced guilds (the Brewers and the Grocers) are placed at either end of the social scale; something similar happens with the Merchant Taylors (8th) and the MC (1st), the most conservative guilds from a linguistic

279 Out of the 13 orders displayed in their article, I focus on the three earliest (1328, 1422, and 1463). 396

viewpoint. Nevertheless, these two companies share a characteristic that the rest do not have. Both are the guilds which have gained more positions in the ranking (6 overall for both), the rest losing them or with little change. Seen the substantial socioeconomic benefits this particular status quo has brought to them, members of both the MC and the Merchant Taylors’ Company might have been extremely reluctant to change any aspect, however trivial or secondary, which has shaped it, and the matrix language in which business accounts are kept may have been one of them. The results found in the MC and in the Merchant Taylors are in line with what Thrupp (1942: 169, 173) affirms on this subject:

Guilds passed through two phases, an early phase in which they were anxious to throw their ranks wide open, and a later one in which they became exclusive and monopolistic. [...] Snobbery and extravagance made for exclusiveness and deadened enterprise. By this road, the guilds leading the way, medieval urban culture strayed into an economic and social cul-de-sac.

This is just one idea of a much more important research effort that is needed. A focus on independent variables coming from both micro- and macro- levels, as well as a comparison between patterns from the different guilds for an integrated and comprehensive framework in the style of L. Milroy and J. Milroy’s (1992) model, are compulsory. Furthermore, this effort has to be accompanied by data being rescued from oblivion. Few multilingual business and mercantile records kept by the different livery companies during late medieval England have been edited or published. All this future research must make it its key objective to provide an answer to the conservative linguistic behaviour displayed by the MC much less pessimistic than Creaton (1976: 22): “The only explanation seems to lie in the strength of tradition and precedent”.

399

Supplementary Appendices

APPENDIX 1. MERCER-WARDENS CLASSIFIED BY GENERATION

Generation I Generation II Generation III Generation IV Generation V (born a. 1359) (born 1360-79) (born 1380-99) (born 1400-19) (born p. 1420) Lovey L. Andrew J. Stratton Derham Grond Woodcock Parker Butler Dyke Scrayningham Newenton Sonningwell Abbot Irwilliam Donne Leenge Marchford E. Fleet Sturgeon Marshall Organ Otley Estmond Onehand Tate Sheringham T. Aleyn Estfeld M. Foucher Gardiner Sibille Prudance Olney Orable Gregory More A. Everard Large Goodson Hende Whittington Walsingham Trimnel Steel Shadworth Butte Frowyk Boleyn Northbury Shirewynd Batail Harrow Alderford Hamme Hales J. Middleton II Waldern Edmond Roo Fauconer Prentice Dukmanton Dyster Wandesford Reynkyn Cotton Church Baron White Rich Verney J. Middleton I Boston Penne Bacon Dautre Kirkby R. Everard Cotford Lock Whatley Seymour Muschamp Roos Cantelowe Hallum Lane Fielding Stokton Sedgeford Oliver Nedeham J. Aleyn Lovelace Rike Hawe Townland Lambert Domenyk Wiche Littleton R. Middleton W. Fleet March Hampton Dunton Shipton Cressy J. Andrew Redknap Ernton Thornhill Ward Elys Burton Berby Speleman A. Stratton Middlemore Eton Gosse Niche J. Coventry Kemp W. Foucher Shelly Welles Tickhill Fauntleroy Harper Knottingly Washborne Aylmer Cavendish Herry Kelom 400

APPENDIX 1 (continued)

Generation I Generation II Generation III Generation IV Generation V (born a. 1359) (born 1360-79) (born 1380-99) (born 1400-19) (born p. 1420) Bertelot Chalton Bures Whaddon R. Coventry Clitherowe Melreth Osborne Pidmell

401

APPENDIX 2. LIST OF MERCERS IN OFFICE OF WARDENSHIP FROM 1390-91 TO 1463-64 (from Sutton 2005: 555-7)280

F. year 1st warden 2nd warden 3rd warden 4th warden 1390-91 iLovey1 281 iWoodcock1 iNewenton1 iLeenge1 1391-92 iOrgan1 iSheringham1 iSibille1 iiL. Andrew1 1392-93 iSheringham2 iiL. Andrew2 1393-94 iSheringham3 iiL. Andrew3 1394-95 iiParker1 iMore1 iiSonningwell1 iiMarchford1 1395-96 iWhittington1 iiOtley1 iiT.Aleyn1 iiPrudance1 1396-97 iShadworth1 iNorthbury1 iiA. Everard1 iiWalshingham1 1397-98 iWoodcock2 iiButte1 iiShirewynd1 iiHamme1 1398-99 iiWaldern1 iLeenge2 iiFauconer1 iiDyster1 1399-1400 iiCotton1 iiWhite1 iiJ. Middleton I1 iiBacon1 1400-01 iMore2 iiR. Everard1 iiMarchford2 iiWhatley1 282 1401-02 iWhittington2 iiRoos1 iiLane1 iiSedgeford1 iiParker2 iNorthbury2 iAlderford1 iiJ. Aleyn1 1402-03

iShadworth2 iiT.Aleyn2 iiA. Everard2 iiHawe1 1403-04

1404-05 iiWaldern2 iiDomenyk1 iiR. Middleton1 iiHampton1 iiFauconer2 iiCressy1 iiErnton1 iiElys1 1405-06

iiSpeleman1 iMore3 iiCotton2 iiMarchford3 1406-07

iWoodcock3 iiJ. Middleton I2 iiWhatley2 iiEton1 1407-08

1408-09 iWhittington3 iiJ. Coventry1 iiW. Foucher1 iiWelles1 1409-10 iShadworth3 iiJ. Aleyn2 iiTickhill1 iiFauntleroy1 1410-11 iiWaldern3 iiRoos2 iiHarper1 iiKnottingly1 1411-12 iiFauconer3 iiA. Everard3 iiWashborne1 iiAylmer1 1412-13 iiLane2 iiMarchford4 iiiJ. Stratton1 iiCavendish1 iiSpeleman2 iiJ. Middleton I3 iiHerry1 iiKelom1 1413-14

1414-15 iiCotton3 iiBertelot1 iiErnton2 iiChalton1

280 Mercers’ choices at the wardens’ election ceremonies are included in the table. They are represented by a line only when the outgoing warden does not elect as his successor a mercer occupying the same place on the list. Elections from 1439 to 1442, from 1444 to 1448, from 1451 to 1455, and from 1457 to 1463 are taken for granted since they are not recorded in the MWA. 281 Sutton (2005) and Jefferson (2009) propose different spellings for surnames of many wardens. In my dissertation, I have always followed Sutton’s (2005) forms. 282 Originally, J. Middleton I chose Sonningwell as his successor. But due to the latter’s death (Jefferson 2009: 149), he was replaced by Whatley. According to Sutton (2005: 556), Sonningwell did not die but simply refused the post. 402

APPENDIX 2 (continued)

F. year 1st warden 2nd warden 3rd warden 4th warden 1415-16 iiT. Aleyn3 iiiButler1 iiiAbbot1 iiFauntleroy2 1416-17 iiJ. Coventry2 iiBures1 iiKnottingly2 iiWhaddon2 iiFauconer4 iiiE. Fleet1 iiiEstmond1 iiiEstfeld1 1417-18

iiWaldern4 iiR. Coventry1 iiClitherowe1 iiWashborne2 1418-19

1419-20 iiLane3 iiWhatley3 iiiOlney1 iiMelreth1 iiiButler2 283 iiCavendish2 iiiLarge1 iiiTrimnel1 1420-21

1421-22 iiT. Aleyn4 iiAylmer2 iiiFrowyk1 iiiBatail1 1422-23 iiJ. Coventry3 iiiAbbot2 iiiHales1 iiFauntleroy3 1423-24 iiFauconer5 iiiEdmond1 iiOsborne1 iiiPrentice1 1424-25 iiiEstfeld2 iiiE. Fleet2 iiBures2 iiiWashborne3 1425-26 iiiFrowyk2 iiiWandesford1 284 iiKelom2 iiiChurch1 1426-27 iiMelreth2 iiiOlney2 iiiCavendish3 iiChalton2 1427-28 iiWhatley4 iiiLarge2 iiiBatail2 iiPidmell1 1428-29 iiiEstfeld3 iiiAbbot3 iiiFauntleroy4 iiiRich1 1429-30 iiiFrowyk3 iiiHales2 iiiBoston1 iiiDautre1 285 1430-31 iiiLarge3 iiiE. Fleet3 iiiCotford1 iiiSeymour1 1431-32 iiiMelreth3 iiiWashborne4 iiiPrentice2 iiiCantelowe1 1432-33 iiiOlney3 iiiAbbot4 iiChalton3 iiiFielding1 1433-34 iiiEstfeld4 iiiBatail3 iiiRich2 ivDerham1 1434-35 iiiFrowyk4 ivDyke1 iiOsborne2 ivSturgeon1 1435-36 iiiLarge4 iiiHales3 iiiDautre2 iiiOliver1 1436-37 iiiWandesford2 iiiE. Fleet4 iiiCotford2 iiiLovelace1 1437-38 iiiOlney4 ivOnehand1 ivM. Foucher1 iiiTownland1 1438-39 iiiMelreth4 iiiWiche1 ivOrable1 iiiW. Fleet1 1439-40 iiChalton4 iiiDunton1 iiTickhill2 ivIrwilliam1 1440-41 iiiEstfeld5 iiiRich3 ivGoodson1 iiiJ. Andrew1 1441-42 iiiFrowyk5 ivSturgeon2 iiiThornhill1 ivSteel1 1442-43 iiiOlney5 iiiFielding2 ivBoleyn1 iiiBurton1 1443-44 iiiMelreth5 iiiBatail4 286 iiiOliver2 ivHarrow1

283 Sutton (2005: 556) distinguishes between John Butler junior (warden in 1415-16) and John Butler senior (warden in 1420-21). In turn, to Jefferson (2009: 1061), John Butler is one single person. I follow the latter in here. 284 Thomas Wandesford is wrongly called John in this fiscal year by Sutton (2005: 556). 285 William Dautre is not elected by John Fauntleroy, as expected, but by Robert Trenerth (the MC’s beadle). Jefferson (2009: 410 fn. 334) suggests Fauntleroy’s fatal illness as the most probable cause for this oddity. 286 Thomas Batail is wrongly called John in this fiscal year by Sutton (2005: 556). 403

APPENDIX 2 (continued)

F. year 1st warden 2nd warden 3rd warden 4th warden 1444-45 iiChalton5 iiiWiche2 iiiA. Stratton1 ivJ. Middleton II1 287 1445-46 iiiWandesford3 iiiCantelowe2 ivRoo1 ivDukmanton1 1446-47 iiiRich4 iiiCotford3 ivReynkyn1 ivBaron1 1447-48 iiiFielding3 ivSturgeon3 ivVerney1 ivPenne1 1448-49 iiiFrowyk6 ivSteel2 ivKirkby1 ivLock1 1449-50 iiiCantelowe3 ivHarrow2 ivMuschamp1 ivHallum1 1450-51 iiiWiche3 iiiDunton2 ivStokton1 vGrond1 1451-52 ivJ. Middleton II2 ivRoo2 ivNedeham1 ivRike1 1452-53 iiiFielding4 iiiBurton2 iiiGosse1 ivLambert1 1453-54 ivBoleyn2 ivVerney2 ivLittleton1 ivMarch1 1454-55 iiiOlney6 ivBaron2 vScrayningham1 ivShipton1 1455-56 iiiCantelowe4 ivSturgeon4 ivReynkyn2 ivRedknap1 1456-57 iiiWiche4 iiiDunton3 ivLock2 vDonne1 1457-58 ivJ. Middleton II3 ivSteel3 ivNedeham2 ivWard1 1458-59 ivVerney3 iiiBurton3 ivStokton2 vMarshall1 1459-60 iiiWiche5 ivLambert2 ivMuschamp2 ivBerby1 1460-61 ivNedeham3 vScrayningham2 vTate1 ivMiddlemore1 1461-62 iiiCantelowe5 ivReynkyn3 ivNiche1 vGardiner1 1462-63 ivStokton3 vDonne2 vGregory1 ivKemp1 1463-64 ivVerney4 ivRedknap2 vHende1 ivShelly1

287 Unlike in the case of John Butler, Sutton (2005: 556-7) does not distinguish between John Middleton I and John Middleton II. But they are two different persons (Jefferson 2009: 1102-3).

405

APPENDIX 3. MERCER-WARDENS’ SOCIO-CENTRIC NETWORK STRENGTH SCALE SCORES

Place of Total Wardens by Marital origin Business Offices Contac. NSS generation status and/or of destinat. score living iShadworth +1 0 +1 +1 +1 +4 iSheringham 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +3 iWhittington -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iWoodcock -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iNewenton -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iOrgan -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iMore -1 1 1 1 -1 +1 iNorthbury -1 1 1 1 -1 +1 iLovey -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 -1 iLeenge -1 +1 -1 +1 -1 -1 iSibille +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -1 iAlderford -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3

iiWhatley +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +5 iiCotton 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +3 iiT. Aleyn -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +3 iiFauconer -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iiJ. Coventry -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iiA. Everard -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iiSpeleman -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iiParker -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iiWaldern -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iiChalton -1 +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 iiDomenyk +1 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 iiSonningwell -1 +1 +1 -1 +1 +1 iiJ. Aleyn -1 0 +1 -1 +1 0 iiHampton -1 0 +1 -1 +1 0 iiMelreth -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 iiMarchford -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 iiTickhill -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 iiJ. Middleton I 0 0 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiFauntleroy -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiAylmer -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiPidmell -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiOtley -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiPrudance -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 406

APPENDIX 3 (continued)

Place of Total Wardens by Marital origin Business Offices Contac. NSS generation status and/or destinat. score of living iiButte -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiWhite -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiHawe -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiR. Middleton -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiElys -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiCressy -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 iiW. Foucher -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 iiKnottingly -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 iiWashborne -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 iiHerry -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiErnton -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiR. Everard -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiKelom -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiBertelot -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiL. Andrew -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiWalsingham -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiShirewynd -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiHamme -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiDyster -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiBacon -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiRoos -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiSedgeford -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiWelles -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiHarper -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiR. Coventry -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiClitherowe -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4 iiCavendish -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4 iiOsborne -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4 iiWhaddon -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4 iiLane -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4 iiEton -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4 iiBures -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4

iiiCantelowe -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +3 iiiWiche 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +3 iiiDunton 0 0 +1 +1 +1 +3 407

APPENDIX 3 (continued)

Place of Total Wardens by Marital origin Business Offices Contac. NSS generation status and/or destinat. score of living iiiOlney +1 +1 +1 +1 -1 +3 iiiLarge -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iiiRich -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iiiEstfeld -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iiiButler -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 iiiFielding -1 +1 +1 +1 -1 +1 iiiChurch -1 +1 +1 -1 +1 +1 iiiFrowyk -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 iiiCotford -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 iiiAbbot -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 iiiWandesford -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 iiiE. Fleet -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 iiiW. Fleet -1 0 +1 +1 +1 0 iiiJ. Stratton -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiiOliver -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiiEdmond -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiiDautre -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiiThornhill -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiiSeymour -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 iiiBurton -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 iiiHales -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 iiiLovelace -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 iiiA. Stratton -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 iiiBatail -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiiPrentice -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiiGosse -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiiEstmond -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiiBoston -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiiTownland -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiiTrimnel -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 iiiJ. Andrew -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4

ivLambert -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +3 ivNedeham -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 ivVerney -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 ivHarrow -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 408

APPENDIX 3 (continued)

Place of Total Wardens by Marital origin Business Offices Contac. NSS generation status and/or of destinat. score living ivBoleyn -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 ivDyke -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 ivStokton -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 ivRedknap -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 ivMuschamp -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 ivShelly -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 ivWard -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 ivJ. Middleton II -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 ivLock -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 ivSturgeon -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 ivBerby -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 ivOrable -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 ivReynkyn -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 ivPenne -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 ivIrwilliam -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 ivRoo -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 ivKirkby -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 ivDerham -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 ivBaron -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 ivShipton -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 ivMarch -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 ivM. Foucher -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 ivHallum -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 ivRike -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 ivMiddlemore -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 ivNiche -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 ivKemp -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 ivDukmanton -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 ivLittleton -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 ivOnehand -1 -1 +1 -1 -1 -3 ivGoodson -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3 ivSteel -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -4

vTate -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +3 vScrayningham -1 0 +1 +1 +1 +2 vMarshall -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 409

APPENDIX 3 (continued)

Place of Total Wardens by Marital origin Business Offices Contac. NSS generation status and/or of destinat. score living vGardiner -1 0 +1 +1 -1 0 vGregory -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 vDonne -1 +1 +1 -1 -1 -1 vGrond -1 0 +1 -1 -1 -2 vHende -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -3

411

APPENDIX 4. COMPLETE LIST OF MIXED-LANGUAGE VARIANTS

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage Et p ceo q toutz les acomptz [...] a la dite m cerie 1390-91 ur e er 4v-5v AM en – lxvi s. viii d. Recepcio denar [...] Et sic reman’ – xxii li. viii 1391-92 iorum 6r-10v AM d.

1392-93 mommyng 12r Y+MA 1393-94 Aldermans 11r Y+MA C’est l’acompte de William Parker, Joh n More, 1394-95 a 14r-17r AM [...] d’ascune encrees rendre de lour temps.

1395-96 mommer 19v Y+MA 1396-97 shopes 22r Y+MA C’est l’acompt Johan Wodecok, Will m Butte, [...] 1397-98 ia 24r-26r AM des ditz novelles gardeyns – iiii li. vi s. viii d. 1398-99 haberdasshers 27v Y+MA C’est l’acompte Walter Cottou , Johan Whyte [...] 1399-1400 n 29v-31r AM devant escript appiert – xxxi li. xii s. x d.

1400-01 mommer 32v Y+MA 1400-01 For drawynge of knyfes 33r MO 1400-01 Aldermans 33r Y+MA 1400-01 aldermans 33r Y+MA C’est l’acompte Richard Whityngtou , Thomas 1401-02 n 34r-35v AM Roos, [...] c’est assavoir – xlv li. iiii d. [C’]est l’acompte William Parker, Richard 1402-03 35v-37r AM Northbury, [...] faite desuis, vidz. – iiiixx x li. iii d. 1403-04 pinner 39v Y+MA 1403-04 Aldermans 39v Y+MA

1404-05 Mynstralles costes 41v MO

1405-06 warchambre 42v Y+MA 1406-07 weres 45r Y+MA 1406-07 weres 45r Y+MA 1406-07 weres 45v Y+MA 1406-07 weres 45v Y+MA 1407-08 weres 46v Y+MA C’est l’acompte Richard Whityngtoun, Johan 1408-09 48r-49v AM Coventree, [...] est assavoir – Clxxviii li. xiiii s. xi d. 1409-10 shope 50v Y+MA [C’]est l’acompte William Walderne, Thomas Roos, 1410-11 53v-55v AM [...] devant escript, c’est assavoir – xxxvi li. v s. x d. 1411-12 ferling 58r Y+MA

1411-12 ferling 58r Y+MA [C’]est l’acompte Johan Lane, Will Marcheford, 1412-13 iam 58v-61v AM [...] une somme de – xxxiii s. iiii d.

412

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage

1413-14 auterclothes 63v Y+MA

1413-14 auterclothes 63v Y+MA 1414-15 lokyere 66r Y+MA 1414-15 lok 66r Y+MA 1414-15 lok 66r Y+MA

1414-15 boltes 66r Y+MA 1414-15 rennynge hokes 66r Y+MA

1415-16 auterclothes 68v Y+MA [C’]est l’acompte Joh n Coventre, Richard Bures, 1416-17 a 69v-71r AM [...] Johan Bally doyt de veille dette – vi s. viii d. 1417-18 shoppe 73r Y+MA 1417-18 shope 73r Y+MA [C’]est l’acompte William Walderne, Richard 1418-19 73v AM Coventre, [...] l’acompte proschein devant ycest 1419-20 shope 77r Y+MA

1420-21 Sylkwommannes craft 78v bis MO

1421-22 Aldermanz 81r Y+MA 1421-22 ducheman 81r Y+MA 1421-22 webbe 81r Y+MA 1421-22 Webbes 81r Y+MA 1421-22 Weres 81r Y+MA 1421-22 weres 81r Y+MA 1421-22 weres 81r Y+MA 1421-22 weres 81r Y+MA 1422-23 box 82v Y+MA 1422-23 bargemen 83r Y+MA 1422-23 colys 83r Y+MA 1422-23 pater nosters bedes 83r MO 1422-23 torcheholders 83r Y+MA

1422-23 torcheholders 83r Y+MA

1422-23 auter drapus 83r Y+MA Be it knowyn that at [...] he had servyd his 1423-24 84v BS apprentishod in the same craft etc. – paié – v li. 1423-24 repayryng 86r Y+MA 1423-24 newe aubis 86r Y+MA 1423-24 waschyng 86r Y+MA

1423-24 scherchyng 86r Y+MA 1423-24 weeres 86r Y+MA 1423-24 writyng 86r Y+MA 1423-24 writyng 86r Y+MA

413

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage 1423-24 bok 86r Y+MA

1423-24 othe 86r Y+MA 1424-25 bargeman 88r Y+MA 1425-26 rayman 90r Y+MA 1425-26 shope 90r Y+MA 1426-27 aldermen 91r Y+MA 1426-27 aldermen 91r Y+MA 1426-27 Box 91r Y+MA

1426-27 bothire 93r Y+MA 1426-27 boxes 93r Y+MA 1426-27 bromes 93r Y+MA 1426-27 wexchandeler 93r Y+MA Alis Bridenelle, the doughter of Thomas Picot, þe sone of John Picot, the sone of Nich as Picot, 1427-28 ol 94v MO sumtyme mercer of London, for a fyn to make here free – xx s. Piers Kempe for his p ntyshod for a fyne withinne 1427-28 re 94v MO his prentishood to be maad freman – v li.

1427-28 Of the whiche he paied in hande – xl s. 94v BS And of the iii li. þat is behynde to paie at 1427-28 94v MO Cr[i]stemasse next comynge – xx s.

1427-28 And at the feste of Cristemasse next afftur – xx s. 94v MO And at the feste of Cristemasse next afft þat – xx 1427-28 ur 94v MO s. Richard Lovelas for ridyng in to Henawde at 1427-28 94v MO Whitsonemart – vi s. viii d. John Emonde for byyng of busk cloth a3ens the 1427-28 94v MO ordenaunce – vi s. viii d. Austyn Stratton for bying of spenall at Andwerp 1427-28 e e 94v MO – vi s. viii d. Rob t Holm for bying of vixx pece cloth for Picot 1427-28 er 94v MO and for bying of vi rolle of busk cloth – xxvi s. viii d. John Berby for brekyng of the ordenaunce over the 1427-28 94v MO see, summa – vi s. viii d. Hewe Wych paied also for brekyng of the 1427-28 ordenaunce and for rydyng out in dyvers places – 94v BS xx s. John Brigge for brekyng of the ordenaunce, s m 1427-28 u ma 94v MO – xx s. John Clerk for brekyng of the ordenaunce, s m – 1427-28 u ma 94v MO vi s. viii d. Richard Foliot for bying of spenall at Andwerp – 1427-28 e 94v MO summa – vi s. viii d.

414

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage Herr Gegge for brekyng of the ordenaunce, s m 1427-28 y u ma 94v MO – xx s. John Derham for brekyng of the ordenaunce, 1427-28 94v MO summa – xiii s. iii d. Thomas Cromwell for brekyng of the ordenaunce, 1427-28 e 94v MO summa – x s. John Falows for brekyng of the ordenaunce, s m 1427-28 u ma 94v MO – xiii s. iiii d.

William Gegge for spekyng at Seint Thomas at oure 1427-28 court holdyng and not kept silence when we 94v BS knokked oure mallet aftur oure ordenaunce – i d. Watkyn Neuent, squire in the shire of Gloucetre, made freman be the assent of alle oure company 1427-28 me 94v BS þe ix day of Juny l’ane vi makyng a fyne – liii s. iiii d. John Halyat kept Will m Cullyng his p ntys [...] to 1427-28 ia re 95r BS make a fyne of – iii s. iiii d.

John Somerey for a fyne for not rydyng and axed no 1427-28 leve with þe shereve Henry Frowyk, summa – iii s. 95r BS iiii d. John Wasshebo ne for a fyn with axyng leve, 1427-28 ur 95r MO summa – xx d.

1427-28 Richard Brook for a fyn, summa – xx d. 95r MO

1427-28 John Gerard for a fyn, summa – xii d. 95r MO Richard Coventre for a fyn not rydyng with þe 1427-28 95r MO Meyr John Gedney, summa – iii s. iiii d. John Wasshebo ne for a fyn not rydyng þe same 1427-28 ur 95r MO tyme, summa – iii s. iiii d. Will m Thornhill for a fyn comyng late at John 1427-28 ia e 95r MO Lane dirige, summa – xii d. Thom s Middilmor for a fyn as above said, s m – 1427-28 a u ma 95r MO xii d. Thom s Middilton for a fyn as above said, s m – 1427-28 a e u ma 95r MO xii d. Will m Townesende for lakyng of his gowne at the 1427-28 ia 95r MO same dirige, summa – xii d. John Boston for a fyn not comyng to þe dirige of 1427-28 e 95r MO Davy Galganat, summa – iii s. iiii d. Symkyn Launde for a fyn as above said, s m – iii 1427-28 u ma 95r MO s. iiii d. John Aleyn for lakyng [of his gowne] at þe masse 1427-28 95r MO of Davy Galganat, summa – xii d. 1427-28 hoppelande 97v Y+MA

415

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage

1428-29 Bequeste 98v Y+MA 1428-29 almesse 98v Y+MA 1428-29 snarler 99r Y+MA div s p son s beyng absent fro dirigez, ridyng & 1428-29 er er e 99r MO sommouns 1428-29 Bequest 99r Y+MA

1428-29 apprentishod 99r Y+MA 1428-29 auterclothes 100r Y+MA 1429-30 Bequest 101r Y+MA 1429-30 box 101r Y+MA 1429-30 Bequest 101r Y+MA 1429-30 box 101r Y+MA 1429-30 hoggeshed 101r Y+MA 1429-30 hoggeshed 101r Y+MA 1429-30 gentilman 101r Y+MA John of Wode for late comyng to þe dirige of the 1429-30 102v MO persone of Honylane – xii d.

John Middiltone for wordes of reprof & dishoneste 1429-30 unto Robert Randolf & also for the smytyng of hym 102v MO with his fiste – x s. John Berby for rydyng and sellyng of ware in the 1429-30 102v MO contre – xx s. and for þat Thom s Bertelot, his p ntis, be ii 3eer 1429-30 a re 102v BS was not bounde, presentid ne entrid

1429-30 rydynge leveré 102v Y+MA 1429-30 bille on 103r MO 1429-30 hoppelond 103v Y+MA 1429-30 bothire 103v Y+MA 1429-30 bothire 103v Y+MA 1429-30 wexchaundeler 103v Y+MA

Item, the forseid wardens demaunden alowaunce 1429-30 of a certein somme [...] long tyme passed in takyng 104r BS of apprentices, summa – iii li. vi s. viii d.

It is to remembre that in a courte holden at Seint Thomas of Acres the even of Seint Mark anno viiiº 1429-30 ti 104v BS Henrici vi was founde and notabely preved þat [...] to paie .x. li. witheoute any redempcione. 1430-31 Bequest 105r Y+MA 1430-31 box 105r Y+MA 1430-31 box 105r Y+MA

416

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage 1430-31 duche 106v Y+MA 1430-31 box 107r Y+MA 1430-31 bagge 107r Y+MA

1430-31 Rovers 107r Y+MA 1431-32 rentgadere 108r Y+MA 1431-32 alderman 109r Y+MA 1431-32 Abbot 109v Y+MA 1431-32 botehire 109v Y+MA 1431-32 waisshynge 109v Y+MA 1431-32 wexchaundeler 109v Y+MA

1431-32 wex taperis 109v Y+MA 1432-33 rentgaderer 110v Y+MA 1432-33 Abbot 111v Y+MA 1432-33 botehire 111v Y+MA 1432-33 wasshyng 111v Y+MA 1432-33 tounetight 111v Y+MA 1432-33 latthes 111v Y+MA 1433-34 rentgadere 113r Y+MA 1433-34 Bequest 113v Y+MA 1433-34 box 113v Y+MA 1433-34 box 113v Y+MA 1433-34 abbot 114r Y+MA

1433-34 voydances in 114r MO 1433-34 in Seint Lorens Lane 114r MO

1433-34 for a man for to ride on to my master Estfeld 114r MO

1433-34 for writyng of diverses suertez for John Wareyn 114r MO 1433-34 corettyng 114r Y+MA 1433-34 masboke and amending 114r MO 1433-34 wasshing 114r Y+MA 1433-34 auter clothez 114r Y+MA

1433-34 amendyng 114r Y+MA 1433-34 box 114v Y+MA 1433-34 box 114v Y+MA 1433-34 box 114v Y+MA 1434-35 Bequest 116v Y+MA 1434-35 Bequest 116v Y+MA 1434-35 Abbot 117r Y+MA 1434-35 bothir 117v Y+MA 1434-35 autreclothes 117v Y+MA 1435-36 Crowne in Chepe 118v MO

417

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage 1435-36 hatter 118v Y+MA 1435-36 Bequest 119r Y+MA 1435-36 box 119r Y+MA 1435-36 box 120v Y+MA 1435-36 box 120v Y+MA 1435-36 abot 122r Y+MA 1435-36 lood 122r Y+MA 1435-36 lood 122r Y+MA 1435-36 lood 122r Y+MA 1435-36 lood 122r Y+MA 1435-36 tayes 122r Y+MA 1435-36 tayes 122r Y+MA 1435-36 lood 122r Y+MA 1435-36 sawpite 122r Y+MA 1435-36 sawynge 122r Y+MA

1435-36 quarterbord 122r Y+MA

1435-36 quarterbord 122r Y+MA 1435-36 smyth 122r Y+MA 1435-36 hokes 122r Y+MA 1435-36 hokes 122v Y+MA 1435-36 hokes 122v Y+MA 1435-36 leed naile 122v Y+MA 1435-36 nailes 122v Y+MA

1435-36 in reparacions 122v MO 1435-36 suerveynge 122v Y+MA 1435-36 shope 122v Y+MA 1435-36 shope 122v Y+MA 1435-36 shope 122v Y+MA 1435-36 shope 122v Y+MA 1435-36 steynynge 123r Y+MA 1435-36 bagies 123r Y+MA 1435-36 deske 123r Y+MA

1435-36 ostriche bord 123r Y+MA 1435-36 gildynge 123r Y+MA 1435-36 wolman 123v Y+MA 1436-37 wolman 124r Y+MA

1436-37 Missomer 125v Y+MA

1436-37 Missomer 125v Y+MA

1436-37 Missomer 125v Y+MA 1436-37 schoppes 125v Y+MA

418

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage 1436-37 shope 125v Y+MA 1436-37 Barghire 126r Y+MA 1436-37 barge hire 126r Y+MA 1436-37 bargehire 126r Y+MA 1436-37 henge 126r Y+MA

1436-37 goter doore 126r Y+MA 1436-37 nailes 126r Y+MA 1436-37 doore 126r Y+MA

1436-37 William Fleetes shoppe 126r MO 1436-37 key 126r Y+MA 1436-37 loke 126r Y+MA 1436-37 store house doore 126r Y+MA 1436-37 loke 126r Y+MA 1436-37 snowe 126r Y+MA 1436-37 key 126v Y+MA 1436-37 loke 126v Y+MA 1436-37 snowe 126v Y+MA 1436-37 shope 126v Y+MA 1436-37 boke 126v Y+MA 1436-37 torchebereres 126v Y+MA

1436-37 Missomer 126v Y+MA 1437-38 Bequest 127r Y+MA 1437-38 box 127r Y+MA 1437-38 Crowne in Weste Chepe 129r MO 1437-38 tenement in Sevenhode Lane 129v MO

1437-38 in quitrentes 129v MO 1437-38 Crowne in Weste [Chepe] 129v MO 1437-38 steynynge 130r Y+MA 1438-39 Crowne in Chepe 132r MO

1438-39 Crowne in Chepe 133v MO 1439-40 ducheman 134r Y+MA 1439-40 Rent decrece 135v Y+MA 1439-40 rent decrece 135v Y+MA 1439-40 wasshyng 136r Y+MA

1439-40 auterclothes 136r Y+MA 1440-41 Rent decrece 137v Y+MA 1440-41 rent decrece 137v Y+MA 1440-41 risshes 138r Y+MA 1440-41 bargemen 138r Y+MA

1440-41 auterclothes 138r Y+MA

419

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage 1440-41 bote 138r Y+MA 1441-42 alderman 138v Y+MA 1441-42 halowyng 140r Y+MA 1441-42 wasshyng 140r Y+MA

1441-42 auterclothes 140r Y+MA 1441-42 scouryng 140r Y+MA 1441-42 lynyng 140r Y+MA 1442-43 aldreman 140v Y+MA

1442-43 diskeveryng 141r Y+MA 1442-43 entrecomenyng 141r MO

1442-43 apprenticehod 141r Y+MA 1442-43 dishonest langage 141r Y+MA 1442-43 martez 141v Y+MA 1442-43 assessyng 141v Y+MA 1442-43 Aventerers 141v Y+MA

1442-43 bille assessyng 141v Y+MA 1442-43 hopyland 142r Y+MA 1442-43 Seint Bartholomewe in West Smythfeld 142v MO 1442-43 lawyer 142v Y+MA 1442-43 surveyng 142v Y+MA 1442-43 lawyer 142v Y+MA 1442-43 boundyng 142v MO

1442-43 scryvener 142v Y+MA 1442-43 lawyers 142v Y+MA 1442-43 lawyers 142v Y+MA 1442-43 box 142v Y+MA 1442-43 botthuyre 142v Y+MA 1442-43 examynyng 142v Y+MA 1442-43 enrollyng 143r Y+MA 1442-43 mensuryng 143r Y+MA 1442-43 copieng 143r Y+MA 1442-43 scryvener 143r Y+MA 1442-43 copieng 143r Y+MA 1442-43 yoman 143r Y+MA

1442-43 sommonyng 143r Y+MA 1442-43 lokkis 143r Y+MA 1442-43 box 143r Y+MA

1442-43 Johan Olney in Millstrete 143v MO 1443-44 alderman 143v Y+MA 1443-44 alderman 143v Y+MA

420

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage 1443-44 bat 146r Y+MA

1443-44 scryvener 146v Y+MA

1443-44 shoppe 146v Y+MA 1443-44 reconynggis 146v Y+MA 1443-44 repairyng 146v Y+MA 1443-44 bote huyre 146v Y+MA 1443-44 entryng 146v Y+MA 1443-44 lawe 146v Y+MA 1443-44 shoppe 146v Y+MA 1444-45 alderman 147r Y+MA 1444-45 alderman 147r Y+MA

1444-45 liverey goune 148v Y+MA

1444-45 scryvener 148v Y+MA 1444-45 reconyng 148v Y+MA 1444-45 libertees [...] in engloys 148v MO 1444-45 sherman 148v Y+MA

1444-45 bote huyre 148v Y+MA

1444-45 talghe candels 148v Y+MA 1444-45 wasshing 149r Y+MA

1444-45 auter clothes 149r Y+MA 1444-45 lasyng 149r Y+MA 1444-45 steynyng 149r Y+MA 1444-45 peyntyng 149r Y+MA 1444-45 tartron rede 149r Y+MA 1444-45 ridyng 149r MO

1444-45 serching 149r Y+MA 1444-45 ridyng 149r MO 1444-45 wex 149r Y+MA 1444-45 wex 149r Y+MA 1445-46 alderman 149v Y+MA 1445-46 alderman 149v Y+MA 1445-46 Abbot 151r Y+MA 1445-46 shirifs 151v Y+MA 1445-46 chaungyng 151v MO 1445-46 bowyng 151v Y+MA 1445-46 shirifs 151v Y+MA

1445-46 botehuyre 151v Y+MA 1445-46 wasshing 151v Y+MA

1445-46 chapelle clothes 151v Y+MA

1445-46 scryvener 151v Y+MA

421

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage

1445-46 talghe candelle 151v Y+MA 1445-46 leyeng 151v Y+MA 1445-46 wex 151v Y+MA 1445-46 boxes 151v Y+MA 1446-47 alderman 152r Y+MA

1446-47 apprentice of William Oliver 152v MO 1446-47 spekyng whan the M. knokid þe malet 152v MO John Litelton for he wold not goo to Gravesend to 1446-47 153r BS huyre soldeours – vi s. viii d. John Burton & John Harowe for word spoken in 1446-47 es 153r MO þe court – xxvi s. viii d. 1446-47 wasshing 153v Y+MA 1446-47 dust 153v Y+MA

1446-47 talghe candelle 154r Y+MA 1446-47 wex 154r Y+MA 1446-47 eir masse 154r MO

1446-47 roos garlondes 154r Y+MA

1446-47 scryvener 154r Y+MA 1446-47 writyng 154r Y+MA 1446-47 copieng 154r Y+MA

1447-48 servant of William Yrwilliam – ii s. 154v MO

1447-48 servant of William Melrethe – ii s. 154v MO

1447-48 servant of Robert Baron – ii s. 154v MO

1447-48 servant of Johan Penne – ii s. 154v MO

1447-48 servant of Alisaundre Orable – ii s. 154v MO

for a fyne to come ayen in to þe lyverey wher he was provid forsworn upon a boke afore all þe body of 1447-48 the craft at Seint Thomas for a mater of contract 155v MO made bitwene Robert Skrayngham & þe doughter of John Goodson – iii li. vi s. viii d.

Item, of Thomas Muschamp for a fyne of spenelle 1447-48 þat he bought of a spyneler, [...] and sett ther by all 155v BS þe felauship shuld pay to the box – xl s. 1447-48 And so Muschamp hadde it. – xl s. 155v BS

Item, of Thomas Nyche fora fyne for cause þat he 1447-48 entrid a corf of ware [...], and we awarded þat 155v BS Niche shuld pay to þe boxe – xxvi s. viii d. Item, of William Hatter for a fyne for cause he was of counsaill and assent of þe pryve contract 1447-48 e 156r MO disseyvably made bitwene Robert Skrayngham and þe doughter of John Goodson – xxvi s. viii d.

422

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage

Item, of Geffrey Boleyn for a fyne for cause Thomas 1447-48 Grene, chapman, [...] and he was sworn þat he 156r BS shuld hele ne snarle no more – xiii s. iiii d. 1447-48 for a rest in his hand of cloth and ray – xxv s. 156r MO a rest of his rekenyng, þe which was graunt to a 1447-48 156r MO wyndowe making of þe yeld halle chapelle – vi li.

Item, receyved de Letuse Shiffeld in party of 1447-48 payment [...] for Cristemasse, Estre, & Midsomere 156r BS daren passé – C s. It m, so ther is dewe behynde of the obligacion – 1447-48 e 156r BS xv li. Item, of John Salman p offens þat he went to 1447-48 ur 156r BS Stirbrigge Fayr – xx s. 1447-48 in fraunchez 156r MO 1447-48 in almoignes 156v MO

1447-48 to Midsomere 156v MO

1447-48 to Midsomere 156v MO 1447-48 vacacion in 156v MO 1447-48 barge to Westm’ for þe kynges dirige – vii s. 156v MO 1447-48 shrif 156v Y+MA 1447-48 bote 156v Y+MA It m, to Cowbek, serv nt of þe Maires, to go for 1447-48 e a 156v MO Stokker & Edmond – xii d. It m, to have a playnt of chever in to þe Maires 1447-48 e e 156v MO Court ii tymes – xvi d. 1447-48 to Crowe 156v MO 1447-48 wex 156v Y+MA 1447-48 makyng 156v Y+MA 1447-48 chestes 156v Y+MA 1447-48 makyng þe glas 156v MO 1447-48 maydens hede 156v MO

1447-48 fisshmonger 156v Y+MA 1447-48 wasshyng 156v Y+MA 1447-48 thynges 156v Y+MA

1447-48 Shiffeldys obligacion with condicion 156v MO 1447-48 wex 156v Y+MA

1447-48 white vestmentes 156v Y+MA

1447-48 aultre clothes 156v Y+MA

1447-48 masonry in þe chapelle 156v MO

1447-48 scrivener 156v Y+MA 1447-48 writyng 156v Y+MA

423

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage It m, they receyved for rent for iii quart s of a yere 1448-49 e er 157v BS of Shefeld wyf – C s.

1448-49 Item, receyved in an obligacion of Shefeld wyf – x li. 157v BS

1448-49 Item, receyved in money of conductes – viii li. 157v BS

1448-49 Summa totalis receyved – Cli li. ix s. 157v Y+MA Item, þey ben chargen of receipt of the conduit 1448-49 157v BS gadered [...], Bawmole Marte – viii li. xvii s. vi d. It m, rec of John Bruton for the rent of the 1448-49 e eyved es 157v BS mercery – xxxv li. xvi s. viii d. It m, rec of William Thornhill for 1448-49 e eyved e 157v BS Whityngdons rent – xl li. Thise been the mercymentz receyved for defautz of 1448-49 157v BS court dayes

1448-49 Thise arn the issues of apprentices, that is to wete 158r BS First, receyved of John Alburgh þe xth day of 1448-49 158r BS August – ii s. It m, of John Skele app ntice of John Brodde þe 1448-49 e re 158r MO xvii day of August – ii s.

1448-49 Item, of John Neve þe first day of Septembre – ii s. 158r MO

1448-49 Item, of Richard Hawley, with Reynkyn – ii s. 158r MO

1448-49 Item, of John Kirton, with Everard Flete – ii s. 158r MO It m, of Richard Stotevyle þe xix day of August – ii 1448-49 e 158r MO s.

1448-49 Item, of Robert Eburton – ii s. 158r MO

1448-49 Issues of apprentices 158v MO

1448-49 Item, receyved of John Hurley – ii s. 158v BS

1448-49 Item, of Robert Castel, with Robert Hallum – ii s. 158v MO

1448-49 Item, of William Button, with Cantlowe – ii s. 158v MO

1448-49 Item, of John Blakhal, with Geffrey Feldyng – ii s. 158v MO

1448-49 Item, of William Ruddok, with Thomas Steelle – ii s. 158v MO It m, of Philip Betttesham, w Alexaunder Orable 1448-49 e ith 158v MO – ii s. 1448-49 Thise arn fynes, that ys to wite 158v BS Furst, receyved of Henry Bu stede þe xxviii day of 1448-49 n 158v BS Marche – iii li.

1448-49 Item, of Roger Middelmore – vi s. viii d. 158v MO It m, of John Petite þe iiide day of May for he 1448-49 e 158v BS entred a pleynt upon William Olyver, mercer – xx s.

1448-49 Entres of apprentices 158v MO

Thise arn the receiptz of entrees of apprentices, 1448-49 that is to wete 158v BS

424

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage Furst, rec of Mathewe Fowcher for entryng of 1448-49 eyved 158v BS William Launsom, apprentice – xx s. It m, of Thomas Niche for entryng of Willia 1448-49 e m 158v MO Richard, apprentice – xx s. It m, of Alexandir Orable for Thomas Wrongley, 1448-49 e 158v MO apprentice – xx s. Item, of Thomas Shirwyn for Rob t Daynel & 1448-49 er 158v MO William Wytryng, apprentices – xl s.

1448-49 Entrees of apprentices 159r MO

Item, of William Belyngton, William 1448-49 Misterchamber & John Spyon, apprentices with 159r MO Bonyfaunt – iii li. It m, of John Muklowe app ntice w Austyn 1448-49 e re ith 159r MO Stratton – xx s. It m, of Thomas Byrom app ntice w Camvyle – 1448-49 e re ith 159r MO xx s. It m, of Rob t West app ntice w Chacombe – xx 1448-49 e er re ith 159r MO s. It m, of Thomas Shire app ntice w Shipton – xx 1448-49 e re ith 159r MO s. It m, of William Bettz app ntice w John Warde – 1448-49 e re ith 159r MO xx s. It m, of William Siggiswyk app ntice w Philip 1448-49 e re ith 159r MO Howel – xx s. It m, of Alexaunder Prestaton with Willia 1448-49 e m 159r MO Wydowson – xx s. It m, of Thomas Massyngberd app ntice w 1448-49 e re ith 159r MO William Hynde – xx s. It m, receyved of the sheryf William Cantlowe – xl 1448-49 e 159r BS s. S m to of theire holle charge – iiC lxi li. xviii s. 1448-49 u ma talis 159r MO v d. 1448-49 Here begynnyth theire discharge 159v BS

1448-49 Preestes salaryes 159v MO First, paide to Richarde Combe, preest, for a yere – 1448-49 159v BS vi li. xiii s. iiii d.

1448-49 Item, to him for his liverey – xiii s. iiiii.d 159v MO

1448-49 Item, to Thomas Broke, preest, for iii quarters – v li. 159v MO

1448-49 Item, to him for his lyverey – x s. 159v MO 1448-49 Bedel salary 159v Y+MA It m, paid to John Seggeforde, bedelle, for a yer – 1448-49 e e 159v BS iii li. xviii s.

425

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage

1448-49 Item, to him for his lyverey – xiii s. iiii d. 159v MO 1448-49 Amesses 159v Y+MA It m, paide to Willia Rombalde for a yere – iii li. 1448-49 e m 159v BS viii d.

1448-49 Item, to John Cantlowe for a yere – v li. iiii s. 159v MO It m, to William Hardwyk for iii quart s – xlv s. vi 1448-49 e er 159v MO d.

1448-49 Item, to William Halle for di. yere – xxviii s. vi d. 159v MO 1448-49 First, paid to Saint Elyns for quyte rent – xviii s. 160r BS

1448-49 Item, to Westmynster – xx s. 160r MO

1448-49 Item, to Saint Mary Overey – xiii s. iiii d. 160r MO

1448-49 Item, to þe Prioresse of Halywel – xiii s. iiii d. 160r MO

1448-49 Item, to Saint Gyles – vi s. viii d. 160r MO

1448-49 Item, to Cristchirche – xix s. 160r MO

1448-49 Summa of the said discharge – xxxiii li. xvii s. 160r MO

1448-49 Thise arn the vacacions 160r BS Rob t Frankissh hous voyde þe t mes of 1448-49 er er 160r MO Midsomer and Michelmas – xiii s. iiii d. It m, the shopp that Robert Cousyn hath Cristmas 1448-49 e e 160r MO & Estir – xiii s. iiii d.

1448-49 Item, Chicheleys hous a quarter – xiiii s. 160r MO It m, S Willia Devenyssh þe hal w þe gardyn 1448-49 e ir m e ith 160r MO Estir terme – xx s. It m, Tychem ssh chambre voyde Estir t me – ii 1448-49 e er e er 160r MO s. vi d.

1448-49 Item, the celere by a yere – vi s. 160r MO

Item, þe chambre above þe celer fro Mighelmas til 1448-49 Candilmas, þat is to say a quarter and a half – xxii 160r MO d.

1448-49 Summa totalis of vacacions – lii s. viii d. 160r MO

1448-49 John Brodes hous by yere – xii d. 160r MO 1448-49 Herry Chicheley by half a yere – xvi d. 160r MO It m, paide to John Kyng for money paide to the 1448-49 e 160v BS wehere for the Cite – iii s. iiii d.

1448-49 Item, to Thomas Northcroft for a key – iii d. 160v MO

1448-49 Thise arn the reparacions 160v BS 1448-49 First, to Isabel Flete for a newe keye – vi d. 160v MO

1448-49 Item, to Nicholas Hatton for a newe keye – vi d. 160v MO It m, to Gerarde for a newe key and amendyng of a 1448-49 e 160v MO lok – xii d.

426

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage It m, for .ii. labourers makyng a synke at þe Pye – 1448-49 e 160v MO xviii d.

Item, for to make þe water currant out of the kechin 1448-49 into þe strete, and for a þousand bryke with þe 160v MO caryage – vi s. vi d. It m, for .ii. lode lyme and .ii. lode sande – iii s. ii 1448-49 e 160v MO d. It m, a mason .ii. dayes & a labo er .ii. dayes – ii s. 1448-49 e ur 160v MO ii d.

1448-49 Item, for iiii lokkes – ii s. viii d. 160v MO It m, to þe mason þat made þe welle, at .ii. tymes 1448-49 e 160v MO paade – x s.

Item, allowed to the Lumbard þat dwelled in þe 1448-49 same place befor Chicheley for reparacions þat he 160v BS made by covenant of Thornhille – xii d.

1448-49 Memorandum, Mathewe Hayne owith for rent – x s. 160v BS

Summa totalis of the said accompt of vacacions, 1448-49 reparacions, & dimunycions, as hit apperith before 160v MO writen – iiii li. xvii s. vii d.

1448-49 Thise arn forrein expenses 161r BS

1448-49 First, paide for a barge to þe kynges dirige – viii s. 161r BS It m, for a barge goyng w the shirif to 1448-49 e ith 161r MO Westmynster – viii s. It m, for vi verg of crymesyn for trumpett hood 1448-49 e es es es 161r MO – xiiii s.

1448-49 Item, paid to viii trumpettes – liii s. iiii d. 161r BS

1448-49 Item, for þeire drynkyng – ii s. 161r MO

1448-49 Item, for poyntz to theire trumpettes – ii d. 161r MO

1448-49 Item, for makyng of theire hoodes – ii s. x d. 161r MO It m, to Maistir Trumpet to labour for his 1448-49 e 161r MO felawship – viii d. It m, for iiii staves for the baners of the mercery – 1448-49 e 161r MO viii d. It m, for ii baners & i. getun to þe poynter – iii li. vi 1448-49 e 161r MO s. viii d. It m, to Robert Baron for bok to þe sokett – 1448-49 e eram es 161r MO xxi d.

1448-49 Item, for a yerd 3 dowble tarteron – v s. 161r MO It m, to Thomas Gosse for iiii yerd 3 3 quart 1448-49 e es er 161r MO rede tartron – xviii s. vi d.

1448-49 Item, for ix unces frenge – x s. 161r MO

427

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage

Item, to William Lacon for counsail, beyng with us 1448-49 dyvers tymes at Poules, Saint Thomas, and oþer 161r MO places – xvi s. viii d. It m, to Richard Burgh for beryng of a l re ov e 1448-49 e ett er 161r MO the see – vi s. viii d. It m, for asayeng of wyn for Whityngdons dirige, 1448-49 e 161r MO and to Fildynges botiller – viii d. It m, for hornys that were sent to Mergrave of 1448-49 e 161r MO Andwerp – viii s. iiii d. It m, for the s che of Lambe Johnson men – vi s. 1448-49 e er 161r MO viii d.

Item, paid to Symond, the lodysman, for a rest þat 1448-49 was owyng by Muschamp, entred by Thomas 161r BS Steelle – xiii s. iiii d. It m, to the bedell for wasshing of the auter 1448-49 e e 161r MO clothes – ix d.

1448-49 Item, for rynges for the auter – vi d. 161r MO

1448-49 Item, for candelle, pynnys, & bromys – iiii d. 161r MO

1448-49 Item, for amendyng of a lok – ii d. 161r MO

Item, spent upon Thomas Acton whan the ship was 1448-49 huyred by Verney, Stokton, Grond, and John Lok 161r BS – vii d. It m, for a bote to Westmynster ii tymes to huyre 1448-49 e 161r MO þe barges – iiii d. It m, spent upon Rob t Langford for oure sutee – 1448-49 e er 161r BS iii d. ob. It m, to Seggeford and Bastwyk for cost to fecche 1448-49 e es 161r MO bowes, arowes, hukes at the shippes – xviii d. It m, spent in smale cost by Thomas Steell – xv 1448-49 e es e 161r BS d. It m, spent at þe college for entryng of Nicholas – 1448-49 e 161r BS iiii d.

Item, for viii botes rowyng to Lambhithe & to 1448-49 Westmynster for sute to þe Lordes for þe shippis, 161r MO dyvers dayes with men of þe mercery – iii s. viii d.

1448-49 Item, for pennys, inke & paupir – v d. 161r MO

1448-49 Item, spent upon the shipmen – ii d. 161r BS

Item, for costes rydyng to Wyndesore at dyvers 1448-49 tymes for þe delyverance of þe shippis – iii li. xvi s. 161r MO v d. It m, to Thomas Downton ridyng to Hampton – xx 1448-49 e 161r MO s. It m, to Thomas Ryk man ii tymes rydyng to 1448-49 e es 161r MO Hampton – xviii s. viii d. 428

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage It m, for iiii l res makyng under þe maires seall – 1448-49 e ett e 161r MO xvii s. x d. It m, to Thomas Downton for his goyng ov þe see 1448-49 e er 161r MO – xl s. It m, to John Stevenys for goyng ov þe see w 1448-49 e er ith 161r MO lettres – xxvi s. viii d. It m, to þe skryven for entree of the orden nce of 1448-49 e er a 161r MO prentis – iiii d.

Item, to the brethern preestes & clerkes of Saint 1448-49 Thomas for dirige & masse of requiem for the 161v MO brethern of the said mistery – x s. It m, to Rob t Bale, scyven , for writing of this 1448-49 e er er 161v MO accompte – vi s. viii d.

1448-49 Item, for costes of the parliament – x li. xix s. ii d. 161v MO It m, for costes doon to Wyndesore þ was 1448-49 e at 161v MO unreconyd – xx d. It m, paid for peres & wyne at makyng of theire 1448-49 e 161v BS accomptes – xviii d.

1448-49 Summa totalis of foreyn expenses – xxxv li. xiii s. ob. 161v MO S m to of theire discharge – lxxiiii li. vii s. vii 1448-49 u ma talis 161v MO d. ob. And so þ e remayneth clere þe som of – Ciiiixxvii li. 1448-49 er 161v BS x s. ix d. ob.

Be hit remembred þat atte forsaid fest [...], and xx 1448-49 John Lok have delyvered þe forsaid rest of – Ciiii 161v BS vii li. x s. ix d. ob. This is the acounte made by Will m Cantlow, John ia 162r- 1449-50 Haroo, [...] John Elys app ntys of Geffrey Boleyn – LS re 168v xx s. This is the acompte made by Hewe Wyche, 169r- 1450-51 Thomas Dounton, [...] S m in redy money & in LS u ma 171v dettours for the said rente – xvi li. xvii s. ix d. This is the acounte made by John Middelton, John 172r- 1451-52 Roo, [...] an noble over – xlviii s. iiii d. S m – v li. LS u ma 175r xvii s. id.

1452-53 Dyvers fynes & bequestes 176r MO 1452-53 gardemote 176r Y+MA 1452-53 lok 177r Y+MA 1452-53 hopland 177r Y+MA 1452-53 hopland 177r Y+MA 1452-53 lyvelode 177v Y+MA 1453-54 Bequestes 179r Y+MA

429

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage 1453-54 bequest 179r Y+MA 1453-54 bequest 179r Y+MA 1453-54 hogg’ 179r Y+MA 1453-54 chestes 179v Y+MA 1453-54 hatter 179v Y+MA 1454-55 shipmen 180v Y+MA 1454-55 uncurtois langage 180v Y+MA 1454-55 belewes 181r Y+MA 1454-55 byndeng 181r Y+MA 1454-55 clapseng 181r Y+MA

1454-55 rentalle booke 181r Y+MA 1454-55 foldyng 181r Y+MA 1454-55 baner staves 181r Y+MA 1454-55 lyveleode 181r Y+MA 1454-55 rose garlondes 181r Y+MA 1455-56 elle 183r Y+MA 1455-56 uncurtois langage 183r Y+MA 1455-56 uncurtois langage 183r Y+MA

1455-56 specialle 183r Y+MA 1455-56 lyeng 183r Y+MA

1455-56 overtly 183r Y+MA 1455-56 uncurtois langage 183r Y+MA 1455-56 overtly 183r Y+MA 1455-56 box 183r Y+MA 1455-56 hokes 183v Y+MA 1455-56 hukes 183v Y+MA

1455-56 chapille dore 183v Y+MA 1455-56 russhes 183v Y+MA 1455-56 wire 183v Y+MA 1455-56 claspes 183v Y+MA 1455-56 auterclothes in 183v MO 1455-56 laton weight 183v Y+MA 1455-56 shipper 183v Y+MA 1455-56 shipper 183v Y+MA

1455-56 shippers 183v Y+MA 1455-56 arestyng 184r Y+MA 1455-56 sealeng 184r Y+MA 1455-56 selanders 184r Y+MA

1455-56 to Herry Spilleman 184r MO

1455-56 skrivener 184r Y+MA

430

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage

1455-56 skrivener 184r Y+MA

1455-56 shippers 184r Y+MA

1455-56 scrivaner 184r Y+MA

1455-56 skrivaner 184r Y+MA 1456-57 shopholders 186v Y+MA 1456-57 uncurtois 187r Y+MA 1456-57 box 187r Y+MA 1456-57 disdeynows langage 187v Y+MA 1456-57 shoppes 188r Y+MA

1456-57 shoppe 188r Y+MA 1456-57 shoppes 188r Y+MA 1456-57 aulmes 188r Y+MA

1456-57 bargehire 188r Y+MA

1456-57 bargehire 188r Y+MA 1456-57 russhes 188r Y+MA

1456-57 bargehire 188r Y+MA 1456-57 russhes 188r Y+MA 1456-57 bromes 188r Y+MA 1456-57 arowes 188v Y+MA 1456-57 reneweng 188v Y+MA 1456-57 stappe 188v Y+MA

1456-57 cremesoun engreyned 188v Y+MA 1456-57 swepyng 188v Y+MA

1456-57 skrivaners 188v Y+MA 1457-58 Entrees of shopholders 190r MO

1457-58 Bequestes 190v Y+MA 1457-58 bargemen 190v Y+MA 1457-58 almes 190v Y+MA

1457-58 elles 190v Y+MA 1457-58 awter clothes 190v Y+MA 1457-58 seweng of þe frenge 191r MO 1457-58 steyneng 191r Y+MA 1457-58 peny weight 191r Y+MA 1457-58 poynteng 191r Y+MA

1457-58 in Lombardstrete 191r MO 1457-58 sealeng 191r Y+MA

1457-58 chapelle dore 191r Y+MA This is thacompte of Rauff Verney, aldirman, John 192r- 1458-59 Burton, [...] to Will m Pratte, as ap eth) – escr le LS ia er ipt 194v proschein acompte

431

APPENDIX 4 (continued)

F. year Token f(f). (sub-)Stage This is thacompte of Hugh Wiche, John Lambart, 195r- 1459-60 [...] of þe wardeins afors – xxxvii s. ix d. S m – LS aid u ma 197r xxvii li. xvii s. v d. Ensy quyte This is thacompte of Richaert Nedam, Robert Skrayngh m, [...] John Tate by a bille for Dou ton 198r- 1460-61 a n LS – vi li. xiii s. iiii d. Summa – xiii li. vii s. ix d. Ensy 200r quyte Thacompte of Will m Cantelowe, knyght, John ia 200v- 1461-62 Reyneken, [...] whiche shalbe rebated of his wages LS xx 203r – xxxviii s. viii d. Summa – iiii xviii li. vi s. i d. Thacompte of John Stokton, aldirman, John 203v- 1462-63 Donne, [...] Will m Boton in lyke wise – vi s. viii d. LS ia 206r Summa – Cii li. vii s. x d. Thacompte of Rauff Verney, Will m Redeknape, ia 206v- 1463-64 [...] Thom s Muschamp for þe trompett – xl s.) LS a e es 209r Summa – lxxviii li. ii d.

433

Cited Bibliography

Aguirre, A. (1977) “Acceptability Judgements of Grammatical and Ungrammatical Forms of Intrasentential Code Alternation”. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Stanford University, United States. Aitchison, J. (1981) Language Change: Progress or Decay?. London: Fontana Paperbacks. Alcolado Carnicero, J. (2009) “On Late Medieval Speech Communities and English Historical Sociolinguistics: The Influence of Social Networks on the Linguistic Behaviour of the Trilingual Archives of the London Guilds, 1345-1460”. Unpublished MPhil Dissertation. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. Alcolado Carnicero, J. (2010) “Power and Languages: Socioeconomic Class and Language Shift in the London Guilds”. 3rd Bloomsbury Student Conference in Applied Linguistics, June 2010, Birkbeck College, University of London, United Kingdom. Ali, S. (1931/64) Gramática histórica da língua portuguesa. 3rd ed. São Paulo: Edições Melhoramentos. Allard, R. and Landry, R. (1992) “Ethnolinguistic Vitality Beliefs and Language Maintenance and Loss”. In Fase, W. et al., 172-95. Allen Shoaf, R. (1998) The Testament of Love. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications. Altmann, G. et al. (1983) “A Law of Change in Language”. Brainerd, B. Historical Linguistics. Quantitative Linguistics 18, 104-15. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Appel, R. and Muysken, P. (1987/2005) Language Contact and Bilingualism. Amsterdam Academic Archive 3. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Archan, S. (2000) “Functional and Structural Aspects of Code-Switching in Middle English and Early Modern English Texts”. Unpublished MA Dissertation. Universität Wien, Austria. Archibald, E. (1992) “Tradition and Innovation in the Macaronic Poetry of Dunbar and Skelton”. Modern Language Quarterly 53 (1), 126-49. 434

Arundell, T. (1869) Historical Reminiscences of the City of London and its Livery Companies. London: Richard Bentley. Auer, P. (1984) Bilingual Conversation. Pragmatics and Beyond 8. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Auer, P. (1992) “Introduction: John Gumperz’s Approach to Contextualisation”. Auer, P. and di Luzio, A. The Contextualisation of Language. Pragmatics and Beyond 22, 1-38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Auer, P. (1995) “The Pragmatics of Codeswitching: A Sequential Approach”. In Milroy, L. and Muysken, P., 115-35. Auer, P. (1998a) Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction, and Identity. London: Routledge. Auer, P. (1998b) “From Codeswitching via Language Mixing to Fused Lects: Toward a Dynamic Typology of Bilingual Speech”. Interaction and Linguistic Structures 6, 1-27. Auer, P. (1998c) “Introduction: Bilingual Conversation Revisited”. In Auer, P., 1-23. Awedyk, W. (1998) “Traditional Historical Linguistics and Historical Sociolinguistics”. In Jahr, E., 37-44. Azuma, S. (1997) “Lexical Categories and Code-Switching: A Study of Japanese/English Code-Switching in Japan”. The Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 31 (2), 1-24. Azuma, S. (2001) “Functional Categories and Codeswitching in Japanese/English”. Jacobson, R. Codeswitching Worldwide II. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 126, 91-103. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bailey, C. and Maroldt, K. (1977) “The French Lineage of English”. Meisel, J. Langues en contact: Pidgins – Creoles – Languages in Contact. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 75, 21-53. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Baker, J. (1979) Manual of Law French. Amersham: Avebury. Barber, B. (1957) Social Stratification: A Comparative Analysis of Structure and Process. New York: Harcourt. Barnes, J. (1954) “Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish”. Human Relations 7 (1), 39-58. 435

Barnes, J. (1972) “Social Networks”. Addison-Wesley Module in Anthropology 26, 1-29. Barron, C. (1969) “Richard Whittington: The Man behind the Myth”. In Hollaender, A. and Kellaway, W., 197-248. Barron, C. (1971) “The Quarrel of Richard II with London, 1392-97”. Du Boulay, F. and Barron, C. The Reign of Richard II: Essays in Honour of M. McKisack, 173-201. London: The Athlone Press. Barron, C. (1974) The Medieval Guildhall of London. London: The Corporation of London. Barron, C. (1981) Revolt in London: 11th to 15th of June 1381. London: Museum of London. Barron, C. (1995) “England and the Low Countries, 1327-1477”. In Barron, C. and Saul, N., 1-28. Barron, C. (1996) “The Expansion of Education in Fifteenth-Century London”. Blair, J. and Golding, B. The Cloister and the World: Essays in Medieval History in Honour of B. Harvey, 219-45. Barron, C. (2002) “The Burning of the Jubilee Book, 1376-87”. Guildhall Historical Association Papers 2002 (2), 1-11. Barron, C. (2004a) London in the Later Middle Ages: Government and People, 1200-1500. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barron, C. (2004b) “The Political Culture of Medieval London”. Clark, L. and Carpenter, C. Political Culture in Late Medieval Britain. The Fifteenth Century 4, 111-34. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. Barron, C. (2005) “Review of the Book Wardens’ Accounts and Court Minute Books of the Goldsmiths’ Mistery of London, 1334-1446 by Lisa Jefferson”. Urban History 32 (1), 173-5. Barron, C. and Saul, N. (1995) England and the Low Countries in the Late Medieval Ages. Stroud: Alan Sutton Publishing. Barron, C. and Wright, L. (1995) “The London Middle English Guild Certificates of 1388-89: Historical Introduction and the Texts”. Nottingham Medieval Studies 39, 108-45. Baugh, A. (1935) A History of the English Language. 2nd ed. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 436

Bautista, L. (1980) The Filipino Bilingual’s Competence: A Model Based on an Analysis of Tagalog/English Code Switching. Pacific Linguistics 59. Canberra: Australian National University Press. Bax, R. (2000) “A Network Strength Scale for the Study of Eighteenth-Century English”. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. et al., 277-89. Beaven, A. (1908-13) The Aldermen of the City of London, Temp. Henry III- 1912. London: Fisher and Co. Belazi, H. et al. (1994) “Code Switching and X-Bar Theory: The Functional Head Constraint”. Linguistic Inquiry 25 (2), 221-37. Bell, A. (1984) “Language Style as Audience Design”. Language in Society 13 (2), 145-204. Benskin, M. (1992) “Some New Perspectives on the Origins of Standard Written English”. Van Leuvensteijn, J. and Berns, J. Dialect and Standard Language in the English, Dutch, German, and Norwegian Language Areas. Verhandelingen 150, 71-105. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Bentahila, A. and Davies, E. (1983) “The Syntax of Arabic/French Code Switching”. Lingua 59 (4), 301-30. Bentahila, A. and Davies, E. (1995) “Patterns of Code-Switching and Patterns of Language Contact”. Lingua 96 (2), 75-93. Bergs, A. (2000) “Social Networks in Pre-1500 Britain: Problems, Prospects, and Examples”. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. et al., 239-51. Bergs, A. (2006) Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics: Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters, 1421-1503. Topics in English Linguistics 51. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Berk-Seligson, S. (1986) “Linguistic Constraints on Intrasentential Code- Switching: A Study of Spanish/Hebrew Bilingualism”. Language in Society 15 (3), 313-48. Berndt, R. (1965) “The Linguistic Situation in England from the Norman Conquest to the Loss of Normandy, 1066-1204”. Philologica Pragensia (2-3), 145-63. Besant, W. and Rice, J. (1902) Sir Richard Whittington: Lord Mayor of London. London: Chatto and Windus. 437

Bhatia, T. and Ritchie, W. (2004) The Handbook of Bilingualism. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 15. Oxford: Blackwell. Bischoff, B. (1961) “The Study of Foreign Languages in the Middle Ages”. Speculum 36 (2), 209-24. Blake, N. (1966) “Some Observations on William Caxton and the Mercers’ Company”. Book Collector 15, 283-95. Blake, N. (1992a) “Introduction”. In Blake, N., 1-22. Blake, N. (1992b) The Cambridge History of the English Language: Volume II, 1066-1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bloch, B. (1948) “A Set of Postulates for Phonemic Analysis”. Language 24, 3- 46. Blom, J. and Gumperz, J. (1972) “Social Meaning in Linguistic Structure: Code Switching in Norway”. Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, 407-34. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Bloomfield, L. (1927) “Literate and Illiterate Speech”. American Speech 2 (10), 432-9. Bloomfield, L. (1933) Language. New York: Henry Holt. Boissevain, J. (1974) Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators, and Coalitions. Oxford: Blackwell. Boissevain, J. and Mitchell, J. (1973) Network Analysis Studies in Human Interaction. Paris and The Hague: Mouton. Bokamba, E. (1989) “Are there Syntactic Constraints on Code-Mixing?”. World Englishes 8 (3), 277-92. Bolton, J. (1980) The Medieval English Economy, 1150-1500. Everyman’s University Library 1274. London: Dent and Sons. Bortoni-Ricardo, S. (1985) The Urbanisation of Rural Dialect Speakers: A Sociolinguistic Study in Brazil. Studies in Linguistics: Supplementary Volume. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bott, E. (1957) Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families. London: Tavistock. Bourdieu, P. (1977) “The Economics of Linguistic Exchanges”. Social Science Information 16 (6), 645-68. 438

Brand, P. (2000) “The Languages of the Law in Later Medieval England”. In Trotter, D., 63-76. Braunmüller, K. (1997) “Communication Strategies in the Area of the Hanseatic League: The Approach by Semi-Communication”. Multilingua 16 (4), 365-73. Britnell, R. (1993) The Commercialisation of English Society, 1000-1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brooks, B. and Humphery-Smith, C. (2001) A History of the Worshipful Company of Scriveners of London, Volume II. London and Chichester: Phillimore and Co. Bullock, B. and Toribio, J. (2009) The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-Switching. Cambridge Handbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burke, P. (1992) History and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. Burnley, D. (1986) “Curial Prose in England”. Speculum 61 (3), 593-614. Burnley, D. (1992) “Lexis and Semantics”. In Blake, N., 409-99. Burnley, D. (2000/03) “French and Frenches in Fourteenth-Century London”. In Kastovsky, D. and Mettinger, A., 17-34. Burrage, M. and Corry, D. (1981) “At Sixes and Sevens: Occupational Status in the City of London from the Fourteenth to the Seventeenth Century”. American Sociological Review 46 (4), 375-93. Burrow, J. and Turville-Petre, T. (1992) A Book of Middle English. Oxford: Blackwell. Cartwright, D. and Harary, F. (1956) “Structural Balance: A Generalisation of Heider’s Theory”. Psychological Review 63, 277-93. Carus-Wilson, E. (1933) “The Origins and Early Development of the Merchant Adventurers’ Organisation in London as Shown in their Own Medieval Records”. The Economic History Review 4 (2), 147-76. Carus-Wilson, E. and Coleman, O. (1963) England’s Export Trade, 1275-1547. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Carvalho, M. (2003) “The Transition from Early to Modern Portuguese: An Approach from Historical Sociolinguistics”. Blake, B. and Burridge, K. Historical Linguistics 2001: Selected Papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, April 2001. Current 439

Issues in Linguistics Theory 237, 59-69. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Catto, J. (2003) “Written English: The Making of the Language, 1370-1400”. Past and Present 179, 24-59. Cedergren, H. (1973) The Interplay of Social and Linguistic Factors in Panama. PhD Dissertation. Cornell University, United States of America. Cedergren, H. and Sankoff, D. (1974) “Variable Rules: Performance as a Statistical Reflection of Competence”. Language 50 (2), 333-55. Chambers, J. (1995/2009) Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance. Language in Society 22. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell. Chambers, J. and Trudgill, P. (1980) Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chambers, R. (1932) “The Continuity of English Prose from Alfred to More and his School”. Hitchcock, E. The Life and Death of Sir Thomas Moore: Knight, sometymes Lord High Chancellor of England. Early English Text Society 186, 45-174. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chambers, R. and Daunt, M. (1931) A Book of London English, 1384-1425. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cheshire, J. (1982) Variation in an English Dialect: A Sociolinguistic Study. Studies in Linguistics 37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chivers, T. (2004) “Literary Practice in Late Medieval London”. URL: http://thisisyogic.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/literarypractice_chivers .pdf (last accessed 17/01/2012). Chomsky, N. (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Christianson, P. (1989) “Chancery Standard and the Records of Old London Bridge”. Trahern, J. Standardising English: Essay in the History of Language Change in Honour of J. Fisher, 82-112. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Christianson, P. (1990) A Directory of London Stationers and Book Artisans, 1300-1500. New York: The Bibliographical Society of America. Clanchy, M. (1979/93) From Memory to Written Record: England, 1066-1307. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. 440

Clark, C. (1992a) “The Myth of ‘the Anglo-Norman Scribe’”. In Rissanen, M. et al., 117-30. Clark, C. (1992b) “Onomastics”. In Blake, N., 542-606. Cloward, R. and Ohlin, L. (1960) Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New York: Free Press. Clyne, M. (2003) Dynamics of Language Contact: English and Immigrant Languages. Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cobb, H. (1961) The Local Port Book of Southampton for 1439-40. Southampton: Southampton University Press. Cobb, H. (1990) The Overseas Trade of London Exchequer Customs’ Accounts, 1480-81. London Record Society 27. London: Record Society Publications. Collas, J. (1964) Year Books of Edward II: Volume XXV, 12 Edward II, Part of Easter and Trinity 1319. Selden Society 81. London: Quaritch. Collas, J. and Plucknett, T. (1953) Year Books of Edward II: Volume XXIV, 12 Edward II, Hilary and Part of Easter 1319. Selden Society 70. London: Quaritch. Conde Silvestre, J. (2007) Sociolingüística histórica. Biblioteca Románica Hispánica 87. Madrid: Gredos. Conde Silvestre, J. and Hernández Campoy, J. (2004) “A Sociolinguistic Approach to the Diffusion of Chancery Written Practices in Late Fifteenth-Century Private Correspondence”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 105 (2), 133-52. Conklin, N. and Lourie, M. (1983) A Host of Tongues: Language Communities in the United States. New York: Free Press. Connolly, M. and Mooney, L. (2008) “Introduction”. Connolly, M. and Mooney, L. Design and Distribution of Late Medieval Manuscripts in England, 1- 6. York: York Medieval Press. Cooper, C. (1984) “The Archives of the City of London Livery Companies and Related Organisations”. Archives 16 (72), 323-53. Coseriu, E. (1963/77) “Crítica de la glotocronología (desde el punto de vista románico)”. Coseriu, E. El hombre y su lenguaje, 175-85. Madrid: Gredos. 441

Coulmas, F. (1997) The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 4. Oxford: Blackwell. Creaton, H. (1976) “The Wardens’ Accounts of the Mercers’ Company of London, 1347, 1391-1464”. Unpublished MPhil Dissertation. University of London, United Kingdom. Crespo García, B. (2000) “Historical Background of Multilingualism and its Impact on English”. In Trotter, D., 23-35. Cressy, D. (1980) Literacy and the Social Order: Reading and Writing in Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crisma, P. and Gianollo, C. (2006) “Where did Romance n-Raising Come from?: A Parallel Study of Parameter Resetting in Latin and English”. Doetjes, J. and González, P. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004: Selected Papers from “Going Romance”, Leiden, December 2004. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 278, 71-93. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Croft, W. (2000) Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Pearson Education. Crowley, T. (1989) The Politics of Discourse: The Standard Language Question in British Cultural Debates. London: Macmillan. Cunningham, W. (1890) The Growth of English Industry and Commerce during the Early and Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalton-Puffer, C. (1996) The French Influence on Middle English Morphology: A Corpus-Based Study of Derivation. Topics in English Linguistics 20. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Darby, H. et al. (1979) “The Changing Geographical Distribution of Wealth in England, 1086-1334-1525”. Journal of Historical Geography 5 (3), 247- 62. Davidson, M. (2001) “Language-Mixing and Code-Switching in England in the Late Medieval Period”. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Toronto, Canada. Davidson, M. (2003) “Code-Switching and Authority in Late Medieval England”. Neophilologus 87 (3), 473-86. 442

Davidson, M. (2005) “Discourse Features of Code-Switching in Legal Reports in Late Medieval England”. In Skaffari, J., 343-51. Davies, M. (2004) “Lobbying Parliament: The London Companies in the Fifteenth Century”. Clark, L. Parchment and People: Parliament in the Middle Ages. Parliamentary History 23, 136-48. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Davis, N. (1959) “Scribal Variation in Late Fifteenth-Century English”. Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie : F. Mossé in memoriam, 95- 103. Paris: Didier. Davis, W. (2003) Meaning, Expression, and Thought. Cambridge Studies in Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dawson, H. (2003) “Defining the Outcome of Language Contact: Old English and Old Norse”. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 57, 40-57. Deanesly, M. (1920) “Vernacular Books in England in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries”. The Modern Language Review 15 (4), 349-58. De Bot, K. and Stoessel, S. (2002) Language Change and Social Networks. Special Issue of International Journal of the Sociology of Language 153, 1-168. De Francis, J. (1984) “Digraphia”. Word 35 (1), 59-66. Denison, D. (2003) “Log(ist)ic and Simplistic S-Curves”. In Hickey, R., 54-70. De Saussure, F. (1916) Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne: Payot. De Sturler, J. (1936) Les relations politiques et les échanges commerciaux entre le duché de Brabant et l’Angleterre au Moyen Age. Paris: Droz. Deuchar, M. and Davies, P. (2009) “Code Switching and the Future of the Welsh Language”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 195, 15- 38. De Vries, J. (1992) “Language Maintenance and Shift: Problems of Measurement”. In Fase, W. et al., 211-22. Díaz Vera, J. (1999) “Reconstructing Variation in the Speech Community: Evidence on Early American English Negative Constructions from the Salem Witchcraft Papers”. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa 8, 275-89. Diller, H. (1997-98) “Code-Switching in Medieval English Drama”. Comparative Drama 31 (4), 506-37. 443

Di Sciullo, A. et al. (1986) “Government and Code-Mixing”. Journal of Linguistics 22 (1), 1-24. Dittmar, N. et al. (1988) “The Social Significance of the Berlin Urban Vernacular”. Dittmar, N. and Schlobinski, P. The Sociolinguistics of Urban Vernaculars, 19-43. Berlin: De Gruyter. Dobson, E. (1955) “Early Modern Standard English”. Transactions of the Philological Society 61 (1), 124-48. Doolittle, I. (1994) The Mercers’ Company, 1579-1959. London: The Mercers’ Company of London. Dor, J. (1994) “Langues française et anglaise, et multilinguisme à l’époque d’Henri II Plantagenet”. Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 37 (145-6), 61- 72. Dorian, N. (1978) East Sutherland Gaelic: The Dialect of the Brora, Golspie, and Embo Fishing Communities. Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies. Dorian, N. (1981) Language Death: The Life Cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Dorian, N. (1982) “Language Loss and Maintenance in Language Contact Situations”. Lambert, R. and Freed, B. The Loss of Language Skills, 44- 59. Rowley: Newbury House. Doron, E. (1983) “On a Formal Model of Code-Switching”. Texas Linguistic Forum 22, 35-59. Downes, W. (1984) Language and Society. London: Fontana Paperbacks. Dressler, W. (1988) “Language Death”. In Newmeyer, F., 184-92. Eastman, C. (1992) “Codeswitching as an Urban Language-Contact Phenomenon”. Eastman, C. Codeswitching: Special Issue. Multilingual Matters 89, 1-17. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Eckert, P. (1997) “Age as a Sociolinguistic Variable”. In Coulmas, F., 151-67. Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992) “Communities of Practice: Where Language, Gender, and Power all Live”. Hall, K. et al. Locating Power: Proceedings of the 2nd Berkeley Women and Language Conference, April 1992, 89-99. Berkeley: Berkeley Women and Language Group. Edwards, V. (1986) Language in a Black Community. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 444

Edwards, W. (1992) “Sociolinguistic Behaviour in a Detroit Inner City Black Neighbourhood”. Language in Society 21 (1), 93-115. Ehrsam Voigts, L. (1989) “Scientific and Medical Books”. Griffiths, J. and Pearsall, D. Book Production and Publishing in Britain, 1375-1475. Cambridge Studies in Publishing and Printing History, 345-402. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ehrsam Voigts, L. (1996) “What’s the Word?: Bilingualism in Late Medieval England”. Speculum 71 (4), 813-26. Ekwall, E. (1944) “Variation in Surnames in Medieval London”. Humanistika Vetenskapssamfundets i Lund Årsberättelse 45 (4), 207-62. Ekwall, E. (1947) Early London Personal Names. Lund: Gleerup. Ekwall, E. (1951) Two Early London Subsidy Rolls. Lund: Gleerup. Ekwall, E. (1956) Studies on the Population of Medieval London. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Ellis, A. (1868) “The Only English Proclamation of Henry III, 18th of October 1258”. Transactions of the Philological Society 1868-69, 1-135. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1964) “An Analysis of the Interaction of Language, Topic, and Listener”. American Anthropologist 66 (6.2), 86-102. Escamilla, K. and Hopewell, S. (2007) “The Role of Code-Switching in the Written Expression of Early Elementary Simultaneous Bilinguals”. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 2007, The University of Chicago, United States. URL: http://www.colorado.edu/education/faculty/kathyescamilla/Docs/AERA Codeswitching.pdf (last accessed 20/02/2013). Essizewa, K. (2007) “Language Contact Phenomena in Togo: A Case Study of Kabiye/Ewe Code-Switching”. Payne, D. and Peña, J. Selected Proceedings of the 37th Annual Conference on African Linguistics, 30-42. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Fase, W. et al. (1992) Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages. Studies in Bilingualism 1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fasold, R. (1984) The Sociolinguistics of Society. Language in Society 5. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Fasold, R. and Schiffrin, D. (1989) Language Change and Variation. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 445

Fennell, B. (2001) A History of English: A Sociolinguistic Approach. Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 17. Malden: Blackwell. Ferguson, C. (1959) “Diglossia”. Word 15 (2), 324-40. Festinger, L. et al. (1950) Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. New York: Harper. Filppula, M. et al. (2008) English and Celtic in Contact. Routledge Studies in Germanic Linguistics 13. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Fischer, O. (2006) “On the Position of Adjectives in Middle English”. English Language and Linguistics 10 (2), 253-88. Fisher, J. (1977) “Chancery and the Emergence of Standard Written English in the Fifteenth Century”. Speculum 52 (4), 870-99. Fisher, J. (1979) “Chancery Standard and Modern Written English”. Journal of the Society of Archivists 6 (3), 136-44. Fisher, J. (1986) “European Chancelleries and the Rise of Standard Written Languages”. Essays in Medieval Studies: Proceedings of the Illinois Medieval Association 3, 1-33. Fisher, J. (1992) “A Language Policy for Lancastrian England”. Proceedings of the Modern Language Association 107 (5), 1168-80. Fisher, J. (1996) The Emergence of Standard English. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. Fisher, J. (2009) “The Origins of the English Writing System and the Roots of its Letter: Sound Confusions”. Phone Interview by D. Boulton for Children of the Code, June 2009. URL: http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/fisher.htm (last accessed 27/01/2013). Fisher, J. et al. (1984) An Anthology of Chancery English. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Fishman, J. (1964) “Language Maintenance and Language Shift as Fields of Inquiry”. Linguistics 9, 32-70. Fishman, J. (1965) “Who Speaks what Language to whom and when?”. La linguistique 1 (2), 67-88. Fishman, J. (1967) “Bilingualism with and without Diglossia; Diglossia with and without Bilingualism”. Journal of Social Issues 23 (2), 29-38. 446

Fishman, J. (1972) The Sociology of Language: An Interdisciplinary Social Science Approach to Language in Society. Rowley: Newbury House. Fishman, J. (1980) “Bilingualism and Biculturalism as Individual and as Societal Phenomena”. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Developments 1 (1), 3-15. Fishman, J. (1989) Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective. Multilingual Matters 45. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. (1991) Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Multilingual Matters 76. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. (2001) Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift Revisited: A Twenty-First Century Perspective. Multilingual Matters 116. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fletcher, A. (1994) “‘Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini’: A Thirteenth- Century Sermon for Advent and the Macaronic Style in England”. Medieval Studies 56, 217-45. Flower, B. (1811) The Life of Sir Richard Whittington: Knight and Four Times Lord Mayor of London. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Fowler, J. (1986) “The Social Stratification of /r/ in New York City Department Stores 24 years after Labov”. Unpublished MA Dissertation. New York University, United States of America. Frances, J. et al. (1991) “Introduction”. Thompson, G. et al. Markets, Hierarchies, and Networks: The Coordination of Social Life, 1-19. London: SAGE. Freeman, L. (2004) The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science. Vancouver: Empirical Press. Freeman, L. (2011) “The Development of Social Network Analysis – With an Emphasis on Recent Events”. Scott, J. and Carrington, P. The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis, 26-39. London: SAGE. Gairdner, J. (1872/1910) The Paston Letters, 1422-1590 A.D. 4th ed. Edinburgh: John Grant. Gal, S. (1978) “Peasant Men Can’t Get Wives: Language Change and Sex Roles in a Bilingual Community”. Language in Society 7 (1), 1-16. 447

Gal, S. (1979) Language Shift: The Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria. New York: Academic Press. Galbraith, V. (1941) “Nationality and Language in Medieval England”. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 23 (4), 113-28. Galloway, J. (1999) “Metropolitan Market Networks: London’s Economic Hinterland in the Later Middle Ages”. Transactions of the London and Middlesex Archaeological Society 50, 91-8. Galloway, J. (2000) Trade, Urban Hinterlands, and Market Integration, c. 1300-c. 1600. Centre for Metropolitan History Working Papers 3. London: Institute of Historical Research Publications. Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009a) Code-Switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gardner-Chloros, P. (2009b) “Social Factors in Code-Switching”. In Bullock, B. and Toribio, J., 97-113. Gardner-Chloros, P. (2010) “Contact and Code-Switching”. In Hickey, R., 188- 207. Gauchat, L. (1905) “L’unité phonétique dans le patois d’une commune”. Aus Romanischen Sprachen und Literaturen: Festschrift H. Morf, 175-232. Halle: Niemeyer. Giancarlo, M. (2007) Parliament and Literature in Late Medieval England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1996/2001) Introduction to Sociology. 3rd ed. New York: W. W. Norton. Giles, H. (1971) “A Study of Speech Patterns in Social Interaction: Accent Evaluation and Accent Change”. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Bristol, United Kingdom. Giles, H. (1980) “Accommodation Theory: Some New Directions”. York Papers in Linguistics 9, 105-36. Giles, H. et al. (1977) “Towards a Theory of Language in Ethnic Group Relations”. Giles, H. Language, Ethnicity, and Intergroup Relations. European Monographs in Social Psychology 13, 307-48. London: Academic Press. 448

Gilliéron, J. and Edmont, E. (1902-10) Atlas linguistique de la France. Paris: Honoré Champion. Gomme, G. and Wheatley, H. (1885) Chap-Books and Folk-Lore Tracts: The History of Sir Richard Whittington by Thomas Heywood. London: Villon Society. Goodall, P. (1981) “Chaucer’s ‘Burgesses’ and the Aldermen of London”. Medium Aevum 50, 284-92. Görlach, M. (1986) “Middle English – A Creole?”. Kastovsky, D. and Szwedek, A. Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: Linguistic Theory and Historical Linguistics. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 32, 329-44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Graff, H. (1987) The Legacies of Literacy: Continuities and Contradictions in Western Culture and Society. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Granovetter, M. (1973) “The Strength of Weak Ties”. The American Journal of Sociology 78 (6), 1360-80. Granovetter, M. (1974) Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Granovetter, M. (1983) “The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited”. Sociological Theory 1, 201-33. Gras, N. (1918) The Early English Customs System: A Documentary Study of the Institutional and Economical History of the Customs from the Thirteenth to the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Grice, P. (1975) “Logic and Conversation”. Cole, P. and Morgan, J. Speech Acts. Syntax and Semantics 3, 41-58. New York: Academic Press. Grimm, J. (1819) Deutsche Grammatik. Göttingen: Dieterischen Buchhandlung. Grin, F. (1993) “The Relevance of Thresholds in Language Maintenance and Shift: A Theoretical Examination”. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 14 (5), 375-92. Grosjean, F. (1982) Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Guildhall Library (1982/89) City Livery Companies and Related Organisations: A Guide to their Archives in Guildhall Library. Research Guides 3. 3rd ed. London: Guildhall Library Publications. 449

Gumperz, J. (1968) “The Speech Community”. International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 9, 381-6. Gumperz, J. (1971) Language in Social Groups. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Gumperz, J. (1972) “The Communicative Competence of Bilinguals: Some Hypotheses and Suggestions for Research”. Language in Society 1 (1), 143-54. Gumperz, J. (1976) “The Sociolinguistic Significance of Conversational Code- Switching”. Cook-Gumperz, J. and Gumperz, J. Papers on Language and Context. Working Papers of the Language Behaviour Research Laboratory 46, 1-46. Berkeley: University of California Press. Gumperz, J. (1976/82) “Social Network and Language Shift”. In Gumperz, J., 38-58. Gumperz, J. (1982a) “Conversational Code Switching”. In Gumperz, J., 59-99. Gumperz, J. (1982b) Discourse Strategies. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J. and Hernández Chávez, E. (1968/75) “Cognitive Aspects of Bilingual Communication”. Hernández Chávez, E. et al. El lenguaje de los chicanos: Regional and Social Characteristics Used by Mexican Americans, 154-63. Arlington: Centre for Applied Linguistics. Guttman, L. (1941) “The Quantification of a Class of Attributes: A Theory and Method of Scale Construction”. Horst, P. et al. The Prediction of Personal Adjustment. Bulletin of the Social Science Research Council 48, 321-47. New York: Social Science Research Council. Guy, G. (1988) “Language and Social Class”. In Newmeyer, F., 37-63. Haeberli, E. (2010) “Investigating Anglo-Norman Influence on Late Middle English Syntax”. In Ingham, R., 143-63. Halmari, H. (1997) Government and Codeswitching: Explaining American Finnish. Studies in Bilingualism 12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Halmari, H. and Adams, R. (2002) “On the Grammar and Rhetoric of Language Mixing in Piers Plowman”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 103 (1), 33- 50. Hansegård, N. (1968) Tvåspråkighet eller halvspråkighet?. Aldus Series 253. Stockholm: Bonniers. 450

Harary, F. et al. (1965) Structural Models: An Introduction to the Theory of Directed Graphs. New York: Wiley. Harding, V. (1995) “Cross-Channel Trade and Cultural Contacts: London and the Low Countries in the Later Fourteenth Century”. In Barron, C. and Saul, N., 153-68. Harding, V. and Wright, L. (1995) London Bridge: Selected Accounts and Rentals, 1381-1538. London Record Society 31. London: Record Society Publications. Hardy, W. and Page, W. (1892) “London and Middlesex Fines: Henry VI”. A Calendar to the Feet of Fines for London and Middlesex: Richard I- Richard III 1, 182-202. URL: http://www.british- history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=78825 (last accessed 15/05/2012). Hardy, W. and Page, W. (1915) List of Members of the Mercers’ Company from 1347. London: The Mercers’ Company of London. Harry, J. (1985) Phonological Variation and Change: Studies in Hiberno- English. Studies in Linguistics Supplementary Volume. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harvey, C. (1978) “Macaronic Techniques in Anglo-Norman Verse”. L’esprit créateur 18 (1), 70-81. Harwood, B. (1988) “The ‘Fraternitee’ of Chaucer’s Guildsmen”. Review of English Studies 39 (155), 413-7. Haugen, E. (1950) “The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing”. Language 26 (2), 210-31. Haugen, E. (1966a) “Dialect, Language, Nation”. American Anthropologist 68 (4), 922-35. Haugen, E. (1966b) “Semicommunication: The Language Gap in Scandinavia”. Sociological Inquiry 36 (2), 280-97. Haward, W. (1933) “The Relations between the Lancastrian Government and the Merchants of the Staple from 1449 to 1461”. In Power, E. and Postan, M., 293-320. Hazlitt, W. (1892) The Livery Companies of the City of London: Their Origin, Character, Development, and Social and Political Importance. London: Swan Sonnenschein and Co. 451

Heath, J. (1829) Some Account of the Worshipful Company of Grocers of the City of London. London: Privately printed. Heider, F. (1946) “Attitudes and Cognitive Organisation”. The Journal of Psychology 21, 107-12. Heikkonen, K. (1996) “Regional Variation in Standardisation: A Case Study of Henry V’s Signet Office”. In Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H., 111-28. Heller, M. (1988) “Introduction”. Heller, M. Codeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Contributions to the Sociology of Language 48, 1-24. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Herbert, W. (1834-36) The History of the Twelve Great Livery Companies of London. London: The Corporation of London. Hernández Campoy, J. (1999a) Geolingüística: Modelos de interpretación geográfica para lingüistas. Murcia: Editum. Hernández Campoy, J. (1999b) “Geolinguistic Models of Analysis of the Spatial Diffusion of Sociolinguistic Innovations”. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 34, 7-42. Hernández Campoy, J. and Conde Silvestre, J. (1999) “The Social Diffusion of Linguistic Innovations in Fifteenth-Century England: Chancery Spellings in Private Correspondence”. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa 8, 251-74. Hernández Campoy, J. and Conde Silvestre, J. (2005) “Sociolinguistic and Geolinguistic Approaches to the Historical Diffusion of Linguistic Innovations: Incipient Standardisation in Late Middle English”. International Journal of English Studies 5 (1), 101-34. Hernández Campoy, J. and Conde Silvestre, J. (2012) The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 68. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Heuser, W. (1914) AltLondon mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Dialekts. Osnabrück: Liesecke. Hickey, R. (2003) Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hickey, R. (2010) The Handbook of Language Contact. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 452

Hobhouse, H. (1964) The Ward of Cheap in the City of London: A Short History. London: The Ward of Cheap Club. Hoenigswald, H. (1960) Language Change and Linguistic Reconstruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Højrup, T. (1983) “The Concept of Life-Mode: A Form-Specifying Mode of Analysis Applied to Contemporary Western Europe”. Ethnologia Scandinavica: A Journal for Nordic Ethnology 13, 1-50. Hollaender, A. and Kellaway, W. (1969) Studies in London History Presented to Philip Edmund Jones. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Homans, G. (1958) “Social Behaviour as Exchange”. The American Journal of Sociology 63 (6), 597-606. Hope, J. (1994) The Authorship of Shakespeare’s Plays: A Socio-Linguistic Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horobin, S. and Smith, J. (2002) An Introduction to Middle English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hudson, A. (1977) “Middle English”. Rigg, A. Editing Medieval Texts: English, French, and Latin Written in England. Conference on Editorial Problems Series 12, 34-57. Garland: New York and London. Hudson, A. (1978) Selections from English Wycliffite Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hughes, S. (1980) “Guildhall and Chancery English, 1377-1422”. Guildhall Studies in London History 4 (2), 53-62. Hundt, M. (1998) New Zealand English Grammar, Fact of Fiction?: A Corpus- Based Study in Morphosyntactic Variation. Varieties of English around the World 23. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hunt, A. (1991) Teaching and Learning Latin in Thirteenth-Century England. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer. Hunt, A. (2000) “Code-Switching in Medical Texts”. In Trotter, D., 131-47. Hymes, D. (1974) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Iglesias Rábade, L. (1987) “Norman England: A Historical Sociolinguistic Approach”. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 15, 101-12. 453

Iglesias Rábade, L. (1991) “French Colloquial Loan-Words in English Texts prior to 1300: Semantic Analysis and Sociolinguistic Implications”. Atlantis 13 (1-2), 51-63. Iglesias Rábade, L. (1992) Uso del inglés y francés en la Inglaterra normanda y Plantagenet (1066-1399). Monografías de la USC 166. Santiago de Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Iglesias Rábade, L. (1996) “The Multi-Lingual Pulpit in England, 1100-1500”. Neophilologus 80 (3), 479-92. Imray, J. (1964) “The Merchant Adventurers and their Records”. Journal of the Society of Archivists 2 (10), 457-67. Imray, J. (1968) The Charity of Richard Whittington: A History of the Trust Administered by the Mercers’ Company, 1424-1966. London: The Athlone Press. Imray, J. (1969) “Les bones gentes de la mercerye de Londres: A Study of the Membership of the Medieval Mercers’ Company”. In Hollaender, A. and Kellaway, W., 155-78. Imray, J. and Saunders, A. (1991) The Mercers’ Hall. London: London Topographical Society. Ingham, R. (2005) “Bilingualism and Syntactic Change in Medieval England”. Reading Working Papers in Linguistics 8, 1-26. Ingham, R. (2006a) “Syntactic Change in Anglo-Norman and Continental French Chronicles: Was there a ‘Middle’ Anglo-Norman?”. Journal of French Language Studies 16 (1), 25-49. Ingham, R. (2006b) “The Status of French in Medieval England: Evidence from the Use of Object Pronoun Syntax”. Vox Romanica 65, 1-22. Ingham, R. (2007) “Bilingualism and Language Education in Medieval England”. Seminar “Multilingualism in the Middle Ages” of the Worldwide Universities Network, October 2007, University of Bristol, United Kingdom. URL: http://www.wun.ac.uk/external/multilingualism/seminar_archive/07_0 8_program/ingham.html (last accessed 04/04/2012). Ingham, R. (2009) “Middle English and Anglo-Norman in Contact”. Annual Meeting of the English Literary Society of Japan, May 2009, Tōkyō daigaku, Japan. URL: 454

http://www.elsj.org/meeting/81st/81s10ingham.pdf (last accessed 20/11/2011). Ingham, R. (2010) The Anglo-Norman Language and its Contexts. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. Ingham, R. (2012) The Transmission of Anglo-Norman: Language History and Language Acquisition. Language Faculty and Beyond 9. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jankowsky, K. (1990) “The Neogrammarian Hypothesis”. Polomé, E. Research Guide on Language Change. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 48, 223-39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jahr, E. (1998) Language Change: Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 114. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Jefferson, L. (2000) “The Language and Vocabulary of the Fourteenth- and Early Fifteenth-Century Records of the Goldsmiths’ Company”. In Trotter, D., 175-212. Jefferson, L. (2003) Wardens’ Accounts and Court Minute Books of the Goldsmiths’ Mistery of London, 1334-1446. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer. Jefferson, L. (2009) The Medieval Account Books of the Mercers of London: An Edition and Translation. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate. Jefferson, L. and Rothwell, W. (1997) “Society and Lexis: A Study of the Anglo- French Vocabulary in the Fifteenth-Century Accounts of the Merchant Taylors’ Company”. Zeitschrift für Französische Sprache und Literatur 107 (3), 273-301. Jendraschek, G. (2004) “A Graphic Representation of Language Distribution in Multilingual Societies”. 2nd Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research, University of Cambridge, March 2004. URL: http://www.academia.edu/214330/A_graphic_representation_of_langu age_distribution_in_multilingual_societies (last accessed 23/04/2012). Jensen, A. (1969) “How Much Can we Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?”. Harvard Educational Review 39, 1-123. Joshi, A. (1985) “Processing of Sentences with Intrasentential Code-Switching”. Dowty, D. et al. Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, 455

Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives. Studies in Natural Language Processing, 190-205. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Justice, S. (1994) Writing and Rebellion: England in 1381. The New Historicism 27. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Kastovsky, D. (1994) Studies in Early Modern English. Topics in English Linguistics 13. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kastovsky, D. and Mettinger, A. (2000) The History of English in a Social Context: A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 129. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kastovsky, D. and Mettinger, A. (2000/03) Language Contact in the History of English. Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature 1. 2nd ed. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Keast, W. (1957) “The Two Clarissas in Johnson’s Dictionary”. Studies in Philology 54, 429-39. Keene, D. (1991) “Introduction: The Mercers and their Hall before the Great Fire”. In Imray, J. and Saunders, A., 1-20. Keene, D. (2000) “Metropolitan Values: Migration, Mobility, and Cultural Norms, London, 1100-1700”. In Wright, L., 93-114. Keene, D. and Harding, V. (1987) “St Martin Pomary 95/1-2”. Historical Gazetteer of London before the Great Fire: Cheapside; Parishes of All Hallows Honey Lane, St Martin Pomary, St Mary le Bow, St Mary Colechurch, and St Pancras Soper Lane, 111-17. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=8319 (last accessed 15/05/2012). Keller, R. (1990) Sprachwandel: Von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache. Tübingen: Francke. Kerby-Fulton, K. and Justice, S. (1997) “Langlandian Reading Circles and the Civil Service in London and Dublin, 1380-1427”. Scase, W. et al. New Medieval Literatures, Volume I, 59-83. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kibbee, D. (1991) “For to Speke Frenche Trewely” – The French Language in England, 1000-1600: Its Status, Description, and Instruction. Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 60. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 456

Kingdon, J. (1886) Facsimile of First Volume of MS. Archives of the Worshipful Company of Grocers of the City of London, A.D. 1345-1463. London: Richard Clay and Sons. Klavans, J. (1983) “The Syntax of Code-Switching: Spanish and English”. King, L. and Matey, C. Selected Papers from the 13th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 213-31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kniezsa, V. (1994) “Orthoepists and Reformers”. In Kastovsky, D., 153-66. König, D. (1936) Theorie der endlichen und unendlichen Graphen. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft. Körner, E. (2008) “Hermann Paul and General Linguistic Theory”. Language Sciences 30, 102-32. Kristol, A. (2000) “L’intellectuel ‘anglo-normand’ face à la pluralité des langues : le témoignage implicite du MS Oxford, Magdalen Lat. 188”. In Trotter, D., 37-52. Kurath, H. et al. (1939) Handbook of the Linguistic Geography of New England. Providence: Brown University. Kurath, H. et al. (1939-43) Linguistic Atlas of New England. Providence: Brown University. Kurath, H. et al. (1952- ) Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. URL: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/ (last accessed 10/05/2013) Labov, W. (1963) “The Social Motivation of a Sound Change”. Word 19, 273- 309. Labov, W. (1966a) “Hypercorrection by the Lower-Middle Class as a Factor in Linguistic Change”. Bright, W. Sociolinguistics: Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference, 1964, 84-102. The Hague: Mouton. Labov, W. (1966b) “The Linguistic Variable as a Structural Unit”. Washington Linguistics Review 3, 4-22. Labov, W. (1966/2006) The Social Stratification of English in New York City. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Labov, W. (1969) “Contraction, Deletion, and Inherent Variability of the English Copula”. Language 45, 715-62. Labov, W. (1972a) Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 457

Labov, W. (1972b) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. (1975) “On the Use of the Present to Explain the Past”. Heilmann, L. Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Linguists, 825-51. Bologna: Il Mulino. Labov, W. (1980) Locating Language in Time and Space. Qualitative Analyses of Linguistic Structure 1. New York: Academic Press. Labov, W. (1982) “Building on Empirical Foundations”. Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 24, 17-92. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Labov, W. (1989) “Exact Description of the Speech Community: Short /a/ in Philadelphia”. In Fasold, R. and Schiffrin, D., 1-57. Labov, W. (1990) “The Intersection of Sex and Social Class in the Course of Linguistic Change”. Language Variation and Change 2 (2), 205-54. Labov, W. (1994) Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors. Language in Society 20. Oxford: Blackwell. Labov, W. (2001) Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors. Language in Society 29. Oxford: Blackwell. Labov, W. (2010) Principles of Linguistic Change: Cognitive and Cultural Factors. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Labov, W. et al. (1968) A Study of the Non-Standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City. Cooperative Research Project 3288. New York: Columbia University. Labov, W. et al. (1982) The Social Determinants of Sound Change in Philadelphia. Philadelphia: United States of America Regional Survey. Landry, R. and Allard, R. (1992) “Ethnolinguistic Vitality and the Bilingual Development of Minority and Majority Group Students”. In Fase, W. et al., 223-51. Laroussi, F. (2011) Code Switching, Languages in Contact, and Electronic Writings. Sprache, Mehrsprachigkeit und sozialer Wandel 14. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Laslett, P. (1965/83) The World we Have Lost: Further Explored. 3rd ed. London: Methuen and Co. 458

Lass, R. (1980) On Explaining Language Change. Studies in Linguistics 27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lass, R. (1987) The Shape of English. London: Dent and Sons. Lass, R. (1997) Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Studies in Linguistics 81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Latham, R. (1980) “The Banishment of Latin from the Public Records”. Archives 4 (23), 158-69. Lavandera, B. (1978) “Where Does the Sociolinguistic Variable Stop?”. Language in Society 7 (2), 171-82. Lee, N. (1969) The Search for an Abortionist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Legge, M. (1941) Anglo-Norman Letters and Petitions from all Souls. Anglo- Norman Texts 3. Oxford: Blackwell. Legge, M. (1950) Anglo-Norman in the Cloisters: The Influence of the Orders upon Anglo-Norman Literature. Edinburgh University Language and Literature 2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Legge, M. (1963) Anglo-Norman Literature and its Background. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. (1968a) Directions for Historical Linguistics. Austin: Austin University Press. Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y. (1968b) “Prefatory Note”. In Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y., vii-ix. Leith, D. (1983) A Social History of English. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Le Page, R. (1975) “Projection, Focusing, and Diffusion: Or Steps towards a Sociolinguistic Theory of Language, Illustrated from the Sociolinguistic Survey of Multilingual Communities”. Proceedings of the Conference on the Methodology of Sociolinguistic Surveys, May 1975, Montreal, 1-32. Washington, D.C.: Centre for Applied Linguistics. Le Page, R. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985) Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leskien, A. (1876) Die Deklination im Slavisch-Litauischen und Germanischen. Leipzig: Hirzel. 459

Lewin, K. (1939) “Field Theory and Experiment in Social Psychology: Concepts and Methods”. The American Journal of Sociology, 44 (6), 868-96. Li, W. (1988) “Audience Design and Language Choice in a Chinese Student Community in Britain”. 7th Sociolinguistics Symposium, April 1988, University of York, United Kingdom. Li, W. (1994) Three Generations, Two Languages, One Family: Language Choice and Language Shift in a Chinese Community in Britain. Multilingual Matters 104. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Li, W. (2000) The Bilingualism Reader. London and New York: Routledge. Li, W. and Milroy, L. (1995) “Conversational Code-Switching in a Chinese Community in Britain: A Sequential Analysis”. Journal of Pragmatics 23 (3), 281-99. Li, W. and Milroy, L. (2003) “Markets, Hierarchies, and Networks in Language Maintenance and Language Shift”. Dewaele, J. et al. Bilingualism: Beyond Basic Principles – Festschrift in Honour of H. Baetens Beardsmore, 128-40. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Li, W. et al. (1992) “A Two-Step Sociolinguistic Analysis of Code-Switching and Language Choice: The Example of a Bilingual Chinese Community in Britain”. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2 (1), 63-86. Lindenbaum, S. (1999) “London Texts and Literate Practice”. Wallace, D. The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature, 284-309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lingelbach, W. (1902) “The Internal Organisation of the Merchant Adventurers of England”. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 16, 19-67. Lippi-Green, R. (1989) “Social Network Integration and Language Change in Progress in a Rural Alpine Village”. Language in Society 18 (2), 213-34. Lipski, J. (1978) “Code-Switching and the Problem of Bilingual Competence”. Paradis, M. Aspects of Bilingualism. Congress Series, 250-63. Columbia: Hornbeam Press. Lodge, R. (1992) “Language Attitudes and Linguistic Norms in France and England in the Thirteenth Century”. Coss, P. and Lloyd, S. Thirteenth Century England IV: Proceedings of the Newcastle upon Tyne Conference, 1991, 73-83. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. 460

Lorrain, F. and White, H. (1971) “Structural Equivalence of Individuals in Social Networks”. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1, 49-80. Lyell, L. (1935) “The Problem of the Records of the Merchant Adventurers”. The Economic History Review 5 (2), 96-8. Lyell, L. (1936) “Introduction”. In Lyell, L. and Watney, F., i-xxiv. Lyell, L. and Watney, F. (1936) Acts of Court of the Mercers’ Company, 1453- 1527. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacFarlane, A. (1977) Reconstructing Historical Communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Machan, T. (1994) “Language Contact in Piers Plowman”. Speculum 69 (2), 359-85. Machan, T. and Scott, C. (1992) English in its Social Contexts: Essays in Historical Sociolinguistics. Studies in Sociolinguistics 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mackenzie, B. (1928) The Early London Dialect. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mackey, W. (1962) “The Description of Bilingualism”. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 7, 51-85. Mahootian, S. (1993) “A Null Theory of Code Switching”. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Northwestern University, United States. Mahootian, S. and Santorini, B. (1996) “Code-Switching and the Complement/Adjunct Distinction”. Linguistic Inquiry 27 (3), 464-79. Marçais, W. (1930) “La diglossie arabe”. L’enseignement publique : Revue pédagogique 104 (12), 401-9. Markus, M. (1994) “From Stress-Timing to Syllable-Timing: Changes in the Prosodic System of Late Middle English and Early Modern English”. In Kastovsky, D., 187-204. Martin, S. (1975) A Reference Grammar of Japanese. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Martin-Jones, M. and Romaine, S. (1986) “Semilingualism: A Half-Baked Theory of Communicative Competence”. Applied Linguistics 7 (1), 26-38. Marx, K. (1859) Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie. Berlin: Karl Dietz. Maschler, Y. (1998) “On the Transition from Code-Switching to a Mixed Code”. In Auer, P., 125-49. 461

Masters, B. (1988) The Chamberlain of the City of London, 1237-1987. London: The Corporation of London. Mayer, P. (1961) Townsmen or Tribesmen: Conservatism and the Process of Societies. London: Tavistock. Mayo, E. (1945) The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilisation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. McArthur, T. (1992) The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McClure, E. (1977) “Aspects of Code-Switching in the Discourse of Bilingual Mexican American Children”. Saville-Troike, M. Linguistics and Anthopology: 28th Annual Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 93-115. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. McConvell, P. and Meakins, F. (2005) “Gurindji Kriol: A Mixed Language Emerges from Code-Switching”. Australian Journal of Linguistics 25 (1), 9-30. McFarlane, K. (1945/81) “Henry V, Bishop Beaufort, and the Red Hat, 1417-21”. McFarlane, K. England in the Fifteenth Century: Collected Essays. History Series 5, 79-113. London: The Hambledon Press. McIntosh, A. et al. (1986) A Linguistic Atlas of Late Medieval English. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press. McMahon, A. (1994) Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McRee, B. (1993) “Charity and Gild Solidarity in Late Medieval England”. The Journal of British Studies 32 (3), 195-225. Meillet, A. (1906) “L’état actuel des études de linguistique générale”. Revue des idées 3, 296-308. Mellinkoff, D. (1963) The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. Meurman-Solin, A. (2000) “Change from above or below?: Mapping the Loci of Linguistic Change in the History of Scottish English”. In Wright, L., 155- 70. Milardo, R. (1988) “Families and Social Networks: An Overview of Theory and Methodology”. Milardo, R. Families and Social Networks. New Perspectives on Family, 13-47. Newbury Park: SAGE. 462

Millar, R. (2012) English Historical Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh Textbooks on the English Language – Advanced. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Miller, G. (2002) “The Death of French in Medieval England”. Wiltshire, C. and Camps, J. Romance Phonology and Variation. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 217, 145-59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Milroy, J. (1976) “Length and Height Variations in the Vowels of Belfast Vernacular”. Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 1 (3), 69-110. Milroy, J. (1981) Regional Accents of English: Belfast. Belfast: Blackstaff. Milroy, J. (1992a) “A Social Model for the Interpretation of Language Change”. In Rissanen, M. et al., 72-91. Milroy, J. (1992b) Linguistic Variation and Change: On the Historical Sociolinguistics of English. Language in Society 19. Oxford: Blackwell. Milroy, J. (1992c) “Middle English Dialectology”. In Blake, N., 156-206. Milroy, J. (1998) “Toward a Speaker-Based Account of Language Change”. In Jahr, E., 21-36. Milroy, J. (2003) “On the Role of the Speaker in Language Change”. In Hickey, R., 143-57. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1978) “Belfast: Change and Variation in an Urban Vernacular”. Trudgill, P. Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English, 19- 36. London: Edward Arnold. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1985) “Linguistic Change, Social Network, and Speaker Innovation”. Journal of Linguistics 21 (2), 339-84. Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1997) “Varieties and Variation”. In Coulmas, F., 47-64. Milroy, J. et al. (1983) “Sociolinguistic Variation and Linguistic Change in Belfast”. Belfast: Social Science Research Council. Milroy, L. (1976) “Investigating Linguistic Variation in Three Belfast Working- Class Communities”. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference, April 1976, Dublin, 18-26. Belfast: Sociological Association of Ireland. Milroy, L. (1980/87) Language and Social Networks. Language in Society 2. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Milroy, L. (1982) “Social Network and Linguistic Focusing”. In Romaine, S., 141- 52. 463

Milroy, L. (2001) “Bridging the Micro-Macro Gap: Social Change, Social Networks, and Bilingual Repertoires”. Klatter-Folmer, J. and van Avermaet, P. Theories on Maintenance and Loss of Minority Languages: Towards a more Integrated Explanatory Framework, 39-64. Münster: Waxmann. Milroy, L. and Gordon, M. (2003) Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. Language in Society 34. Oxford: Blackwell. Milroy, L. and Li, W. (1995) “A Social Network Approach to Code-Switching: The Example of a Bilingual Community in Britain”. In Milroy, L. and Muysken, P., 136-57. Milroy, L. and Margrain, S. (1978) “Vernacular Language Loyalty and Social Network”. Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 3, 1-59. Milroy, L. and Milroy, J. (1977) “Speech and Context in an Urban Setting”. Belfast Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 2, 1-85. Milroy, L. and Milroy, J. (1992) “Social Network and Social Class: Toward an Integrated Sociolinguistic Model”. Language in Society 21 (1), 1-26. Milroy, L. and Muysken, P. (1995) One Speaker, Two Languages: Cross- Disciplinary Perspectives on Codeswitching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mitchell, J. (1969a) Social Networks in Urban Situations: Analyses of Personal Relationships in Central African Towns. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Mitchell, J. (1969b) “The Concept and Use of Social Networks”. In Mitchell, J., 1-50. Moffatt, S. and Milroy, L. (1992) “Panjabi/English Language Alternation in Early School Years”. Multilingua 11 (4), 355-85. Montes Alcalá, C. (2005) “‘Dear Amigo’: Exploring Code-Switching in Personal Letters”. Sayahi, L. and Westmoreland, M. Selected Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics, 102-8. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Mooney, L. (2006) “Chaucer’s Scribe”. Speculum 81, 97-138. Mooney, L. and Stubbs, E. (2013) Scribes and the City: London Guildhall Clerks and the Dissemination of Middle English Literature, 1375-1425. York: Boydell and Brewer. 464

Moore, C. (2011) Quoting Speech in Early English. Studies in English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moran, J. (1960/76) Wynkyn de Worde: Father of Fleet Street. 2nd ed. London: Wynkyn de Worde Society. Moreno, J. (1934) Who Shall Survive? Washington, D.C.: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company. Morsbach, L. (1888) Über den Ursprung der neuenglischen Schriftsprache. Heilbronn: Henninger. Mossé, F. (1950/52) A Handbook of Middle English. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Mühlhäusler, P. (1989) “On the Causes of Accelerated Linguistic Change in the Pacific Area”. Breivik, L. and Jahr, E. Language Change: Contributions to the Study of its Causes. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 43, 137-72. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Müller, F. (1881) Selected Essays on Language, Mythology, and Religion. London: Longmans, Green, and Co. Muysken, P. (1981) “Halfway between Quechua and Spanish: The Case for Relexification”. Highfield, A. and Valdman, A. Historicity and Variation in Creole Studies, 52-78. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers. Muysken, P. (2007) “Mixed Codes”. Auer, P. and Li, W. Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication. Handbooks of Applied Linguistics 5, 315-39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Myers-Scotton, C. (1983) “The Negotiation of Identities in Conversation: A Theory of Markedness and Code Choice”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 44, 115-36. Myers-Scotton, C. (1986) “Diglossia and Code Switching”. Fishman, J. et al. The Fergusonian Impact: In Honour of C. Ferguson on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Volume II – Sociolinguistics and the Sociology of Language. Contributions to the Sociology of Language 42, 403-15. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Myers-Scotton, C. (1992) “Comparing Codeswitching and Borrowing”. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 13 (1-2), 19-39. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993a) Duelling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 465

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993b) Social Motivations for Code Switching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford Studies in Language Contact. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (1998) “A Way to Dusty Death: The Matrix Language Turnover Hypothesis”. Grenoble, L. and Whaley, L. Endangered Languages: Language Loss and Community Response. Current Issues and Future Prospects, 289-316. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (2002) Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. and Jake, J. (2000) “Four Types of Morpheme: Evidence from Aphasia, Codeswitching, and Second Language Acquisition”. Linguistics 38 (6), 1053-100. Myers-Scotton, C. and Jake, J. (2001) “Explaining Aspects of Code-Switching and their Implications”. Nicol, J. One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing. Explaining Linguistics, 84-116. Oxford: Blackwell. Nait M’Barek, M. and Sankoff, D. (1988) “Le discours mixte arabe / français : des emprunts ou alternances de langue ?”. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 33 (2), 143-54. Nevalainen, T. (1996a) “Gender Difference”. In Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin- Brunberg, H., 77-92. Nevalainen, T. (1996b) “Social Stratification”. In Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin- Brunberg, H., 57-76. Nevalainen, T. (1999) “Making the Best Use of ‘Bad’ Data: Evidence for Sociolinguistic Variation in Early Middle English”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 100 (4), 499-533. Nevalainen, T. (2000a) “Gender Differences in the Evolution of Standard English: Evidence from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence”. Journal of English Linguistics 28 (1), 38-59. Nevalainen, T. (2000b) “Mobility, Social Networks, and Language Change in Early Modern England”. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. et al., 253-64. Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1989) “A Corpus of Early Modern Standard English in a Socio-Historical Perspective”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 90 (1), 61-104. 466

Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1996) Sociolinguistics and Language History: Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (2000) “The Changing Role of London on the Linguistic Map of Tudor and Stuart England”. In Kastovsky, D. and Mettinger, A., 279-338. Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (2003) Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Pearson Education. Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (2005) “Sociolinguistics and the History of English: A Survey”. International Journal of English Studies 5 (1), 33-58. Newmeyer, F. (1988) Language: The Sociocultural Context. Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey 4. New York: Cambridge University Press. Nightingale, P. (1989) “Capitalists, Crafts, and Constitutional Change in Late Fourteenth-Century London”. Past and Present 124, 3-35. Nightingale, P. (1990) “Monetary Contraction and Mercantile Credit in Later Medieval England”. The Economic History Review 43 (4), 560-75. Nightingale, P. (1995) A Medieval Mercantile Community: The Grocers’ Company and the Politics and Trade of London, 1000-1485. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Nightingale, P. (1997) “England and the European Depression of the Mid- Fifteenth Century”. Journal of European Economic History 26 (3), 631- 56. Nishimura, M. (1985) “Intrasentential Codeswitching in Japanese and English”. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, United States. Nurmi, A. and Pahta, P. (2004) “Social Stratification and Patterns of Code- Switching in Early English Letters”. Multilingua 23, 417-56. Nurmi, A. and Pahta, P. (2010) “Preacher, Scholar, Brother, Friend: Social Roles and Code-Switching in the Writings of Thomas Twining”. In Pahta et al., 135-62. 467

Obreen, H. (1911) “Une charte brabançonne inédite de 1296 en faveur des marchands anglais”. Bulletin de la Commission royale d’Histoire de Belgique 80, 528-57. Oman, C. (1906) The Great Revolt of 1381. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Onysko, A. (2006) “English Code-Switching in the German Newsmagazine Der Spiegel”. TRANS: Internet-Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften 16 (1.4). URL: http://www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/01_4/onysko16.htm (last accessed 27/04/2013). Ormrod, W. (2003) “The Use of English: Language, Law, and Political Culture in Fourteenth-Century England”. Speculum 78 (3), 750-87. Orr, J. (1948) The Impact of French upon English: The Taylorian Lecture. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Orton, H. et al. (1962-71) Survey of English Dialects: Basic Materials. Leeds: Arnold and Son. Osgood, C. and Sebeok, T. (1954) Psycholinguistics: A Survey of Theory and Research Problems. Baltimore: Waverley Press. Osthoff, H. and Brugmann, K. (1878) Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen Sprachen. Leipzig: Hirzel. Otway-Ruthven, J. (1939) The King’s Secretary and the Signet Office in the Fifteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pahta, P. (2004) “Code-Switching in Medieval English Medical Writing”. In Taavitsainen, I. and Pahta, P., 73-99. Pahta, P. and Nurmi, A. (2006) “Code-Switching in The Helsinki Corpus: A Thousand Years of Multilingual Practices”. Ritt, N. et al. Medieval English and its Heritage: Structure, Meaning, and Mechanisms of Change. Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature 16, 203- 20. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Pahta, P. and Nurmi, A. (2009) “Negotiating Interpersonal Identities in Writing: Code-Switching Practices in Charles Burney’s Correspondence”. Nurmi, A. et al. The Language of Daily Life in England, 1400-1800. Pragmatics and Beyond 183, 27-52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pahta, P. and Nurmi, A. (2011) “Multilingual Discourse in the Domain of Religion in Medieval and Early Modern England: A Corpus Approach to 468

Research on Historical Code-Switching”. In Schendl, H. and Wright, L., 219-51. Pahta, P. et al. (2010) Social Roles and Language Practices in Late Modern English. Pragmatics and Beyond 195. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Palander-Collin, M. (1999) “Male and Female Styles in Seventeenth-Century Correspondence: I Think”. Language Variation and Change 11 (2), 123- 41. Palliser, D. (1985) The Company of Merchant Adventurers of the City of York: A Brief History of the Gild. York: The Company of Merchant Adventurers of York. Pandit, I. (1990) “Grammaticality in Code Switching”. Jacobson, R. Codeswitching as a Worldwide Phenomenon. American University Studies 13, 33-69. Frankfurt and New York: Peter Lang. Paris, G. (1881) La vie de Saint Gilles par Guillaume de Berneville. Paris: SATF. Parker, J. (1980) “The Book of Ordinances of the Mercers’ Company of London”. Unpublished MPhil Dissertation. University of London, United Kingdom. Parkes, M. (1976) “The Influence of the Concepts of Ordinatio and Compilatio on the Development of the Book”. Alexander, J. et al. Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays Presented to R. Hunt, 115-41. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Parsons, T. (1949/54) Essays in Sociological Theory. 2nd ed. Glencoe: Free Press. Parsons, T. (1951) The Social System. New York: Free Press. Parsons, T. and Shils, E. (1951) Toward a General Theory of Action: Theoretical Foundations for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Parsons, T. et al. (1961) Theories of Society: Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory. New York: Free Press. Patrick, P. (2002) “The Speech Community”. Chambers, J. et al. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics 11, 573-602. Oxford: Blackwell. Paul, H. (1880) Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 469

Pedersen, I. (1994) “Linguistic Variation and Composite Life-Modes”. Nordberg, B. The Sociolinguistics of Urbanisation: The Case of the Nordic Countries. Sociolinguistics and Language Contact 7, 87-115. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Pfaff, C. (1976) “Functional and Structural Constraints on Syntactic Variation in Code-Switching”. Steever, B. et al. Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, April 1976, 248-59. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Pfaff, C. (1979) “Constraints on Language Mixing: Intrasentential Code- Switching and Borrowing in Spanish/English”. Language 55 (2), 291- 318. Pitts, A. (1983) “Urban Speech in Ulster: A Comparative Study of Two Communities”. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Michigan, United States of America. Pitts, A. (1985) “Urban Influence on Phonological Variation in a Northern Irish Speech Community”. English World-Wide 6, 59-85. Pollock, F. and Maitland, F. (1895/1911) The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pooley, E. (1947) The Guilds of the City of London. Britain in Pictures 82. London: Collins. Pope, M. (1934) From Latin to Modern French with Especial Consideration of Anglo-Norman: Phonology and Morphology. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Poplack, S. (1979) “Sometimes I’ll Start a Sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a Typology of Code-Switching”. Centro de Estudios Puertorriqueños Working Papers 4, 4-83. Poplack, S. (1981) “Syntactic Structure and Social Function of Code-Switching”. Durán, R. Latino Language and Communicative Behaviour. Advances in Discourse Processes 6, 169-84. Norwood: Ablex. Poplack, S. (1985/87) “Contrasting Patterns of Code-Switching in Two Communities”. Wande, E. et al. Aspects of Bilingualism: Proceedings from the 4th Nordic Symposium on Bilingualism, 1984, 51-76. Uppsala: Borgströms and Motala. 470

Poplack, S. (1993) “Variation Theory and Language Contact”. Preston, D. American Dialect Research: An Anthology Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the American Dialect Society, 251-86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Poplack, S. and Meechan, M. (1995) “Patterns of Language Mixture: Nominal Structure in Wolof/French and Fongbe/French Bilingual Discourse”. In Milroy, L. and Muysken, P., 199-232. Poplack, S. et al. (1987) “Distinguishing Language Contact Phenomena: Evidence from Finnish/English Bilingualism”. Lilius, P. and Saari, M. The Nordic Languages and Modern Linguistics 6: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Nordic and General Linguistics in Helsinki, 1986, 33-56. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press. Poplack, S. et al. (1988) “The Social Correlates and Linguistic Processes of Lexical Borrowing and Assimilation”. Linguistics 26 (1), 47-104. Postan, M. (1933) “The Economic and Political Relations of England and the Hanse”. In Power, E. and Postan, M., 91-153. Postan, M. (1972) The Medieval Economy and Society: An Economic History of Britain, 1100-1500. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Power, E. (1933) “The Wool Trade in the Fifteenth Century”. In Power, E. and Postan, M., 39-90. Power, E. and Postan, M. (1933) Studies in the English Trade in the Fifteenth Century. Studies in Economic and Social History 5. London: Routledge and Sons. Quirk, R. et al. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1940) “On Social Structure”. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 70 (1), 1-12. Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1952) Structure and Function in Primitive Society. London: Cohen and West. Radcliffe-Brown, A. (1957) A Natural Science of Society. Chicago: Free Press. Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1996) “Historical Sociolinguistics”. In Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H., 11-38. 471

Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (1998) “Social Factors and Pronominal Change in the Seventeenth Century: The Civil-War Effect?”. Fisiak, J. and Krygier, M. Advances in English Historical Linguistics, 1996. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 112, 361-88. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (2005) “Language Change in Adulthood: Historical Letters as Evidence”. European Journal of English Studies 9 (1), 37-51. Raumolin-Brunberg, H. and Nevalainen, T. (1997) “Like Father (un)like Son: A Sociolinguistic Approach to the Language of the Cely Family”. Fisiak, J. Studies in Middle English Linguistics. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 103, 489-511. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rawcliffe, C. (1993a) “Bosham, John (d. 1393), of London”. In Roskell, J. et al. URL: http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386- 1421/member/bosham-john-1393 (last accessed 09/05/2012). Rawcliffe, C. (1993b) “Frosh, John (d. 1397), of London”. In Roskell, J. et al. URL: http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386- 1421/member/frosh-john-1397 (last accessed 10/05/2012). Rawcliffe, C. (1993c) “Shadworth, John (d. 1430), of London”. In Roskell, J. et al. URL: http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386- 1421/member/shadworth-john-1430 (last accessed 08/05/2012). Rawcliffe, C. (1993d) “Sheringham, William (d. 1397), of London”. In Roskell, J. et al. URL: http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386- 1421/member/sheringham-william-1397 (last accessed 08/05/2012). Rawcliffe, C. (1993e) “Waldern, William (d. 1424), of London”. In Roskell, J. et al. URL: http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386- 1421/member/waldern-william-1424 (last accessed 09/05/2012). Rawcliffe, C. (1993f) “Whittington, Richard (d. 1423), of London”. In Roskell, J. et al. URL: http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386- 1421/member/whittington-richard-1423 (last accessed 08/05/2012). Rawcliffe, C. (1993g) “Woodcock, John (d. 1409), of London”. In Roskell, J. et al. URL: http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386- 1421/member/woodcock-john-1409 (last accessed 08/05/2012). Redouane, R. (2005) “Linguistic Constraints on Codeswitching and Codemixing of Bilingual Moroccan Arabic/French Speakers in Canada”. Cohen, J. et 472

al. ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, 1921-33. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Rich, E. (1937) The Ordinance Book of the Merchants of the Staple, with an Introduction. Cambridge Studies in Economic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, M. (1980a) “Henry V, the English Chancery, and Chancery English”. Speculum 55 (4), 726-50. Richardson, M. (1980b) “The Earliest Business Letters in English: An Overview”. The Journal of Business Communication 17 (3), 19-31. Richter, M. (1985) “Towards a Methodology of Historical Sociolinguistics”. In Romaine, S. and Traugott, E., 41-61. Riley, H. (1861) Liber Albus: The White Book of the City of London, Compiled A.D. 1419. London: Griffin and Co. Rissanen, M. (1999) “Language of Law and the Development of Standard English”. Taavitsainen, I. et al. Writing in Non-Standard English. Pragmatics and Beyond 67, 189-203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Rissanen, M. et al. (1992) History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Topics in English Linguistics 10. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rissanen, M. et al. (1993) Early English in the Computer Age: Explorations through The Helsinki Corpus. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rissanen, M. et al. (1997) English in Transition: Corpus-Based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles. Topics in English Linguistics 23. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Robinson, O. (2004) “A Literary Language?”. Wellbery, D. et al. A New History of German Literature, 91-7. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rogers, E. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe: Free Press. Rogers, I. (1975- ) Fifteenth-Century Biographical Index. URL: http://www.girders.net (last accessed 10/06/2012). Romaine, S. (1981) “The Status of Variable Rules in Sociolinguistic Theory”. Journal of Linguistics 17 (1), 93-119. Romaine, S. (1982a) Socio-Historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Studies in Linguistics 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 473

Romaine, S. (1982b) Sociolinguistic Variation in Speech Communities. London: Edward Arnold. Romaine, S. (1984) The Language of Children and Adolescents: The Acquisition of Communicative Competence. Language in Society 7. Oxford: Blackwell. Romaine, S. (1985) “Some Questions for the Definition of ‘Style’ in Socio- Historical Linguistics”. In Romaine, S. and Traugott, E., 7-39. Romaine, S. (1989) Bilingualism. Language in Society 13. Oxford: Blackwell. Romaine, S. (2010) “Contact and Language Death”. In Hickey, R., 320-39. Romaine, S. and Traugott, E. (1985) Papers from the Workshop on Socio- Historical Linguistics. Special Issue of Folia Linguistica Historica 6 (1), 5-180. Roskell, J. et al. (1993). The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1386-1421. Stroud: Alan Sutton Publishing. Rothwell, W. (1968) “The Teaching of French in Medieval England”. The Modern Language Review 63 (1), 37-46. Rothwell, W. (1975) “Anglo-Norman Perspectives”. The Modern Language Review 70 (1), 41-9. Rothwell, W. (1976) “The Role of French in Thirteenth-Century England”. Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 58, 445- 66. Rothwell, W. (1978) “A quelle époque a-t’on cessé de parler français en Angleterre ?”. Mélanges de philologie romane offerts à C. Camproux, 1075-89. Montpellier: C. E. O. Montpellier. Rothwell, W. (1980) “Lexical Borrowing in a Medieval Context”. Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 63, 118-43. Rothwell, W. (1983) “Language and Government in Medieval England”. Zeitschrift für Französische Sprache und Literatur 93 (3), 258-70. Rothwell, W. (1985) “Stratford atte Bowe and Paris”. The Modern Language Review 80 (1), 39-54. Rothwell, W. (1991) “The Missing Link in English Etymology: Anglo-Norman”. Medium Aevum 60 (2), 173-96. 474

Rothwell, W. (1992) “The French Vocabulary in the Archive of the London Grocers’ Company”. Zeitschrift für Französische Sprache und Literatur 102 (1), 23-41. Rothwell, W. (1993a) “From Latin to Anglo-French and Middle English: The Role of the Multilingual Gloss”. The Modern Language Review 88 (3), 581-99. Rothwell, W. (1993b) “The ‘Faus Franceis d’Angleterre’: Later Anglo-Norman”. Short, I. Anglo-Norman Anniversary Essays. Anglo-Norman Text Society Occasional Publications 2, 309-26. London: Anglo-Norman Text Society. Rothwell, W. (1993c) “The Legacy of Anglo-French: faux amis in French and English”. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 109 (1-2), 16-46. Rothwell, W. (1994) “The Trilingual England of Geoffrey Chaucer”. Studies in the Age of Chaucer 16, 45-67. Rothwell, W. (1996) “Playing ‘Follow my Leader’ in Anglo-Norman Studies”. French Language Studies 6, 177-210. Rothwell, W. (1998) “Arrivals and Departures: The Adoption of French Terminology into Middle English”. English Studies 79 (2), 144-65. Rothwell, W. (1999) “Sugar and Spice and all Things Nice: From Oriental Bazaar to English Cloister in Anglo-French”. The Modern Language Review 94 (3), 647-59. Rothwell, W. (2000a) “Aspects of Lexical and Morphosyntactic Mixing in the Languages of Medieval England”. In Trotter, D., 213-32. Rothwell, W. (2000b) “The Trial Scene in Lanval and the Development of the Legal Register in Anglo-Norman”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 101 (1), 17-36. Rothwell, W. (2001a) “English and French in England after 1362”. English Studies 82 (6), 539-59. Rothwell, W. (2001b) “Stratford atte Bowe Revisited”. The Chaucer Review 36 (2), 184-207. Rothwell, W. (2004) “Henry of Lancaster and Geoffrey Chaucer: Anglo-French and Middle English in Fourteenth-Century England”. The Modern Language Review 99 (2), 313-27. 475

Rothwell, W. (2005) “Anglo-French and the AND”. The Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub. URL: http://www.anglo-norman.net/sitedocs/main- intro.shtml?session=S3133991371418164#_ftn1 (last accessed 12/01/2013). Rothwell, W. (2006) “Anglo-French and English Society in Chaucer’s ‘The Reeve’s Tale’”. English Studies 87 (5), 511-38. Rothwell, W. et al. (1977- ) Anglo-Norman Dictionary. London: Modern Humanities Research Association. URL: http://www.anglo- norman.net/gate/?session=S3162241371807522 (last accessed 27/06/2013). Rousseau, P. and Sankoff, D. (1978) “Advances in Variable Rule Methodology”. Sankoff, D. Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods, 57-69. New York: Academic Press. Rubin, J. (1968) National Bilingualism in Paraguay. The Hague: Mouton. Samuels, M. (1963) “Some Applications of Middle English Dialectology”. English Studies 44, 81-94. Sandahl, B. (1958) Middle English Sea Terms II: Masts, Spars, and Sails. Essays and Studies on English Language and Literature 20. Uppsala: Lundequistska Bokhandeln. Sandved, A. (1981) “Prolegomena to a Renewed Study of the Rise of Standard English”. Benskin, M. and Samuels, M. So Meny People Longages and Tonges: Philological Essays in Scots and Medieval English Presented to A. McIntosh, 31-42. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Sankoff, D. (1988) “Sociolinguistics and Syntactic Variation”. In Newmeyer, F., 140-61. Sankoff, D. and Poplack, S. (1981) “A Formal Grammar for Code-Switching”. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication 14 (1), 3-46. Sankoff, D. et al. (1989) “Montreal French: Language, Class, and Ideology”. In Fasold, R. and Schiffrin, D., 107-18. Sankoff, G. (1974/80) “A Quantitative Paradigm for the Study of Communicative Competence”. Sankoff, G. The Social Life of Language. Conduct and Communication Series, 47-80. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 476

Saville-Troike, M. (1982/2003) The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. Language in Society 3. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Scase, W. (1992) “Reginald Pecock, John Carpenter, and John Colop’s ‘Common-Profit’ Books: Aspects of Book Ownership and Circulation in Fifteenth-Century London”. Medium Aevum 61 (2), 261-74. Scase, W. (1998) “Strange and Wonderful Bills: Bill-Casting and Political Discourse in Late Medieval England”. New Medieval Literatures 2, 225- 47. Schendl, H. (1996) “Text Types and Code-Switching in Medieval and Early Modern English”. VIEWZ: Vienna English Working Papers 5 (1-2), 50- 62. Schendl, H. (1997) “To London fro Kent/Sunt predia depopulantes: Code- Switching and Medieval English Macaronic Poems”. VIEWZ: Vienna English Working Papers 6 (1), 52-66. Schendl, H. (2000a) “Linguistic Aspects of Code-Switching in Medieval English Texts”. In Trotter, D., 77-91. Schendl, H. (2000b) “Syntactic Constraints on Code-Switching in Medieval Texts”. Taavitsainen, I. et al. Placing Middle English in Context. Topics in Linguistics 35, 67-86. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Schendl, H. (2000/03) “Code-Switching in Medieval English Poetry”. In Kastovsky, D. and Mettinger, A., 305-35. Schendl, H. (2002a) “Code-Choice and Code-Switching in some Early Fifteenth- Century Letters”. Lucas, P. and Lucas, A. Middle English: From Tongue to Text. Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature 4, 247-62. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Schendl, H. (2002b) “Mixed-Language Texts as Data and Evidence in English Historical Linguistics”. Minkova, D. and Stockwell, R. Studies in the History of the English Language: A Millennial Perspective. Topics in English Linguistics 39, 51-78. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Guyter. Schendl, H. (2004) “Hec sunt prata to wassingwellan: Aspects of Code- Switching in Old English Charters”. VIEWZ: Vienna English Working Papers 13 (2), 52-68. Schendl, H. (2011) “Beyond Boundaries: Code-Switching in the Leases of Oswald of Worcester”. In Schendl, H. and Wright, L., 47-94. 477

Schendl, H. and Wright, L. (2011a) Code-Switching in Early English. Topics in English Linguistics 76. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Schendl, H. and Wright, L. (2011b) “Code-Switching in Early English: Historical Background and Methodological and Theoretical Issues”. In Schendl, H. and Wright, L., 15-46. Schendl, H. and Wright, L. (2011c) “Introduction”. In Schendl, H. and Wright, L., 1-14. Schiffman, H. (1997) “Diglossia as a Sociolinguistic Situation”. In Coulmas, F., 205-16. Schleicher, A. (1861) Kompendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: Böhlau. Schmidt-Rohr, G. (1932) Die Sprache als Bildnerin der Völker: Eine Wesens- und Lebenskunde der Volkstümer. Jena: Diederichs. Schmitt, E. (2000) “Overt and Covert Switching in Immigrant Children from Russia”. International Journal of Bilingualism 4 (1), 9-28. Scott, F. (1912) “Apprenticeship under the English Gild System”. The Elementary School Teacher 13 (4), 180-8. Scott, J. (1991/2000) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. 2nd ed. London: SAGE. Sebba, M. (2013) “Multilingualism in Written Discourse: An Approach to the Analysis of Multilingual Texts”. International Journal of Bilingualism 17 (1), 97-118. Sebba, M. et al. (2012) Language Mixing and Code-Switching in Writing: Approaches to Mixed-Language Written Discourse. Critical Studies in Multilingualism 2. London: Routledge. Sellers, M. (1918) The York Mercers and Merchant Adventurers, 1356-1917. Publications of the Surtees Society 129. Durham: Andrews and Co. Sharpe, R. (1907) Calendar of Letter-Books Preserved among the Archives of the Corporation of the City of London at the Guildhall: Letter-Book H, 1375-99. London: John Edward Francis. Shin, S. and Milroy, L. (1999) “Bilingual Language Acquisition by Korean Schoolchildren in New York City”. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2 (2), 147-67. 478

Shin, S. and Milroy, L. (2000) “Conversational Code-Switching among Korean/English Bilingual Children”. International Journal of Bilingualism 4 (3), 351-83. Short, I. (1980) “On Bilingualism in Anglo-Norman England”. Romance Philology 33 (4), 467-79. Shuy, R. et al. (1967) A Study of Social Dialects in Detroit. Washington, D.C.: Office of Education. Simpson, J. and Weiner, E. (1857/1989) The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Singh, R. (1980) “Aspects of Language Borrowing: English Loans in Hindi”. Nelde, P. Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt – Languages in Contact and in Conflict – Langues en contact et en conflict, 113-6. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Sisam, K. (1921/59) Fourteenth Century Verse and Prose. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Skaffari, J. et al. (2005) Opening Windows on Texts and Discourses of the Past. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1981) Bilingualism or not: The Education of Minorities. Multilingual Matters 7. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Smith, R. (1952) “The Library at Guildhall in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries”. The Guildhall Miscellany 1 (1), 3-10. Stamatatos, E. (2009) “A Survey of Modern Authorship Attribution Methods”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (3), 538-56. Stamp, A. (1927) “Close Rolls: Henry IV, May 1401”. Calendar of Close Rolls: Henry IV, 1399-1402, 383-96. URL: http://www.british- history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=107897 (last accessed 11/05/2012). Stankiewicz, E. (1972) A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology: The Beginnings of Structural Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Stapleton, T. (1849) Chronicon Petroburgense. Camden Society 47. London: J. Nichols and Son. Steer, F. (1968) Scriveners’ Company Common Paper, 1357-1628: With a Continuation to 1678. London Record Society 4. London: Record Society Publications. 479

Steer, F. (1973) A History of the Worshipful Company of Scriveners of London, Volume I. London and Chichester: Phillimore and Co. Stenson, N. (1990) “Phrase Structure Congruence, Goverment, and Irish/English Codeswitching”. Hendrick, R. The Syntax of the Modern Celtic Languages. Syntax and Semantics 23, 137-97. San Diego: Academic Press. Stoessel, S. (2002) “Investigating the Role of Social Networks in Language Maintenance and Shift”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 153, 93-131. Strang, B. (1970) A History of English. London: Methuen and Co. Sturtevant, E. (1917) Linguistic Change: An Introduction to the Historical Study of Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Suggett, H. (1946) “The Use of French in England in the Later Middle Ages”. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 28 (4), 61-83. Sullivan, C. (1932) The Latin Insertions and the Macaronic Verse in Piers Plowman. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America. Sutton, A. (1992) “Merchant, Music, and Social Harmony: The London Puy and its French and London Contexts, c. 1300”. London Journal 17 (1), 1-17. Sutton, A. (1994a) “Caxton was a Mercer: His Social Milieu and Friends”. Rogers, N. England in the Fifteenth Century: Proceedings of the 1992 Harlaxton Symposium. Harlaxton Medieval Studies 4, 118-48. Stamford: Paul Watkins. Sutton, A. (1994b) For the Honour, Profit, and Ease of the Mistery in Time to Come: The Mercers’ Company’s Charter of the 13th of January 1394. London: The Mercers’ Company of London. Sutton, A. (1995) “The Mercery Trade and the Mercers’ Company of London, from the 1130s to 1348”. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of London, United Kingdom. Sutton, A. (1997) “Mercery through Four Centuries, 1130s-c. 1500”. Nottingham Medieval Studies 41, 100-25. Sutton, A. (1998) “The Silent Years of London Guild History before 1300: The Case of the Mercers”. Historical Research 71 (175), 121-41. 480

Sutton, A. (2001) “The Shop-Floor of the London Mercery Trade, c. 1200-c. 1500: The Marginalisation of the Artisan, the Itinerant Mercer, and the Shopholder”. Nottingham Medieval Studies 45, 12-50. Sutton, A. (2002) “The Merchant Adventurers of England: Their Origins and the Mercers’ Company of London”. Historical Research 75 (187), 25-46. Sutton, A. (2005) The Mercery of London: Trade, Goods, and People, 1130- 1578. Aldershot: Ashgate. Sutton, A. (2009) “Fifteenth-Century Mercers and the Written Word: Mercers and their Scribes and Scriveners”. Boffey, J. and Davis, V. Recording Medieval Lives: Proceedings of the 2005 Harlaxton Symposium. Harlaxton Medieval Studies 27, 42-58. Donington: Shaun Tyas. Sutton, A. and Hammond, P. (1978) “The Problems of Dating and the Dangers of Redating: The Acts of Court of the Mercers’ Company of London, 1453- 1527”. Journal of the Society of Archivists 6 (2), 87-91. Sutton, A. and Visser-Fuchs, L. (2009) The Book of Privileges of the Merchant Adventurers of England, 1296-1483. Records of Social and Economic History 42. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taavitsainen, I. and Pahta, P. (1998) “Vernacularisation of Medical Writing in English: A Corpus-Based Study of Scholasticism”. Early Science and Medicine: A Journal for the Study of Science, Technology, and Medicine in the Pre-Modern Period 3 (2), 157-85. Taavitsainen, I. and Pahta, P. (2004) Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medieval English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tagliamonte, S. (2006) Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tandefelt, M. (1992) “Some Linguistic Consequences of the Shift from Swedish to Finnish in Finland”. In Fase, W. et al., 149-68. Tanquerey, F. (1915) L’évolution du verbe en anglo-français. Paris: Champion. Thomas, A. (1982) “Change and Decay in Language”. Crystal, D. Linguistic Controversies: Essays in Linguistic Theory and Practice in Honour of F. Palmer, 209-19. London: Edward Arnold. Thomas, H. (1932) Calendar of the Plea and Memoranda Rolls of the City of London, 1381-1412. Cambridge: The Corporation of London. 481

Thomason, S. (2001) Language Contact. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Thomason, S. and Kaufman, T. (1988) Language Contact, Creolisation, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Thrupp, S. (1942) “Medieval Guilds Reconsidered”. The Journal of Economic History 2 (2), 164-73. Thrupp, S. (1962) The Merchant Class of Medieval London, 1300-1500. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Thrupp, S. (1963) “The Gilds”. Postan, M. et al. The Cambridge Economic History of Europe: Economic Organisation and Policies in the Middle Ages, Volume III, 230-80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thrupp, S. (1969) “Aliens in and around London in the Fifteenth Century”. In Hollaender, A. and Kellaway, W., 251-72. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (1991) “Samuel Richardson’s Role as Linguistic Innovator: A Sociolinguistic Analysis”. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. and Frankis, J. Language, Usage, and Description: Studies Presented to N. Osselton on the Occasion of his Retirement, 47-57. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (1996) “Social Network Theory and Eighteenth- Century English: The Case of Boswell”. Britton, D. English Historical Linguistics 1994: Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 327-37. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2000a) “Social Network Analysis and the History of English”. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. et al., 211-6. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2000b) “Social Network Analysis and the Language of Sarah Fielding”. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. et al., 291-301. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2000c) “Sociohistorical Linguistics and the Observer’s Paradox”. In Kastovsky, D. and Mettinger, A., 441-61. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. et al. (2000) Social Network Analysis and the History of English. Special Issue of European Journal of English Studies 4 (3), 211-315. Timm, L. (1975) “Spanish/English Code Switching: El porqué y how not to”. Romance Philology 28 (4), 473-82. 482

Toulmin Smith, J. et al. (1870) English Gilds: The Original Ordinances of more than One Hundred Early English Gilds. Early English Text Society 40. London: Trübner and Co. Tout, T. (1920-33) Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England. Historical Series 35. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Treffers-Daller, J. (1991) “Towards a Uniform Approach to Code-Switching and Borrowing”. Papers for the Workshop on Constraints, Conditions, and Models. ESF Network on Code-Switching and Language Contact, 259-79. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation. Treffers-Daller, J. (1993) Mixing Two Languages: French/Dutch Contact in a Comparative Perspective. Topics in Sociolinguistics 9. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Treffers-Daller, J. and van den Hauwe, J. (1990) “French Borrowings in Brussels Dutch”. Sociolinguistica 4, 84-97. Trench, R. (1851) On the Study of Words: Five Lectures. London: J. W. Parker and Son. Trotter, D. (1996) “Language Contact and Lexicography: The Case of Anglo- Norman”. Nielsen, H. and Schøsler, L. The Origins and Development of Emigrant Languages: Proceedings from the 2nd Rasmus Rask Colloquium, Odense, November 1994, 21-39. Odense: Odense University Press. Trotter, D. (1997) “Mossenhor, fet metre aquesta letra en bon francés: Anglo- French in Gascony”. Gregory, S. and Trotter, D. De mot en mot: Aspects of Medieval Linguistics – Essays in Honour of W. Rothwell, 199-222. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. Trotter, D. (1998) “Some Lexical Gleanings from Anglo-French Gascony”. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 114 (1), 53-72. Trotter, D. (2000a) “Introduction”. In Trotter, D., 1-5. Trotter, D. (2000b) Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer. Trotter, D. (2003a) “Anglo-Norman: A Brief Introduction”. The Anglo-Norman On-Line Hub. URL: http://www.anglo-norman.net/an-intro.html (last accessed 23/04/2013). 483

Trotter, D. (2003b) “L’anglo-normand : variété insulaire, ou variété isolée ?”. Médiévales : Grammaires du vulgaire 45, 43-54. Trotter, D. (2003c) “Not as Eccentric as it Looks: Anglo-French and French French”. Forum for Modern Language Studies 39 (4), 427-38. Trotter, D. (2003d) “Oceano vox: You never Know where a Ship Comes from – On Multilingualism and Language-Mixing in Medieval Britain”. Braunmüller, K. and Ferraresi, G. Aspects of Multilingualism in European Language History. Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 2, 15-33. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Trotter, D. (2006) “Language Contact, Multilingualism, and the Evidence Problem”. Schaefer, U. The Beginnings of Standardisation: Language and Culture in Fourteenth-Century England. Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature 15, 73-90. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Trotter, D. (2010) “Bridging the Gap: The (Socio)linguistic Evidence of some Medieval English Bridge Accounts”. In Ingham, R., 52-62. Trotter, D. (2011) “Death, Taxes, and Property: Some Code-Switching Evidence from Dover, Southampton, and York”. In Schendl, H. and Wright, L., 155- 89. Trubetzkoy, N. (1928) “Proposition 16”. Actes du 1er Congrès international de linguistes, 17-8. Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff. Trudgill, P. (1974) The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Studies in Linguistics 13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trudgill, P. (1983) On Dialect: Social and Geographical Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell. Turner, M. (2007a) Chaucerian Conflict: Languages of Antagonism in Late Fourteenth-Century London. Oxford English Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Turner, M. (2007b) “Conflict”. Strohm, P. Twenty-First Century Approaches to Literature: Middle English, 258-73. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Turville-Petre, T. (1996) England the Nation: Language, Literature, and National Identity, 1290-1340. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Unwin, G. (1908) The Gilds and Companies of London. London: George Allen and Unwin. 484

Van Brakel, S. (1907) “Die Entwicklung und Organisation der Merchant Adventurers”. Vierteljahresschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 5, 401-32. Van Hout, R. and Muysken, P. (1994) “Modelling Lexical Borrowability”. Language Variation and Change 6 (1), 39-62. Veale, E. (1991) “The ‘Great Twelve’: Mistery and Fraternity in Thirteenth- Century London”. Historical Research 64 (155), 237-63. Verner, K. (1877) “Eine Ausnahme der Ersten Lautverschiebung”. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung 23, 97-130. Vising, J. (1923) Anglo-Norman Language and Literature. London: Oxford University Press. Wang, W. (1969) “Competing Change as a Cause of Residue”. Language 45, 9- 25. Wardhaugh, R. (1986/2010) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 6th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Warner, W. and Lunt, P. (1941) The Social Life of a Modern Community. New Haven: Yale University Press. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences 8. New York: Cambridge University Press. Watney, J. (1892/1906) Some Account of the Hospital of St Thomas of Acon in the Cheap, London, and of the Plate of the Mercers’ Company. 2nd ed. London: The Mercers’ Company of London. Watney, J. (1914) An Account of the Mistery of Mercers of the City of London, Otherwise the Mercers’ Company. London: Blades, East, and Blades. Weber, M. (1904-05) Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum. Weber, M. (1921) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Weber, M. (1924) Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Soziologie und Sozialpolitik. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. Wehrle, W. (1933) The Macaronic Hymn Tradition in Medieval English Literature. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America. 485

Weinreich, U. (1953) Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton. Weinreich, U. et al. (1968) “Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change”. In Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y., 95-189. Wentz, J. and McClure, E. (1976) “Ellipsis in Bilingual Discourse”. Mufwene, S. et al. Papers from the 12th Regional Meeting, April 1976, 656-65. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Wenzel, S. (1994) Macaronic Sermons: Bilingualism and Preaching in Late Medieval England. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Whitney, W. (1867) Language and the Study of Language: Twelve Lectures on the Principles of Linguistic Science. London: Trübner and Co. Whitney, W. (1881) “On Mixture in Language”. Transactions of the American Philological Association 12, 5-26. Wilkinson, B. (1940) “The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381”. Speculum 15 (1), 12-35. Wilson, R. (1943) “English and French in England, 1100-1300”. History 28, 37- 60. Winford, D. (2003) An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Language in Society 33. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Woodbine, G. (1943) “The Language of English Law”. Speculum 18 (4), 395-436. Woolard, K. (1985) “Language Variation and Cultural Hegemony: Toward an Integration of Sociolinguistic and Social Theory”. American Ethnologist 12 (4), 738-48. Woolard, K. (1999) “Simultaneity and Bivalency as Strategies in Bilingualism”. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 8 (1), 3-29. Woolford, E. (1983) “Bilingual Code-Switching and Syntactic Theory”. Linguistic Inquiry 14 (5), 520-36. Wright, J. (1898-1905) The English Dialect Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wright, L. (1992) “Macaronic Writing in a London Archive, 1380-1480”. In Rissanen, M. et al., 762-70. Wright, L. (1994a) “Early Modern London Business English”. In Kastovsky, D., 449-65. Wright, L. (1994b) “On the Writing of the History of Standard English”. Moreno Fernández, F. et al. English Historical Linguistics 1992: Papers from the 486

7th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 113, 105-15. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wright, L. (1995a) “A Hypothesis on the Structure of Macaronic Business Writing”. Fisiak, J. Medieval Dialectology. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 79, 309-21. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Wright, L. (1995b) “Middle English –ende and –ing: A Possible Route to Grammaticalisation”. Fisiak, J. Linguistic Change under Contact Conditions. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 81, 365-82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wright, L. (1996a) “About the Evolution of Standard English”. Toswell, M. and Tyler, E. Studies in English Language and Literature: “Doubt Wisely” Papers in Honour of E. Stanley, 99-115. London and New York: Routledge. Wright, L. (1996b) Sources of London English: Medieval Thames Vocabulary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wright, L. (1997) “The Records of Hanseatic Merchants: Ignorant, Sleepy, or Degenerate?”. Multilingua 16 (4), 339-50. Wright, L. (1998a) “Middle English Variation: The London English Guild Certificates of 1388-89”. In Jahr, E., 169-96. Wright, L. (1998b) “Mixed-Language Business Writing: Five Hundred Years of Code-Switching”. In Jahr, E., 99-118. Wright, L. (2000a) “Bills, Accounts, Inventories: Everyday Trilingual Activities in the Business World of Later Medieval England”. In Trotter, D., 149-56. Wright, L. (2000b) “Introduction”. In Wright, L., 1-8. Wright, L. (2000c) The Development of Standard English, 1300-1800: Theories, Descriptions, and Conflicts. Studies in English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wright, L. (2000/03) “Models of Language Mixing: Code-Switching versus Semicommunication in Medieval Latin and Middle English Accounts”. In Kastovsky, D. and Mettinger, A., 363-76. Wright, L. (2001) “The Role of International and National Trade in the Standardisation of English”. Moskowich-Spiegel Fandiño, I. et al. Re- 487

Interpretations of English: Essays on Language, Linguistics, and Phonology I, 189-207. A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. Wright, L. (2002) “Code-Intermediate Phenomena in Medieval Mixed- Language Business Texts”. Language Sciences 24 (3-4), 471-89. Wright, L. (2005) “Medieval Mixed-Language Business Discourse and the Rise of Standard English”. In Skaffari, J., 381-400. Wright, L. (2007) “Speaking and Listening in Early Modern London”. Cowan, A. and Steward, J. The City and the Senses: Urban Culture since 1500. Historical Urban Studies, 60-74. Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate. Wright, L. (2011a) “On Historical Dictionaries and Language Boundaries”. Talks for the Cambridge University Linguistic Society, January 2011, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. Wright, L. (2011b) “On Variation in Medieval Mixed-Language Business Writing”. In Schendl, H. and Wright, L., 191-218. Wright, L. (2012) “On Variation and Change in London Medieval Mixed- Language Business Documents”. Stenroos, M. et al. Language Contact and Development around the North Sea. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 321, 99-115. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wright, T. (1861) Political Poems and Songs Relating to English History, Composed during the Period from the Accession of Edward III to that of Richard III. London: Longman. Wright-Fitzmaurice, S. (1991) “On the Stylistic Basis of Syntactic Change”. Kastovsky, D. Historical English Syntax. Topics in English Linguistics 2, 469-91. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Wright-Fitzmaurice, S. (2000a) “Coalitions and the Investigation of Social Influence in Linguistic History”. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. et al., 265-76. Wright-Fitzmaurice, S. (2000b) “The Spectator, the Politics of Social Networks, and Language Standardisation in Eighteenth-Century England”. In Wright, L., 195-218. Wyld, H. (1914) A Short History of English. London: Murray. Wyld, H. (1920) A Short History of Modern Colloquial English. London: Fisher Unwin.

Honor Deo