Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:55:52.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2023

Edited by
Marco Condorelli  and
Hanna Rutkowska
Marco Condorelli
Affiliation:
University of Central Lancashire, Preston
Hanna Rutkowska
Affiliation:
Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Orthography , pp. 644 - 788
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aasen, Ivar 1848. Det norske Folkesprogs Grammatik. Kristiania: WernerGoogle Scholar
Aasen, Ivar 1850. Ordbog over det norske Folkesprog. Kristiania: Trykt hos C .C. WernerGoogle Scholar
Aasen, Ivar 1855. Ervingen. Sangspil i een Akt. Kristiania: Det norske Theaters ForlagGoogle Scholar
Aasen, Ivar 1863. Symra: tvo Tylfter med nya Visor. Kristiania: MallingGoogle Scholar
Abercrombie, David 1949. ‘What is a “letter”?’ Lingua 2: 54–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abbott, Andrew 2004. Methods of Discovery. Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New York/London: NortonGoogle Scholar
Abbott, Jacob 1855. The Harper Establishment, or, How the Story Books Are Made. New York: Harper’sGoogle Scholar
Abecele lėtuviškaj-rusiška, del naŭdos lemėntorišku mokslinijči͡u […] 1865. Warsaw: Spaŭstuvee Kommissiіos Apšvėtimo PubličnoGoogle Scholar
Academia Literaria y Científica de Instrucción Primaria 1844. Sesión Publica celebrada el día 3 de octubre de 1844, en el salón del instituto español. Por la Academia de profesores de primera educación, para demostrar las ventajas que ofrece la reforma de ortografía adoptada y publicada por la misma Academia. Dedicada a los profesores y amantes de la educación. Madrid: Imprenta de Dª. Francisca EstevanGoogle Scholar
Académie française 1694. Le dictionnaire de l’Académie française. Paris: CoignardGoogle Scholar
Académie française 1718. Le dictionnaire de l’Académie française. Paris: Coignard (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Académie française 1740. Le dictionnaire de l’Académie française. Paris: Coignard (3rd ed.)Google Scholar
Académie française 1762. Le dictionnaire de l’Académie française. Paris: Brunet (4th ed.)Google Scholar
Académie française 1798. Le dictionnaire de l’Académie française. Paris: Smits (5th ed.)Google Scholar
Académie française 1835. Le dictionnaire de l’Académie française. Paris: Firmin-Didot (6th ed.)Google Scholar
Académie française 1878. Le dictionnaire de l’Académie française. Paris: Firmin-Didot (7th ed.)Google Scholar
Académie française 1932–35. Le dictionnaire de l’Académie française. Paris: Hachette (8th ed.)Google Scholar
Académie française 1992–. Le dictionnaire de l’Académie française. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale (9th ed.)Google Scholar
Adam, Isabell 2013. ‘Graph’, in Neef, Martin, Sahel, Said and Weingarten, Rüdiger (eds.), Schriftlinguistik/Grapholinguistics (Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science 5). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, www.degruyter.com/view/db/wskGoogle Scholar
Adam, Isabell 2014. ‘Allograph’, in Neef, Martin, Sahel, Said and Weingarten, Rüdiger (eds.), Schriftlinguistik/Grapholinguistics (Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science 5). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, www.degruyter.com/view/db/wskGoogle Scholar
Adam, Renaud 2010. ‘Imprimeurs en Brabant et en Flandre au temps de Philippe le Beau’, in Wijsman, Hanno (ed.), Books in Transition at the Time of Philip the Fair. Manuscripts and Printed Books in the Late Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Century Low Countries. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers n.v., pp. 273–85Google Scholar
Adams, Douglas 1979. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. London: Pan BooksGoogle Scholar
Adams, James N. 1995. ‘The language of the Vindolanda writing tablets: an interim report’, Journal of Roman Studies 85: 86–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James N. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James N. 2007. The Regional Diversification of Latin, 200 BC–AD 600. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamska-Sałaciak, Arleta 1996. Language Change in the Works of Kruszewski, Baudouin de Courtenay and Rozwadowski. Poznań: MotivexGoogle Scholar
Adiego, Ignacio J. 2006. The Carian Language. Leiden: BrillGoogle Scholar
Agata, Mari 2011. ‘Improvements, corrections, and changes in the Gutenberg Bible’, in Thaisen, Jacob and Rutkowska, Hanna (eds.), Scribes, Printers, and the Accidentals of Their Texts. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 135–55Google Scholar
Agha, Asif 2003. ‘The social life of cultural value’, Language and Communication 23: 231–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agha, Asif 2005. ‘Voice, footing, enregisterment’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15 (1): 38–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agha, Asif 2006. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agha, Asif 2011. ‘Commodity registers’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 21 (1): 22–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahlzweig, Claus and Pieske, Knut 2009. Protestantisch-katholische Kontroversen in Hannover im 17. Jahrhundert. Oral presentation at the annual meeting of the Arbeitskreis für historische Stadtsprachenforschung, Augsburg, October 6, 2009Google Scholar
Ahmad, Rizwan 2012. ‘Hindi is perfect, Urdu is messy: the discourse of delegitimation of Urdu in India’, in Jaffe, Alexandra M., Androutsopoulos, Jannis K., Sebba, Mark and Johnson, Sally A. (eds.), Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power (Language and Social Processes 3). Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 104–33Google Scholar
Ainsworth, Robert 1698. The Most Natural and Easie Way of Institution Containing Proposals for Making a Domestic Education Less Chargeable to Parents and More Easie and Beneficial to Children: By Which Method, Youth May Not Only Make a Very Considerable Progress in Languages, but Also in Arts and Sciences, in Two Years. London: Printed for Christopher HusseyGoogle Scholar
Airoldi, Edoardo M., Fienberg, Stephen E. and Skinner, Kiron K. 2007. ‘Whose ideas? Whose words? Authorship of Ronald Reagan’s radio addresses’, PS: Political Science & Politics 40 (3): 501–6, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096507070874Google Scholar
Aitchison, Jean 2013. Language Change. Progress or Decay? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (4th ed.)Google Scholar
Akiner, Shirin 2009. Religious Language of a Belarusian Tatar Kitab: A Cultural Monument of Islam in Europe. With a Latin-Script Transliteration of the British Library Tatar Belarusian Kitab (OR 13020) on CD-ROM. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz VerlagGoogle Scholar
Akiner, Shirin 2017. ‘Cultural hybridity in the religious literature of the Tatars of North-Eastern Europe’, Slavonic and East European Review 95 (3): 401–28Google Scholar
Aldama y Guevara, José A. 1754. Arte de la lengua mexicana. Mexico City: Biblioteca MexicanaGoogle Scholar
Alexander, William 1779. The History of Women, from the Earliest Antiquity, to the Present Time; Giving Some Account of Almost Every Interesting Particular Concerning That Sex, among All Nations, Ancient and Modern. Dublin: Printed by J. A. HusbandGoogle Scholar
Allen, Julie D., Anderson, Deborah, Becker, Joe, Cook, Richard, Davis, Mark, Edberg, Peter, Everson, Michael, Freytag, Asmus, Jenkins, John H., McGowan, Rick, Moore, Lisa, Muller, Eric, Phillips, Addison, Suignard, Michel and Whistler, Ken (eds.) 2012. The Unicode Standard. Version 6.2 – Core Specification. Mountain View: Unicode Consortium, https://unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.2.0/Google Scholar
Almeida Cabrejas, Belén 2014. ‘Scriptores con bajo y medio nivel socioeducacional en documentos del siglo XIX del Archivo Municipal de Alcalá de Henares: acercamiento a sus usos gráficos’, in Moreno, Rocío Díaz and Cabrejas, Belén Almeida (eds.), Estudios sobre la historia de los usos gráficos en español. Lugo: Axac, pp. 167–210Google Scholar
Alnwick Castle, Duke of Northumberland MS 455Google Scholar
Althaus, Hans Peter 1980 [1973]. ‘Graphetik’, in Althaus, Hans Peter, Henne, Helmut and Wiegand, Herbert E. (eds.), Lexikon der germanistischen Linguistik, Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 105–18 [138–42], https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110960846.138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, Gabriel 2008. ‘Towards a theory of script’, in Altmann, Gabriel and Fan, Fengxiang (eds.), Analyses of Script: Properties of Characters and Writing Systems. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 149–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Álvarez Cáccamo, Celso and Herrero Valeiro, Mario 1996. ‘O continuum da escrita na Galiza: entre o espanhol e o português’, Agália: Revista da Associaçom Galega da Língua 46: 143–56Google Scholar
Amador-Moreno, Carolina 2019. Orality in Written Texts: Using Historical Corpora to Investigate Irish English 1700–1900. London: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambrosiani, Per 2019. ‘Slavic alphabets and languages in publications by the Propaganda Fide during the 17th and 18th centuries’, in Kempgen, Sebastian and Tomelleri, Vittorio (eds.), Slavic Alphabets and Identities. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press, pp. 1–27Google Scholar
Ambrosiani, Per 2020. ‘Graphematic features in Glagolitic and Cyrillic orthographies: a contribution to the typological model of biscriptality’, in Condorelli, Marco (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 46–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amirova, Tamara A. 1977. K istorii i teorii grafemiki. Moscow: NaukaGoogle Scholar
Amirova, Tamara A. 1985. Funkt͡sionalʹnai͡a vzaimosvi͡azʹ pisʹmennogo i zvukovogo i͡azyka. Moscow: NaukaGoogle Scholar
Ammon, Ulrich 2004. ‘Standard variety’, in Ammon, Urlich, Dittmar, Norbert, Mattheier, Klaus J. and Trudgill, Peter J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 273–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammon, Ulrich, Bickel, Hans and Lenz, Alexandra N. 2016. Variantenwörterbuch des Deutschen. Die Standardsprache in Österreich, der Schweiz, Deutschland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Ostbelgien und Südtirol sowie Rumänien, Namibia und Mennonitensiedlungen. Berlin: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amsler, Mark 2012. Affective Literacies. Writing and Multilingualism in Late Middle Ages (Late Medieval and Early Modern Studies). Turnhout: Brepols PublishersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amsler, Mark 2016. ‘Multimodality and medieval multimodalities’. Paper presented at the Medieval/Digital Multimodalities seminar for the New Chaucer Society, The New Chaucer Society Twentieth International Congress, July 2016, Queen Mary University of LondonGoogle Scholar
An A,B,C for children Here is an A,B,C, deuised with sillables, with the Pater noster, the Creed & the ten Commaundments in English […]. 1570. London: Abraham Veale, dwelling in Paules Churchyard at the signe of the Lamb (EEBO, ProQuest)Google Scholar
Ananiewa, Natalia 2013. ‘Teksty Polaków pisane grażdanką w syberyjskiej wsi Wierszyna’, Acta Baltico-Slavica 37: 287–98Google Scholar
Andersen, Jennifer L. and Sauer, Elizabeth 2002. ‘Current trends in the history of reading’, in Andersen, Jennifer L. and Sauer, Elizabeth (eds.), Books and Readers in Early Modern England: Material Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Benedict 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London/New York: Verso (revised ed.)Google Scholar
Anderson, John and Britton, Derek 1999. ‘The orthography and phonology of the Ormulum ’, English Language and Linguistics 3 (2): 299–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte 2016. Language between Description and Prescription. Verbs and Verb Categories in Nineteenth-Century Grammars of English. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis 2000. ‘Non-standard spelling in media texts: the case of German fanzines’, in Jaffe, Alexandra M. (ed.), Non-Standard Orthography, special issue of Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (4): 514–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angermeyer, Philipp S. 2005. ‘Spelling bilingualism: script choice in Russian American classified ads and signage’, Language in Society 34 (4): 493–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angermeyer, Philipp S. 2011. ‘Bilingualism meets digraphia: script alternation and script hybridity in Russian-American writing and beyond’, in Sebba, Mark, Mahootian, Shahrzad and Jonsson, Carla (eds.), Language Mixing and Code-Switching in Writing: Approaches to Mixed-Language Written Discourse. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 255–72Google Scholar
Anis, Jacques 1983. ‘Pour une graphématique autonome’, Langue française 53: Le signifiant graphique (ed. by Jacques Anis): 31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anis, Jacques 2017 [1988]. L’écriture: théories et descriptions. Brussels: De Boeck UniversitéGoogle Scholar
Anis, Jacques, Chiss, Jean-Louis and Puech, Christian 1988. L’écriture. Théories et descriptions. Brussels: De Boeck UniversitéGoogle Scholar
Anson, Chris M. 1990. ‘Errours and endeavors : a case study in American orthography’, International Journal of Lexicography 3 (1): 35–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Αntonovich, Аnton K. 1968. Belorusskie teksty, pisannye arabskim pisʹmom i ikh grafiko-orfograficheskai͡a sistema. Vilnius: Vilʹni͡usskiĭ gosudarstvennyĭ universitet im. V. KapsukasaGoogle Scholar
Arabyan, Marc 1994. Le paragraphe narratif. Étude typographique et linguistique de la ponctuation textuelle dans les récits classiques et modernes. Paris: L’HarmattanGoogle Scholar
Arabyan, Marc 2018. ‘Histoire et emplois de l’alinéa ouvrant en diachronie (xiiie–xviie siècles)’, Signata. Annales des sémiotiques 9: 427–58Google Scholar
Archer, Dawn, Kytö, Merja, Baron, Alistair and Rayson, Paul 2015. ‘Guidelines for normalising Early Modern English corpora: decisions and justifications’, ICAME Journal 39: 7–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archivo General de la Nación, Tierras 2541, expediente 11. Land grant in CalimayaGoogle Scholar
Aris, Rutherford 1995. ‘Complementary viewpoints: some thoughts on binocular vision in mathematical modeling and Latin paleography’, New Literary History 26 (2): 395–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle, 1963. Categories and De Interpretatione (trans. and ed. by Ackrill, John L.). Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Arnot, Madeleine and Phipps, Alison 2003. ‘Paper Commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2003/4, the Leap to Equality. Gender and Education in the United Kingdom’. Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2003/4Google Scholar
Arnoux, Elvira N. 2008. Los discursos sobre la nación y el lenguaje en la formación del Estado (Chile 1842–1862). Buenos Aires: Santiago ArcosGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1989. ‘The orthographic system of an early English printer: Wynkyn de Worde’, Folia Linguistics Historica 8 (1–2): 65–97Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark 1992. ‘Segmentalism in linguistics: the alphabetic basis of phonological theory’, in Downing, Pamela, Lima, Susan D. and Noonan, Michael (eds.), The Linguistics of Literacy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrivé, Michel 1994. ‘Un débat sans mémoire: la querelle de l’orthographe (1893–1991)’, Langages 114: 69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Anita 2015. ‘Stylistic variation’, in Auer, Anita, Schreier, Daniel and Watts, Richard J. (eds.), Letter Writing and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 133–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Anita, Peersman, Catharina, Pickl, Simon, Rutten, Gijsbert and Vosters, Rik 2015. ‘Historical sociolinguistics: the field and its future’, Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 1 (1): 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Anita, Schreier, Daniel and Watts, Richard J. (eds.) 2015. Letter Writing and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Anita and Voeste, Anja 2012. ‘Grammatical variables’, in Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 253–70Google Scholar
Auer, Peter (ed.) 2007. Style and Social Identities: Alternative Approaches to Linguistic Heterogeneity. Berlin/New York: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter and Hinskens, Frans 2005. ‘The role of interpersonal accommodation in a theory of language change’, in Auer, Peter, Hinskens, Frans and Kerswill, Paul (eds.), Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 335–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augst, Gerhard 1986. ‘Descriptively and explanatorily adequate models of orthography’, in Augst, Gerhard (ed.), New Trends in Graphemics and Orthography. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avanesov, Ruben I. 1955. ‘Fonetika’, in Borkovskiĭ, Viktor I. (ed.), Paleograficheskiĭ i lingvisticheskiĭ analiz novgorodskikh beresti͡anykh gramot. Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, pp. 79–102Google Scholar
Ayres-Bennett, Wendy 1994. ‘Elaboration and codification: standardization and attitudes towards the French language in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’, in Parry, Mair M., Davis, Winifred V. and Temple, Rosalind A. M. (eds.), The Changing Voices of Europe. Social and Political Changes and Their Linguistic Repercussions. Temple: University of Wales Press, pp. 53‒73Google Scholar
Backhouse, Anthony E. 1984. ‘Aspects of the graphological structure of Japanese’, Visible Language 18 (3): 219–28Google Scholar
Baddeley, Susan 2012. ‘French orthography in the 16th century’, in Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 97–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, Susan and Biedermann-Pasques, Liselotte 2004. ‘Histoire des systèmes graphiques du français à travers des manuscrits et des incunables (IXe–XVe siècle). Segmentation graphique et faits de langue’, Revue de linguistique romane, 269–70: 181–201Google Scholar
Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja 2012a. ‘Introduction. Orthographies in Early Modern Europe: a comparative view’, in Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 1–13Google Scholar
Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja (eds.) 2012b. Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin/Boston: De GruyterGoogle Scholar
Bagge, Sverre and Mykland, Knut 1987. Norge i dansketiden. Oslo: CappelenGoogle Scholar
Bagley, Robert W. 2004. ‘Anyang writing and the origin of the Chinese writing system’, in Houston, Stephen D. (ed.), The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 190–249Google Scholar
Baines, John 2004. ‘The earliest Egyptian writing: development, context, purpose’, in Houston, Stephen D. (ed.), The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 150–89Google Scholar
Baisch, Martin 2018. ‘Transmission and materiality: philology, old and new, in German medieval studies’, Digital Philology 6 (2): 177–95Google Scholar
Baker, Philip 1997. ‘Developing ways of writing vernaculars: problems and solutions in a historical perspective’, in Tabouret-Keller, Andrée, Le Page, Robert B., Gardner-Chloros, Penelope and Varro, Gabrielle (eds.), Vernacular Literacy: A Re-Evaluation. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 93–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bаkhtin, Mikhail М. 1975. Voprosy literatury i ėstetiki: Issledovanii͡a raznykh let. Moscow: Khudozhestvennai͡a literaturaGoogle Scholar
Bаkhtin, Mikhail М. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination (ed. by Michael Holquist; trans. by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist). Austin: University of Texas PressGoogle Scholar
Balbach, Anna-Maria 2014. Sprache und Konfession. Frühneuzeitliche Inschriften des Totengedächtnisses in Bayerisch-Schwaben. Würzburg: ErgonGoogle Scholar
Balestra, Miriam, Appelt, Annalen and Neef, Martin 2014. ‘Systematische Beschränkungen für Schreibungen im grammatischen Wortschatz des Deutschen: der Konsonant [f]’, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 33 (2): 129–63, https://doi.org10.1515/zfs-2014-0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bann, Jennifer and Corbett, John 2015. Spelling Scots. The Orthography of Literary Scots, 1700–2000. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar
Barnard, John 2002. ‘Introduction’, in Barnard, John and McKenzie, Donald F. (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol. 4: 1557‒1695. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Michael P. 2012. Runes: A Handbook. Woodbridge: BoydellGoogle Scholar
Baron, Alistair and Rayson, Paul 2008. ‘VARD 2: a tool for dealing with spelling variation in historical corpora’, in Proceedings of the Postgraduate Conference in Corpus Linguistics. Birmingham: Aston UniversityGoogle Scholar
Baron, Naomi S. 2001. ‘Commas and canaries: the role of punctuation in speech and writing’, Language Sciences 23: 15–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barratt, Alexandra 2010. Women’s Writing in Middle English: An Annotated Anthology. Old Tappan: Taylor and FrancisGoogle Scholar
Barros, Maria C. 1995. ‘The missionary presence in literacy campaigns in the indigenous languages of Latin America (1939–1952)’, International Journal of Educational Development 15 (3): 277–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barteld, Fabian, Hartmann, Stefan and Szczepaniak, Renata 2016. ‘The usage and spread of sentence-internal capitalization in Early New High German: a multifactorial approach’, Folia Linguistica 50 (2): 385–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, David 1994. Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. London: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Barton, David 1995. ‘Some problems with an evolutionary view of written language’, in Puppel, Stanisław (ed.), The Biology of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartoněk, Antonín 2003. Handbuch des Mykenischen Griechisch. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Bartsch, Renate 1985. ‘The influence of language standardisation on linguistic norms’, Studia Linguistica 39: 23–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassetti, Benedetta 2012. ‘Bilingualism and writing systems’, in Bhatia, Tej K. and Ritchie, William C. (eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 649–70 (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Basso, Keith H. 1974. ‘The ethnography of writing’, in Bauman, Richard and Sherzer, Joel (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 425–32Google Scholar
Basu, Anupam 2016. ‘Ill shapen sounds, and false orthography: a computational approach to early English orthographic variation’, in Estill, Laura, Ullyot, Michael and Jackaki, Diane (eds.), New Technologies in Medieval and Renaissance Studies. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies/Iter, pp. 167–200Google Scholar
Bates, Stephen 2019. ‘Prejudice and the press critics: Colonel Robert McCormick’s assault on the Hutchins commission’, American Journalism 36 (4): 420–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battaner Moro, Elena 2009. ‘La investigación sobre ortografía, fonética y fonología en la tradición lingüística española’, in Candón, Teresa Bastardín and Zancarrón, Manuel Rivas (eds.), Estudios de historiografía lingüística. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz, pp. 27–43Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie 2003. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press (2nd ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baugh, Albert C. 1957. A History of the English Language. New York: Appleton-Century-CroftsGoogle Scholar
Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas 1993. A History of the English Language. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall (4th ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baugh, Albert C. and Cable, Thomas 2002. A History of the English Language, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall (5th ed.)Google Scholar
Baxter, William H. and Sagart, Laurent 2014. Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, Robert 2013. ‘Variationist sociolinguistics’, in Bayley, Robert, Cameron, Richard and Lucas, Ceil (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.013.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazell, Charles E. 1981 [1956]. ‘The grapheme’, in Ruszkiewicz, Piotr (ed.), Graphophonemics: A Book of Readings. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, pp. 66–70 (reprint from Litera 3: 43–46)Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C. 2016. ‘Standardisation’, in Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 301–17Google Scholar
Beal, Joan C., Sen, Ranjan, Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria and Wallis, Christine (eds.) 2020. Studies in Late Modern English Historical Phonology Using the Eighteenth-Century English Phonology Database (ECEP), special issue of English Language and Linguistics 22 (3). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Beal, Peter 1998. In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, Peter 2008. A Dictionary of English Manuscript Terminology, 1450–2000. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Beekes, Robert 1971. ‘The writing of consonant groups in Mycenaean’, Mnemosyne 24: 338–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begor Lancashire, Anne (ed.) 1978. Thomas Middleton. The Second Maiden’s Tragedy. Edited from British Library Lansdowne MS 807. Manchester: Manchester University PressGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto 1911. Geschichte de deutschen Sprache. Dritte vollständig umgearbeitete Auflage. Strasbourg: Verlag von Karl J. TrübnerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beit-Arie, Malachi 1993. The Makings of the Medieval Hebrew Book: Studies in Palaeography and Codicology. Jerusalem: Magnes PressGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan 1984. ‘Language style as audience design’, Language in Society 13: 145–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Allan 2007. ‘Style and the linguistic repertoire’, in Llamas, Carmen, Mullany, Louise and Stockwell, Peter (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 95–100Google Scholar
Bell, David N. 1999. ‘Monastic libraries: 1400–1557’, in Hellinga, Lotte and Trapp, Joseph B. (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol. 3: 1400–1557. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–54Google Scholar
Bell, Maureen and Barnard, John 1992. ‘Provisional count of STC titles 1475–1640’, Publishing History 31: 49–55Google Scholar
Bello, Andrés and García del Río, Juan 1823. ‘Indicaciones sobre la conveniencia de simplificar i uniformar la ortografía en América’, in La Biblioteca Americana, o, Miscelánea de Literatura, Artes i Ciencias: Por Una Sociedad de Americanos 1: 50–62. London: en la imprenta de don G. MarchantGoogle Scholar
Bello, Andrés and García del Río, Juan 1826 [1823]. Indicaciones sobre la conveniencia de simplificar i uniformar la ortografía en América. Caracas: Imprenta de Domingo Navas SpínolaGoogle Scholar
Benediktsson, Hreinn 1972. The First Grammatical Treatise: Introduction, Text, Notes, Translation, Vocabulary, Facsimiles (University of Iceland Publications in Linguistics 1). Reykjavík: Institute of Nordic LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
Benskin, Michael 1982. ‘The letters <þ> and <y> in later Middle English, and some related matters’, Journal of the Society of Archivists 7: 13–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benskin, Michael 1992. ‘Some new perspectives on the origins of standard written English’, in van Leuvensteijn, Jan A. and Berns, Jan B. (eds.), Dialect and Standard Language in the English, Dutch, German and Norwegian Language Areas: 17 Studies in English or German. Amsterdam: Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, pp. 71–105Google Scholar
Benskin, Michael 1997. ‘Texts from a township in late medieval Ireland’, Collegium Medievale 10: 91–173Google Scholar
Benskin, Michael 2004. ‘Chancery Standard’, in Kay, Christian J., Hough, Carole and Wotherspoon, Irene (eds.), New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics, vol. 2: Lexis and Transmission. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–40Google Scholar
Benskin, Michael and Laing, Margaret 1981. ‘Translations and Mischsprachen in Middle English manuscripts’, in Benskin, Michael and Samuels, Michael L. (eds.), So Meny People Longages and Tonges: Philological Essays in Scots and Mediaeval English Presented to Angus McIntosh. Edinburgh: Middle English Dialect Project, pp. 55–106Google Scholar
Bentin, Shlomo 1992. ‘Phonological awareness, reading, and reading acquisition: a survey and appraisal of current knowledge’, in Frost, Ram and Katz, Leonard (eds.), Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning. London/Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Ivar 2016. ‘The making of the Scandinavian languages’, in Rutten, Gijsbert and Horner, Kristine (eds.), Metalinguistic Perspectives on Germanic Languages: European Case Studies. Oxford: Peter Lang, pp. 35–55Google Scholar
Berg, Ivar, Bugge, Edit, Sandøy, Helge and Røyneland, Unn 2018. ‘Geografisk og sosial variasjon’, in Mæhlum, Brit (ed.), Praksis, vol. 2 of Sandøy, Helge and Nesse, Agnete (eds.), Norsk språkhistorie. Oslo: Novus, pp. 163–256Google Scholar
Berg, Kristian 2014. ‘Morphological spellings in English’, in Berg, Kristian, Buchmann, Franzizka and Fuhrhop, Nanna (eds.), The Architecture of Writing Systems, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 17 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 282–307Google Scholar
Berg, Kristian 2016. ‘Graphemic analysis and the spoken language bias’, Frontiers in Psychology 7: 388, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00388CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, Kristian 2019. Die Graphematik der Morpheme im Deutschen und Englischen. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110604856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Kristian and Aronoff, Mark 2017. ‘Self-organisation in the spelling of English suffixes: the emergence of culture out of anarchy’, Language 93 (1): 37–64, https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Kristian and Aronoff, Mark 2018. ‘Further evidence for self-organization in English spelling’, Language 94 (1): e48–e53, https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Kristian and Evertz, Martin 2018. ‘Graphematik – die Beziehung zwischen Sprache und Schrift’, in Dipper, Stefanie, Klabunde, Ralf and Mihatsch, Wiltrud (eds.), Linguistik: Eine Einführung (nicht nur) für Germanisten, Romanisten und Anglisten. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 187–95Google Scholar
Berg, Kristian, Primus, Beatrice and Wagner, Lutz 2016. ‘Buchstabenmerkmal, Buchstabe, Graphem’, in Primus, Beatrice and Domahs, Ulrike (eds.), Laut – Gebärde – Buchstabe. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 337–55Google Scholar
Bergen, University Library, MS 613Google Scholar
Bergen, University Library, MS 936.B.2Google Scholar
Berger, Tilman 2012. ‘Religion and diacritics: the case of Czech orthography’, in Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 255–68Google Scholar
Berger, Tilman, Gutschmidt, Karl, Kempgen, Sebastian and Kosta, Peter (eds.) 2009/2014. Die slavischen Sprachen. Ein internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforschung, Bd. 1–2/The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of Their Structure, Their History and Their Investigation, 2 vols. Berlin/Munich/Boston: De GruyterGoogle Scholar
Bergeron, Réjean and Ornato, Ezio 1990. ‘La lisibilité dans les manuscrits et les imprimés à la fin du Moyen Âge: préliminaires d’une recherche’, Scrittura e Civiltà 14: 151–98Google Scholar
Bergmann, Rolf 1999. ‘Zur Herausbildung der deutschen Substantivgroßschreibung: Ergebnisse des Bamberg-Rostocker Projekts’, in Hoffmann, Walter (ed.), Das Frühneuhochdeutsche als sprachgeschichtliche Epoche. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang, pp. 59–79Google Scholar
Bergmann, Rolf and Nerius, Dieter 1998. Die Entwicklung der Großschreibung im Deutschen von 1500 bis 1710. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, Rolf and Nerius, Dieter 2006. Die Entwicklung der Großschreibung im Deutschen von 1500 bis 1700. Heidelberg: Winter (4th ed.)Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander 2005. Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics: Studies in Morphosyntactic Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503). Berlin: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander 2013. ‘Writing, reading, language change – a sociohistorical perspective on scribes, readers, and networks in medieval Britain’, in Wagner, Esther-Miriam, Outhwaite, Ben and Beinhoff, Bettina (eds.), Scribes as Agents of Language Change. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 241–60Google Scholar
Berkenbusch, Eckhard 1997. Übungsbuch der chinesischen Schriftzeichen für praktisches Chinesisch, vol. 1. Beijing: Kommerzieller VerlagGoogle Scholar
Berlanda, Elena 2006. ‘New perspectives on digraphia: a framework for the sociolinguistics of writing systems’. Major research paper, York University, TorontoGoogle Scholar
Bermel, Neil 2007. Linguistic Authority, Language Ideology, and Metaphor: The Czech Orthography War. Berlin: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernabé, Alberto and Luján, Eugenio R. 2006. Introducción al Griego Micénico: Gramática, selección de textos y glosario. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de ZaragozaGoogle Scholar
Bernard, H. Russell 1980. ‘Orthography for whom?’, International Journal of American Linguistics 46 (2): 133–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berrendonner, Alain and Reichler-Béguelin, Marie-José 1989. ‘Décalages: les niveaux de l’analyse linguistique’, Langue française 81: 99–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berta, Tibor 2017. ‘La norma ortográfica en el contexto de la historia de la lengua española. La utopía de la ortografía fonémica’, Acta Hispanica 22: 15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biava, Christina 1990. ‘Native American languages and literacy: issues of orthography choice and bilingual education’, Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 15 (2): 45–59Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas 2006. University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Conrad, Susan 2009. Register, Genre and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward (eds.) 1990–2013. A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers (ARCHER). Originally compiled under the supervision of Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan at Northern Arizona University and University of Southern California; modified and expanded by subsequent members of a consortium of universities. Current member universities are Bamberg, Freiburg, Heidelberg, Helsinki, Lancaster, Leicester, Manchester, Michigan, Northern Arizona, Santiago de Compostela, Southern California, Trier, Uppsala and Zurich, www.projects.alc.manchester.ac.uk/archer/Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward (eds.) 1994. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilet͡s´ka, Olena 2015. ‘Stanovlenni͡a hrafichnoï linhvistyky i͡ak kompleksnoï nauky: analitychnyĭ ohli͡ad’, Naukovyĭ visnyk Khersons’koho derzhavnoho universytetu, ser. Linhvistyka 19: 18–28, http://ekhsuir.kspu.edu/handle/123456789/1648Google Scholar
Birk, Elisabeth 2013. ‘Graphem’, in Neef, Martin, Sahel, Said and Weingarten, Rüdiger (eds.), Schriftlinguistik/Grapholinguistics (Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science 5). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, www.degruyter.com/view/db/wskGoogle Scholar
Bischoff, Bernhard 1990 [1979]. Latin Palaeography: Antiquity and the Middle Ages (trans. by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín and David Ganz). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bischoff, Bernhard, Duft, Johannes and Sonderegger, Stefan (eds.) 1977. Das älteste deutsche Buch: Die Abrogans-Handschrift der Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen. St. Gallen: ZollikoferGoogle Scholar
Bjørnson, Bjørnstjerne 1898. Synnøve Solbakken. Copenhagen: GyldendalGoogle Scholar
Blake, Norman F. 1965. ‘English versions of Reynard the Fox in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries’, Studies in Philology 62 (1): 63–77Google Scholar
Blake, Norman F. 1992. ‘Introduction’, in Blake, Norman F. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 2: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Norman F. and Thaisen, Jacob 2004. ‘Spelling’s significance for textual studies’, Nordic Journal of English Studies 3 (1): 93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bland, Mark 2010. A Guide to Early Printed Books and Manuscripts. London: Wiley-BlackwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, Paula 1996. Broken English: Dialects and the Politics of Language in Renaissance Writings. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Blanton, Virginia, O’Mara, Veronica and Stoop, Patricia (eds.) 2013. Nuns’ Literacies in Medieval Europe: The Hull Dialogue. Turnhout: Brepols PublishersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blatt, Heather 2018. Participatory Reading in Late-Medieval England. Manchester: Manchester University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blayney, Peter W. M. 2003. The Stationers’ Company before the Charter, 1403–1557. London: Worshipful Company of StationersGoogle Scholar
Bliss, Charles K. 1965. Semantography (Blisssymbolics): A Logical Writing for an Illogical World. Sydney: Semantography (Blissymbolics) Publications (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Blix, Elias 1869. Nokre Salma, gamle og nye. Christiania: Forlagt av det Norske SamlagetGoogle Scholar
Blomfield, Joan E. 1935. ‘The origins of Old English orthography, with special reference to the representation of the spirants and w’. B. Litt. thesis, Oxford University, UKGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, Jan 2013. ‘Writing as a sociolinguistic object’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 17: 440–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, Jan (ed.) 1999. Language Ideological Debates. Berlin: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard 1927. ‘Literate and illiterate speech’, American Speech 2: 432–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard 1935 [1933]. Language. London: George Allen and UnwinGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard 1973 [1933]. Language. London: George Allen and Unwin (a British, revised ed., 11th reprint)Google Scholar
Blount, Thomas 1654. The academie of eloquence containing a compleat English […]. London: T. N. for Humphrey Moseley (EEBO, ProQuest)Google Scholar
Boduėn de Kurtenė, Ivan 1912. Ob otnoshenii russkogo pisʹma k russkomu i͡azyku. Saint Petersburg: Redakt͡sii͡a zhurnala ʻObnovlenie shkolyʼ, http://books.e-heritage.ru/book/10075813Google Scholar
Boekholt, Petrus Th. F. M. and De Booy, Engelina P. 1987. Geschiedenis van de school in Nederland vanaf de middeleeuwen tot aan de huidige tijd. Assen/Maastricht: Van GorcumGoogle Scholar
Boesch, Bruno 1946. Untersuchungen zur alemannischen Urkundensprache des 13. Jahrhunderts. Laut- und Formenlehre. Bern: FranckeGoogle Scholar
Boesch, Bruno 1968. ʻDie deutsche Urkundensprache. Probleme ihrer Erforschung im deutschen Südwestenʼ, Rheinische Vierteljahrsblätter 32: 1–28Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight 1946. ‘Visual morphemes’, Language 22: 333–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bomann-Larsen, Tor 2004. Folket. Haakon & Maud II. Oslo: CappelenGoogle Scholar
Bondarev, Dmitry 2019. ‘Introduction: orthographic polyphony in Arabic script’, in Bondarev, Dmitry, Godi, Alessandro and Souag, Lameen (eds.), Creating Standards: Interactions with Arabic Script in 12 Manuscript Cultures. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1–37Google Scholar
Bondarev, Dmitry, Godi, Alessandro and Souag, Lameen (eds.) 2019. Creating Standards: Interactions with Arabic Script in 12 Manuscript Cultures. Berlin: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonfante, Giuliano and Bonfante, Larissa 2002. The Etruscan Language: An Introduction. Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press (revised ed.)Google Scholar
Borkovskiĭ, Viktor I. (ed.) 1955. Paleograficheskiĭ i lingvisticheskiĭ analiz novgorodskikh beresti͡anykh gramot. Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo Akademii Nauk SSSRGoogle Scholar
Borleffs, Elisabeth, Maassen, Ben A. M., Lyytinen, Heikki and Zwarts, Frans 2017. ‘Measuring orthographic transparency and morphological-syllabic complexity in alphabetic orthographies: a narrative review’, Reading and Writing 30: 1617–38CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosman, D. B., Le Roux, T. H., Malherbe, D. F. and Smith, Johannes J. 1921. Afrikaanse Woordelys en Spelreëls. Bloemfontein: Die Nasionale PersGoogle Scholar
Bottéro, Françoise 2004. ‘Writing on shell and bone in Shang China’, in Houston, Stephen D. (ed.), The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 250–61Google Scholar
Bourciez, Édouard 1958. Précis historique de phonétique française. Paris: Klincksieck (9th ed.)Google Scholar
Bowie, David 2015. ‘Phonological variation in real time: patterns of adult linguistic stability and change’, in Gerstenberg, Annette and Voeste, Anja (eds.), Language Development: The Lifespan Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, Leonard E. 1984. Medieval Latin Palaeography: A Bibliographic Introduction. Toronto: University of Toronto PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brackmann, Rebecca 2012. The Elizabethan Invention of Anglo-Saxon England. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, pp. 55–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Henry 1919 [1913]. On the Relations between Spoken and Written Language, with Special Reference to English. Oxford: Clarendon Press (reprint)Google Scholar
Brajerski, Tadeusz 1990. Język staro-cerkiewno-słowiański. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego (7th ed.)Google Scholar
Branca-Rosoff, Sonia and Schneider, Nathalie 1994. L’écriture des citoyens. Une analyse linguistique de l’écriture des peu-lettrés pendant la période révolutionnaire. Paris: KlincksieckGoogle Scholar
Brandt, Carmen 2016. ‘Hindi–Urdu’, in Bunčić, Daniel, Lippert, Sandra L. and Rabus, Achim (eds.), Biscriptality: A Sociolinguistic Typology. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 149–58Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm 1880. Gotische Grammatik: mit einigen Lesestücken und Wortverzeichnis. Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte 1. Halle: NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm 1886. Althochdeutsche Grammatik (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte 5). Halle: NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm and Ebbinghaus, Ernst A. 1994. Althochdeutsches Lesebuch. Tübingen: Niemeyer (17th ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm and Eggers, Hans 1975. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer (13th ed.)Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm and Heidermanns, Frank 2018. Althochdeutsche Grammatik I: Laut- und Formenlehre. Berlin: De Gruyter (16th ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm and Reiffenstein, Ingo 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer (15th ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breasted, James H. 1910. ‘Egyptian paleography’, review of Hieratische Palaeographie. Die Aegyptische Buchschrift in Ihrer Entwicklungvon der Fünften Dynastie bis zur Römischen Kaiserzeit by Georg Moeller, American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 26 (2): 133–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredel, Ursula 2005. ‘Zur Geschichte der Interpunktionskonventionen des Deutschen - dargestellt an der Kodifizierung des Punktes’, Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 33: 179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredel, Ursula 2008. Die Interpunktion des Deutschen. Ein kompositionelles System zur Online-Steuerung des Lesens. Tübingen: NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
Bredel, Ursula 2009. ‘Das Interpunktionssystem des Deutschen’, in Linke, Angelika and Feilke, Helmuth (eds.), Oberfläche und Performanz. Untersuchungen zur Sprache als dynamischer Gestalt. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 117–35Google Scholar
Brehmer, Bernhard and Golubović, Biljana (eds.) 2010. Serbische und kroatische Schriftlinguistik. Geschichte, Perspektiven und aktuelle Problem (Studien zur Slavistik 25). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. KovačGoogle Scholar
Breier, Willi 1910. ‘Eule und Nachtigall’: eine Untersuchung der Überlieferung und der Sprache, der örtlichen und der zeitlichen Entstehung des me. Gedichts. Halle: NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
Brekle, Herbert E. 1995. ʻNeues über Groß- und Kleinbuchstaben. Theoretische Begründung der Entwicklung der römischen Majuskelformen zur Minuskelschriftʼ, Linguistische Berichte 155: 3–22Google Scholar
Brengelman, Frederick H. 1980. ‘Orthoepists, printers and the rationalization of English spelling’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology 79: 332–54Google Scholar
Bright, William 1999. ‘A matter of typology: alphasyllabaries and abugidas’, Written Language and Literacy 2 (1): 45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinsley, John 1612. Ludus literarius: or, the grammar schoole shewing how to proceede from the first entrance into learning, to the highest perfection required in the grammar schools […]. London: [Humphrey Lownes] for Thomas Man (EEBO, ProQuest)Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. and Arnovick, Leslie K. 2006/2011. The English Language. A Linguistic History. Ontario: Oxford University Press (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Britain, David 2004. ‘Dialect and accent’, in Ammon, Urlich, Dittmar, Norbert, Mattheier, Klaus J. and Trudgill, Peter J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 267–73Google Scholar
Brooks, Greg 2015. Dictionary of the British English Spelling System. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, www.openbookpublishers.com/product/325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooksbank, Joseph 1651. An English Monosyllabary […]. London: Printed for Edward BrewsterGoogle Scholar
Brown, Goold 1859 [1850]. The Grammar of English Grammars. New York: Samuel S. and William Wood (4th ed.)Google Scholar
Brown, Joshua 2019. Historical Heritage Language Ego-Documents: From Home, from Away, and from Below, special issue of Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 5 (2). Berlin: De GruyterGoogle Scholar
Brown, Keith and Miller, Jim 2013. The Cambridge Dictionary of Linguistics. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Michelle P. 1990. A Guide to Western Historical Scripts from Antiquity to 1600. London: The British LibraryGoogle Scholar
Brown, Shana J. 2011. Pastimes: From Art and Antiquarianism to Modern Chinese Historiography. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, John (ed.) 1849. Letters of Queen Elizabeth and King James VI of Scotland. London: Camden SocietyGoogle Scholar
Brunschwig, Hieronymus 1528. The Vertuose Boke of Distyllacyon of Waters of all Maner of Herbes: with the Fygures of Styllatoryes. London: Laurens AndreweGoogle Scholar
Brzezina, Maria 1997. ‘Propozycje zastosowania grażdanki do języka polskiego z drugiej połowy XIX wieku’, in Bolek, Anna, Fałowski, Adam and Zinkiewicz-Tomanek, Bożena (eds.), Słowianie Wschodni. Między językiem a kulturą. Księga jubileuszowa dedykowana Profesorowi Wiesławowi Witkowskiemu w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Grell i córka s.c., pp. 161–67Google Scholar
Buben, Vladimir 1935. Influence de l’orthographe sur la prononciation du français moderne, Bratislava: University KomenskéhoGoogle Scholar
Buck, Carl D. 1928. A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian: With a Collection of Inscriptions and a Glossary. Boston: Ginn (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Buckley, Eugene 2018. ‘Core syllables vs. moraic writing’, in Beeksma, Merijn and Neef, Martin (eds.), Understanding Writing Systems, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 21 (1). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 26–51Google Scholar
Bülbring, Karl D. 1899. ‘Was lässt sich aus dem Gebrauch der Buchstaben k und c im Matthäus-Evangelium des Rushworth-Manuscripts folgern?’, Anglia Beiblatt 9 (10): 289–300Google Scholar
Bull, Ida 2015. ‘Leseopplæring og lesebehov i norske byer før 1750’, Heimen 52: 265–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Tove (ed.) 2018. Ideologi, vol. 3 of Sandøy, Helge and Nesse, Agnete (eds.), Norsk språkhistorie. Oslo: NovusGoogle Scholar
Bull, Tove, Karlsen, Espen, Raanes, Eli and Theil, Rolf 2018. ‘Andre språk i Noreg’, in Mæhlum, Brit (ed.) Praksis, vol 2 of Sandøy, Helge and Nesse, Agnete (eds.), Norsk språkhistorie. Oslo: Novus, pp. 417–532Google Scholar
Bullokar, William 1580a. Bullokars Booke at large, for the Amendment of Orthographie for English speech: wherein, a most perfect supplie is made, for the wantes and double sounde of letters in the olde Orthographie. London: Henry DenhamGoogle Scholar
Bullokar, William 1968 [1580b]. The Amendment of Orthographie for English Speech. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum (reprint)Google Scholar
Bullough, Donald A. 1991. Carolingian Renewal: Sources and Heritage. Manchester: Manchester University PressGoogle Scholar
Bunčić, Daniel 2012. ‘The standardization of Polish orthography in the 16th century’, in Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 219–54Google Scholar
Bunčić, Daniel 2016. ‘Diorthographia’, in Bunčić, Daniel, Lippert, Sandra L. and Rabus, Achim (eds.), Biscriptality: A Sociolinguistic Typology. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 129–48Google Scholar
Bunčić, Daniel forthcoming. ‘Graphematik’, in Bunčić, Daniel, Pitsch, Hagen and Sonnenhauser, Barbara (eds.), Einführung in die Linguistik der slavischen SprachenGoogle Scholar
Bunčić, Daniel, Lippert, Sandra L. and Rabus, Achim (eds.) 2016. Biscriptality: A Sociolinguistic Typology. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Burchfield, Robert 1994. ‘Line-end hyphens in the Ormulum manuscript (MS Junius I)’, in Godden, Malcolm, Gray, Douglas and Hoad, Terry (eds.), From Anglo-Saxon to Early Middle English. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 182–87Google Scholar
Burke, Peter 2004. Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkhard, Conrad 2002. ‘Zur Ungleichzeitigkeit in der Weltgesellschaft. Erkenntnistheoretische Kommentare zur Kriegsursachenforschung, Arbeitspapier 1/2002’. Universität Hamburg – IPW, Forschungsstelle Kriege, Rüstung und Entwicklung, www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fachbereich-sowi/professuren/jakobeit/forschung/akuf/archiv/arbeitspapiere/weltgesellschaft-conrad-2002.pdfGoogle Scholar
Burnaby, Barbara 2013. ‘How have Aboriginal North Americans responded to writing systems in their own languages?’, in Arnett, Katy and Mady, Callie (eds.), Minority Populations in Canadian Second Language Education. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 184–98Google Scholar
Burns, Edward (ed.) 2000. King Henry VI Part 1, by William Shakespeare. London: The Arden ShakespeareGoogle Scholar
Burridge, Kate 2013. ‘Nineteenth-century study of sound change from Rask to Saussure’, in Allan, Keith (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 141–65Google Scholar
Burrows, Steven D. 2010. ‘Source code authorship attribution’. Doctoral dissertation, RMIT University, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Butler, Charles 1633. The English Grammar […]. Oxford: William TurnerGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bynack, Vincent P. 1984. ‘Noah Webster and the idea of a national culture: the pathologies of epistemology’, Journal of the History of Ideas 45: 99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahier, Jean-Pierre and Zacklad, Manuel 2004. ‘Socio-semantic web applications: towards a methodology based on the theory of the communities of action’, in Proceedings of International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, French Riviera, May 11–14Google Scholar
Cahill, Michael 2018. ‘Orthography design and implementation for endangered languages’, in Rehg, Kenneth L. and Campbell, Lyle (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 326–46Google Scholar
Cahill, Michael and Rice, Keren (eds.) 2014. Developing Orthographies for Unwritten Languages. Dallas: SIL InternationalGoogle Scholar
Calle-Martín, Javier 2004. ‘Punctuation practice in a 15th-century arithmetical treatise (Ms. Bodley 790)’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 105 (4): 407–22Google Scholar
Calle-Martín, Javier 2009. ‘Line-final word division in late Middle English Fachprosa’, in Vera, Javier Díaz and Caballero, Rosario (eds.), Textual Healing: Studies in Medieval English Medical, Scientific and Technical Texts. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 35–53Google Scholar
Calle-Martín, Javier 2011a. ‘Line-final word division in early English handwriting’, in Thaisen, Jacob and Rutkowska, Hanna (eds.), Scribes, Printers, and the Accidentals of Their Texts. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 15–29Google Scholar
Calle-Martín, Javier 2011b. ‘Through the looking glass: the palaeography of Benvenutus Grassus’ English vernacular tradition’, in Miranda-García, Antonio and González, Santiago (eds.), Benvenutus Grassus’ On the Well-proven Art of the Eye (Practica Oculorum and De Probatissima Arte Oculorum), as Found in MSS Hunter 503 and 513). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 35–54Google Scholar
Calle-Martín, Javier (ed.) 2020 John Arderon’s De judiciis urinarum. A Middle English Commentary on Giles of Corbeil’s Carmen de urinis in Glasgow University Library, MS Hunter 328 and Manchester University Library, MS Rylands Eng. 1310. Liverpool: Liverpool University PressGoogle Scholar
Calle-Martín, Javier and Castaño-Gil, Miguel Á. (eds.) 2013. A Late Middle English Remedybook (MS Wellcome 542, ff. 1r–20v). A Scholarly Edition. Frankfurt am Main: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Calle-Martín, Javier and Miranda-García, Antonio 2005. ‘Editing Middle English punctuation: the case of MS Egerton 2622 (ff. 136–165)’, International Journal of English Studies 5 (2): 27–44Google Scholar
Calle-Martín, Javier and Miranda-García, Antonio 2008. ‘The punctuation system of Elizabethan legal documents: the case of G.U.L. MS Hunter 3 (S.1.3)’, The Review of English Studies 59 (240): 356–78Google Scholar
Calle-Martín, Javier and Miranda-García, Antonio (eds.) 2012. The Middle English Version of De viribus herbarum (GUL MS Hunter 497, ff. 1r–92r). Edition and Philological Study. Frankfurt am Main: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Calle-Martín, Javier, Moreno-Olalla, David, Esteban-Segura, Laura, Marqués-Aguado, Teresa, Romero-Barranco, Jesús, Thaisen, Jacob and Rutkowska, Hanna 2016–. The Málaga Corpus of Early Modern English Scientific Prose (MCEMESP). Málaga: University of Málaga, https://modernmss.uma.esGoogle Scholar
Calude, Cristian S. and Longo, Giuseppe 2017. ‘The deluge of spurious correlations in big data’, Foundations of Science 22 (3): 595–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 402Google Scholar
Cambridge, Peterhouse College, MS 118 (ff. 29v–35r)Google Scholar
Cambridge, Trinity College, MS O. 2. 33Google Scholar
Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R. 14. 37Google Scholar
Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R. 14. 45Google Scholar
Cambridge, University Library, Corpus Christi College MS 140 (ff. 2r–45v)Google Scholar
Cambridge, University Library, Corpus Christi College MS 201 (ff. 131r–145r)Google Scholar
Cambridge, University Library, MS Kk. 5.16Google Scholar
Cambridge, University Library, MS Kk. 6.30Google Scholar
Cambridge, University Library, MS Mm. 5.37Google Scholar
Camden Old Series (1838–1872), The Camden Society, www.cambridge.org/core/journals/royal-historical-society-camden-fifth-series/past-title/camden-old-series/information/D31C6EA940BA40A21E1A8A3621AA0F2FGoogle Scholar
Camden New Series (1872–1901). The Camden Society, www.cambridge.org/core/journals/royal-historical-society-camden-fifth-series/past-title/camden-new-series/information/9666A1DDBEA0833FDC6777B01BF5EFABGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London/New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Alistair 1959. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Lyle 1991. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Camps, Jean-Baptiste 2016. ‘La Chanson d’Otinel : édition complète du corpus manuscrit et prolégomènes à l’édition critique’. Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV), France, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1116735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canger, Una 1997. ‘El arte de Horacio Carochi’, in Zimmermann, Klaus (ed.), La descripción de las lenguas amerindias en la época colonial. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/Vervuert, pp. 59–74Google Scholar
Cano Aguilar, Rafael 2004. ‘Cambios en la fonología del español durante los siglos XVI y XVII’, in Cano Aguilar, Rafael (ed.), Historia de la lengua española. Barcelona: Ariel, pp. 593–612Google Scholar
Capp, Bernard 1979. English Almanacs 1500–1800: Astrology and the Popular Press. London: Faber and FaberGoogle Scholar
Cappelli, Adriano 1899. Lexicon Abbreviaturarum Dizionario di Abbreviature Latine ed Italiane. Milan: Ulrico HoepliGoogle Scholar
Cappelli, Adriano 1912. Dizionario di Abbreviature Latine ed Italiani. Milan: Ulrico HoepliGoogle Scholar
Carney, Edward 1994. A Survey of English Spelling. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Caro Reina, Javier and Akar, Işık 2021. ‘The development of the apostrophe with proper names in Turkish’, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 40 (3): 371–400, https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2021-2036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caro Reina, Javier and Engel, Eric 2020. ‘Worttrennung am Zeilenende in frühneuzeitlichen Hexenverhörprotokollen’, in Szczepaniak, Renata, Dücker, Lisa and Hartmann, Stefan (eds.), Hexenverhörprotokolle als sprachhistorisches Korpus: Fallstudien zur Erschließung der frühneuzeitlichen Schriftsprache. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 49–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carochi, Horacio 1645. Compendio del arte de la lengua mexicana. Mexico City: Biblioteca MexicanaGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Carleton W. 1976. ‘Medieval romance paleography: a brief introduction’, in Kleinhenz, Christopher (ed.), Medieval Manuscripts and Textual Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, pp. 39–82Google Scholar
Carroll, Ruth, Peikola, Matti, Salmi, Hanna, Varila, Mari-Liisa, Skaffari, Janne and Hiltunen, Risto 2013. ‘Pragmatics on the page: visual text in late medieval English books’, European Journal of English Studies 17 (1): 54–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carton, Fernand 1974. Introduction à la phonétique du français. Paris/Brussels/Montreal: BordasGoogle Scholar
Carvalhão Buescu, Maria L. 2000. ‘Les premières descriptions grammaticales du portugais’, in Auroux, Sylvain, Koerner, Ernst F. K., Niederehe, Hans-Josef and Versteegh, Kees (eds.), History of the Language Sciences/Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften/Histoire des sciences du langage. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 756–64Google Scholar
Catach, Nina 1968. L’orthographe française à l’époque de la Renaissance. Geneva: DrozGoogle Scholar
Catach, Nina 1980. ‘La ponctuation’, Langue Française 45: Nina Catach (ed.), La ponctuation : 16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catach, Nina 1984. La phonétisation automatique du français: les ambiguïtés de la langue écrite. Paris: Éditions du CNRSGoogle Scholar
Catach, Nina 1986. ‘The grapheme: its position and its degree of autonomy with respect to the system of the language’, in Augst, Gerhard (ed.), New Trends in Graphemics and Orthography. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1–10Google Scholar
Catach, Nina (ed.) 1990 [1988]. Pour une théorie de la langue écrite. Actes de la Table Ronde internationale C.N.R.S.–H.E.S.O. Paris, 23–24 octobre 1986. Paris: Éditions du CNRSGoogle Scholar
Catach, Nina 1995 [1980]. L’orthographe française. Traité théorique et pratique avec des travaux d’application et leurs corrigés. Paris: NathanGoogle Scholar
Catach, Nina 1999 [1985]. ‘La bataille de l’orthographe aux alentours de 1900’, in Antoine, Gérald and Martin, Robert (eds.), Histoire de la langue française, 1880–1914. Paris: Éditions du CNRS, pp. 237–51Google Scholar
Catach, Nina 2001. Histoire de l’orthographe française. Paris: Honoré Champion ÉditeurGoogle Scholar
Cavallo, Guglielmo and Maehler, Herwig 1987. Greek Bookhands of the Early Byzantine Period, AD 300–800. London: University of London, Institute of Classical StudiesGoogle Scholar
Cawdrey, Robert 1604. A table alphabeticall conteyning and teaching the true writing, and vnderstanding of hard vsuall English wordes, borrowed from the Hebrew, Greeke, Latine, or French […]. London: [I. Roberts] for Edmund Weauer (EEBO, ProQuest)Google Scholar
CBN POLONA online library, https://polona.plGoogle Scholar
Cellucci, Carlo 2013. Rethinking Logic. Logic in Relation to Mathematics, Evolution, and Method. Dordrecht: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Černá-Willi, Rahel 2012. Polnisches Deutsch – Deutsches Polnisch. Edition und Analyse einer Sammlung von Paralleltexten des 18. Jahrhunderts aus Teschen/Oberschlesien. Bern/Berlin/Frankfurt am Main: Peter LangCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerquiglini, Bernard 2004. La genèse de l’orthographe française (XIIe–XVIIe siècle). Paris: ChampionGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, John 1967. The Decipherment of Linear B. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, John 1968. ‘The group sw in Mycenaean’, Minos 9: 62–65Google Scholar
Chadwick, John 1990. ‘Linear B and related scripts’, in Hooker, James T. (ed.), Reading the Past: Ancient Writing from Cuneiform to the Alphabet. New York: Barnes and Noble, pp. 136–95Google Scholar
Chadwick, John, Godart, Louis, Killen, John T., Olivier, Jean-Pierre, Sacconi, Anna, Sakellarakis, Ioannis A. 1986–98. Corpus of Mycenaean Inscriptions from Knossos (CoMIK), vols. 1–4. Cambridge/Rome: Cambridge University Press/Edizioni dell’AteneoGoogle Scholar
Chahoud, Anna 2019. ‘Lucilius on Latin spelling, grammar, and usage’, in Taylor, Barnaby and Pezzini, Giuseppe (eds.), Language and Nature in the Classical Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 46–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalker, Sylvia and Weiner, Edmund 1998. ‘Spelling pronunciation’, The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, John 1687. English Orthography. Or The Art of Writing and Spelling True English in Three Parts […]. London: Printed for Joseph Hindmarsh at the Golden Ball (EEBO, ProQuest)Google Scholar
Chambers, Jack K. 1995. Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and Its Social Significance. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Jack K. and Trudgill, Peter J. 1998. Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, Daniel 2017 [2002]. Semiotics: The Basics. Abingdon/New York: Routledge (3rd ed.)Google Scholar
Chang, Li-Yun, Chen, Yen-Chi and Perfetti, Charles A. 2018. ‘GraphCom: a multidimensional measure of graphic complexity applied to 131 written languages’, Behavior Research Methods 50 (1): 427–49CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charpin, François 1978. Lucilius, Satires, Tome I. Livres I–VIII. Texte établi, traduit et annoté. Paris: Les Belles LettresGoogle Scholar
Charpin, François 1991. Lucilius, Satires, Tome III. Livres XXIX, XXX et Fragments Divers. Texte établi et traduit. Paris: Les Belles LettresGoogle Scholar
Chassant, Alphonse A. L. 1846. Dictionnaire des Abréviations Latines et Francaises Usitées Dans les Inscriptions Lapidaires et Métalliques, les Manuscrits et les Chartes du Moyen Ǎge. Évreux: CornemillotGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Kerswill, Paul, Fox, Susan and Torgersen, Eivind 2011. ‘Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: the emergence of Multicultural London English’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 15: 151–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny and Milroy, James 1993. ‘Syntactic variation in non-standard dialects: background issues’, in Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley (eds.), Real English: The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. London: Longman, pp. 3–33Google Scholar
Cheung, Yat-Shing 1992. ‘The form and meaning of digraphia: the case of Chinese’, in Bolton, Kingsley and Kwok, Helen (eds.), Sociolinguistics Today: International Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 210–15Google Scholar
Chiss, Jean-Louis and Puech, Christian 1983. ‘La linguistique et la question de l’écriture: enjeux et débats autour de Saussure et des problématiques structurales’, Langue française 59: 5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Lee Jin 2017. ‘Performing “authentic” bilingualism: authenticity, novel respelling forms, and language ideology in South Korea’, Multilingua 36 (2): 125–46, https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2015-0091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Carol 1970. ‘Reading, writing, and phonology’, Harvard Educational Review 40: 287–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and RowGoogle Scholar
Chrisomalis, Stephen 2009. ‘The origins and co-evolution of literacy and numeracy’, in Olson, David R. and Torrance, Nancy (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Birgit 2012. ‘A survey of Low German loanwords in Danish in the medieval period and the transition from Low German to High German as the written language in tønder in the 17th century’, in Elmevik, Lennart and Jahr, Ernst H. (eds.), Contact between Low German and Scandinavian in the Late Middle Ages. 25 Years of Research. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk folkkultur, pp. 123–36Google Scholar
Christianson, C. Paul 1989a. ‘Evidence for the study of London’s late medieval manuscript-book trade’, in Griffiths, Jeremy and Pearsall, Derek (eds.), Book Production and Publishing in Britain 1375–1475. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–108Google Scholar
Christianson, C. Paul 1989b. ‘A community of book artisans in Chaucer’s London’, Viator 20: 207–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christianson, C. Paul 1990. A Directory of London Stationers and Book Artisans, 1300–1500. New York: The Bibliographical Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Christianson, C. Paul 1999. ‘The rise of London’s book trade’, in Hellinga, Lotte and Trapp, Joseph B. (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol. 3: 1400–1557. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 128–47Google Scholar
Cifuentes, Bárbara 1998. Letras sobre voces: multilingüismo a través de la historia. Mexico City: CIESAS and INIGoogle Scholar
Cifuentes, Bárbara 2013. ‘The politics of lexicography in the Mexican Academy in the late nineteenth century’, in del Valle, José (ed.), A Political History of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 167–81Google Scholar
Clackson, James 2003. Review of Album of Armenian Paleography by Michael E. Stone, Dickran Kouymjian and Henning Lehmann, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 66 (2): 270–71Google Scholar
Clackson, James 2015. Language and Society in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clackson, James and Horrocks, Geoffrey 2007. The Blackwell History of the Latin Language. Malden/Oxford: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Clancy Clements, Joseph 2009. The Linguistic Legacy of Spanish and Portuguese: Colonial Expansion and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, Claudia and Kytö, Merja (eds.) 2020. Punctuation in Context: Past and Present Perspectives. Berlin: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
CLARIN ERIC infrastructure 2021. Historical corpora, www.clarin.eu/resource-families/historical-corporaGoogle Scholar
Clark, Cecily 1992a. ‘Domesday Book – a great red-herring: thoughts on some late-eleventh-century orthographies’, in Hicks, Carola (ed.), England in the Eleventh Century: Proceedings of the 1990 Harlaxton Symposium. Stamford: Paul Watkins, pp. 317–31Google Scholar
Clark, Cecily 1992b. ‘The myth of “the Anglo-Norman scribe”’, in Rissanen, Matti, Ihalainen, Ossi, Nevalainen, Terttu and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 117–29Google Scholar
Clemens, Raymond and Graham, Timothy 2007. Introduction to Manuscript Studies. Ithaca/London: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
Clement, Francis 1587. The Petie Schole with an English Orthographie […] London: Thomas VautrollierGoogle Scholar
Cleminson, Ralph 2015. ‘Slavonic palaeography’, in Bausi, Alessandro, Borbone, Pier Giorgio, Briquel-Chatonnet, Françoise, Buzi, Paola, Gippert, Jost, Macé, Caroline, Maniaci, Marilena, Melissakis, Zisis, Parodi, Laura E. and Witakowski, Witold (eds.), Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies: An Introduction. Hamburg: COMSt, pp. 310–15Google Scholar
Close, Elizabeth 1974. The Development of Rumanian. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Coe, Michael D. 1992. Breaking the Maya Code. New York: Thames and HudsonGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Marcel 1956. Pismo. Zarys dziejów (trans. by Irena Pomian). Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe [Cohen, Marcel 1953. L’écriture. Paris: Éditions Sociales]Google Scholar
Coleccion de las leyes, decretos y declaraciones de las Cortes, y de los reales decretos, ordenes, resoluciones y reglamentos generales expedidos por los respectivos ministerios. Desde 1º de Enero hasta fin de Junio de 1844 1844, vol. XXXII. Madrid: Imprenta NacionalGoogle Scholar
Collin, Richard O. 2011. ‘Revolutionary scripts: the politics of writing systems’, in Morris, Michael A. (ed.), Culture and Language: Multidisciplinary Case Studies. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 29–67Google Scholar
Coltheart, Max 1984. ‘Writing systems and reading disorders’, in Henderson, Leslie (ed.), Orthographies and Reading. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 67–79Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Stone, Gerald and Polinsky, Maria 1996. The Russian Language in the Twentieth Century. Oxford/New York: Clarendon Press (2nd ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo 2012. ‘The role of social networks and mobility in diachronic sociolinguistics’, in Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 332–52Google Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo 2019. ‘Spelling focusing and proto-standardisation in a fifteenth-century English community of practice’, Studia Neophilologica 91: 11–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo 2020. ‘Communities of practice, proto-standardisation and spelling focusing in the Stonor letters’, in Wright, Laura (ed.), The Multilingual Origins of Standard English. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 443–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo and Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel 2004. ‘A sociolinguistic approach to the diffusion of Chancery written practices in late fifteenth century private correspondence’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 105 (2): 133–52Google Scholar
Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo and Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel 2013. ‘Tracing the generational progress of language change in fifteenth century English: the digraph <th> in the Paston Letters ’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 114 (3): 279–99Google Scholar
Condorelli, Marco 2019. ‘Irregularity of the <ie> spellings in West-Saxon: the problem of pronouns’, SELIM 24 (1): 29–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorelli, Marco 2020a. ‘From the early modern era to an international research area’, in Condorelli, Marco (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorelli, Marco 2020b. ‘Towards a relativity of spelling change’, in Condorelli, Marco (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 219–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorelli, Marco (ed.) 2020c. Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorelli, Marco 2021a. ‘Positional spelling redistribution: word-initial ˂u˃/˂v˃ and ˂i˃/˂j˃ in Early Modern English (1500–1700)’, English Language and Linguistics, 24 (2): 799–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorelli, Marco 2021b. ‘The standardisation of i and y in Early Modern English (1500–1700)’, English Studies 102 (1): 101–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorelli, Marco 2022a. Introducing Historical Orthography. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorelli, Marco 2022b. Standardising English Spelling: The Role of Printing in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Graphemic Developments. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorelli, Marco and Voeste, Anja 2020. ‘Synergic dialogue in historical orthography. national philologies, comparability and questions for the future’, in Condorelli, Marco (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 238–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Consani, Carlo 2003. Sillabe e sillabari fra competenza fonologica e pratica scrittoria. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’OrsoGoogle Scholar
Consani, Carlo 2016. ‘In search of the “perfect fit” between speech and writing: the case of the Linear B writing’, in Cotticelli-Kurras, Paola and Rizza, Alfredo (eds.), Variation within and among Writing Systems. Concepts and Methods in the Analysis of Ancient Written Documents. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, pp. 89–104Google Scholar
Considine, John 2014. Academy Dictionaries 1600–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Considine, John (ed.) 2019. The Cambridge World History of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Contreras, Lidia 1993. Historia de las ideas ortográficas en Chile. Santiago: Editorial UniversitariaGoogle Scholar
Cook, Vivian and Bassetti, Benedetta 2005. ‘An introduction to researching second language writing systems’, in Cook, Vivian and Bassetti, Benedetta (eds.), Second Language Writing Systems. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 1–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Vivian and Ryan, Des (eds.) 2016. The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London/New York: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, Jerrold S. 1996. ‘Sumerian and Akkadian’, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 37–57Google Scholar
Cooper, Jerrold S. 2004. ‘Babylonian beginnings: the origin of the cuneiform writing system in comparative perspective’, in Houston, Stephen D. (ed.), The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–99Google Scholar
Cooper, Robert L. 1989. Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Coote, Edmund 1596. [The English Schoole-maister teaching all his scholers, the order of distinct reading, and true writing our English tongue]. London: Widow Orwin, for Ralph Jackson, and Robert Dextar (EEBO, ProQuest)Google Scholar
Čornejová, Michaela, Rychnovská, Lucie and Zemanová, Jana (eds.) 2010. Dějiny českého pravopisu (do r. 1902). Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference Dějiny českého pravopisu (do r. 1902). 23.–25. září 2010, Brno, Česká Republika. History of Czech Orthography (up to 1902). Proceedings of the International Conference History of Czech Orthography (up to 1902). 23.–25. September 2010, Brno, Czech Republic. Brno: Host, Masarykova univerzitaGoogle Scholar
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL) 1862–. BerlinGoogle Scholar
Corpus Middelnederlands (Version 1.0) [Dataset] 1998. Available at the Dutch Language Institute, http://hdl.handle.net/10032/tm-a2-j6Google Scholar
Corrie, Marilyn 2012. ‘Middle English – dialects and diversity’, in Mugglestone, Lynda (ed.), The Oxford History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 106–46 (updated ed.)Google Scholar
Cortada, James W. (ed.) 1994. Spain in the Nineteenth-Century World. Essays on Spanish Diplomacy, 1789–1898. Westport: Greenwood PressGoogle Scholar
Cortés y Zedeño, Gerónimo 1765. Arte, vocabulario, y confessionario en el idioma mexicano, como se usa en el obispado de Guadalaxara. Puebla: Colegio Real de San IgnacioGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugen 1970. Einfürhrung in die Strukturelle Betrachtung des Wortschatzes. Tübingen: Tübinger Beiträge zur LinguistikGoogle Scholar
Cottereau, Emilie 2005. ‘La copie et les copistes français de manuscrits aux XIVe et XVe siècles: étude sociologique et codicologique’. Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne, FranceGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian 1989. The Writing Systems of the World. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian 1991. The Writing Systems of the World. Oxford: Blackwell (reprint)Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian 1992. ‘Writing systems’, in Bright, William (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, vol. 4. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–57Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian 1996a. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Cambridge, MA: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian 1996b. ‘Typology of writing systems’, in Günther, Hartmut and Ludwig, Otto (eds.), Schrift und Schriftlichkeit/Writing and Its Use. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung/An Interdisciplinary Handbook of International Research, vol. 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 1380–87Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian 1999. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons (paperback ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian 2000. The Writing Systems of the World. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell (2nd ed., reprint)Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian 2002. Writing Systems: An Introduction to Their Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian 2003. Writing Systems: An Introduction to Their Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian 2012. Writing Systems: An Introduction to Their Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (online ed.)Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian 2013. Writing and Society: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian 2014. ‘Writing systems and language contact in the Euro- and Sinocentric worlds’, Applied Linguistics Review 5: 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, Florian and Guerini, Federica 2012. ‘Literacy and writing reform’, in Spolsky, Bernard (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 437–60Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas 1980. ‘Style-shifting in a Cardiff work setting’, Language in Society 9: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas 2007. Style: Language Variation, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coye, Dale F. 1998. ‘Orthoepic piracy: spelling pronunciations and Standard English’, American Speech 73 (2): 178–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, Patricia 2013. ‘Reading childishly? A codicology of the modern self’, in Katherine Hayles, N. and Pressman, Jessica (eds.), Comparative Textual Media: Transforming the Humanities in the Postprint Era. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 155–82Google Scholar
Crawford, Michael H. 2011. Imagines Italicae. London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of LondonGoogle Scholar
Criado-Peña, Miriam (ed.) 2018. The Early Modern English Version of Elizabeth Jacob’s Physicall and Chyrurgical Receipts. Cambridge: Cambridge ScholarsGoogle Scholar
Croft, William 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. New York: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Cross, Rowin 2004. A Handlist of Manuscripts Containing English in the Hunterian Collection Glasgow University Library. Glasgow: Glasgow University LibraryGoogle Scholar
Crossland, Ronald A. 1956. ‘Graphic linguistics and its terminology’, Mechanical Translation 3 (1): 8–11Google Scholar
Crowley, Tony 1989. Standard English and the Politics of Language. Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois PressGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David 1985 [1980]. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Crystal, David 2003. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Crystal, David 2012. Spell It Out: The Singular Story of English Spelling. London: Profile BooksGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David and Davy, Derek 1969. Investigating English Style. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Kytö, Merja (compilers) 2006. A Corpus of English Dialogues: 1560–1760, CD-ROM. Uppsala: Uppsala UniversitetGoogle Scholar
Cummings, Darrell W. 2016. ‘The evolution of British and American spelling’, in Cook, Vivian and Ryan, Des (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 275–93Google Scholar
Curran, Michael 1984. The Antiphonary of Bangor and the Early Irish Monastic Liturgy. Dublin: Irish Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Cushman, Ellen 2012. The Cherokee Syllabary: Writing the People’s Perseverance. Norman: University of Oklahoma PressGoogle Scholar
Cutillas-Espinosa, Juan A., Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Schilling-Estes, N. 2010. ‘Hyper-vernacularisation in a speaker design context: a case study’, Folia Linguistica 44: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czech National Corpus (CNC), https://korpus.czGoogle Scholar
Czernecki, Józef 1902. 1 Jana Januszowskiego: Nowy Karakter Polski z r. 1594. 2 Stanisława Serafina Jagodyńskiego: Kalligraphia abo Cancellaria z r. 1695. Odbitka z “Praktyki szkolnej” dodatku do “Szkoły”. Lviv: Nakładem Towarzystwa PedagogicznegoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska-Partyka, Maria 2000. ‘Pismo jako znak tożsamości’, in Bobrownicka, Maria (ed.), Język a tożsamość narodowa: Slavica. Kraków: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych “Universitas”, pp. 169–82Google Scholar
Dahl, Marcus 2016. ‘Authors of the mind’, Journal of Early Modern Studies 5: 157–73Google Scholar
Dahlet, Véronique 2003. Ponctuation et énonciation. Guadeloupe: Ibis Rouge ÉditionsGoogle Scholar
Dain, Alphonse 1949. Les manuscrits. Paris: Les Belles LettresCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daines, Simon 1640. Orthoepia Anglicana: Or, The First Principal Part of the English Grammar: Teaching The Art of right speaking and pronouncing English, With certaine exact rules of Orthography, and rules of spelling […] London: Robert Young and Richard Badger for the Company of StationersGoogle Scholar
Dale, Ian R.H. 1980. ‘Digraphia’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 26: 5–13Google Scholar
Danecki, Janusz 1994. Gramatyka Języka Arabskiego. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Akademickie DialogGoogle Scholar
Danecki, Janusz 2011. ‘Literature of the Polish Tatars’, in Górak-Sosnowska, Katarzyna (ed.), Muslims in Poland and Eastern Europe: Widening the European Discourse on Islam. Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Oriental Studies, pp. 40–52Google Scholar
Danesi, Marcel 2017. The Semiotics of Emoji: The Rise of Visual Language in the Age of the Internet. London/New York: Bloomsbury AcademicCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dangel, Jacqueline 1995. Accius, Oeuvres (Fragments). Paris: Les Belles LettresGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 1984. ‘A calligraphic approach to Aramaic paleography’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43 (1): 55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 1990. ‘Fundamentals of grammatology’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 110 (4): 727–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 1992. ‘The syllabic origin of writing and the segmental origin of the alphabet’, in Downing, Pamela, Lima, Susan D. and Noonan, Michael (eds.), The Linguistics of Literacy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 1996a. ‘The study of writing systems’, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–17Google Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 1996b. ‘The first civilizations’, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–32Google Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 1996c. ‘The invention of writing’, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 579–86Google Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 2000. ‘On writing syllables: three episodes of script transfer’, Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 30 (1): 73–86Google Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 2001. ‘Writing systems’, in Aronoff, Mark and Rees-Miller, Janie (eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 43–80Google Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 2006. ‘Three models of script transfer’, Word 57 (3): 371–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 2009. ‘Grammatology’, in Olson, David R. and Torrance, Nancy (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 2013. ‘The history of writing as a history of linguistics’, in Allan, Keith (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 2017. ‘Writing systems’, in Aronoff, Mark and Rees-Miller, Janie (eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 75–94 (2nd ed.), https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119072256.ch5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. 2018. An Exploration of Writing. Sheffield/Bristol: EquinoxGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds.) 1996. The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Peter T. and Share, David L. 2018. ‘Writing system variation and its consequences for reading and dyslexia’, Scientific Studies of Reading 22 (1): 101–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das Bonner Frühneuhochdeutsch-Korpus, Korpora.org, https://korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/FnhdC/Google Scholar
Daswani, Chander J. 2001. ‘Issues of literacy development in the Indian context’, in Olson, David R. and Torrance, Nancy (eds.), The Making of Literate Societies. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 284–95Google Scholar
Daunt, Marjorie 1939. ‘Old English sound-changes reconsidered in relation to scribal tradition and practice’, Transactions of the Philological Society 38 (1): 108–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Chas 1890. ‘Differences between the scribes of “Beowulf”’, Modern Language Notes 5 (2): 43–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Robert (ed.) 1863. The Life of Marmaduke Rawden of York, or Marmaduke Rawdon the Second of That Name. London: Camden SocietyGoogle Scholar
Davies, W. Vivian 1990. ‘Egyptian hieroglyphs’, in Hooker, James T. (ed.), Reading the Past: Ancient Writing from Cuneiform to the Alphabet. New York: Barnes and Noble, pp. 74–135Google Scholar
Davis, Brent 2014. Minoan Stone Vessels with Linear A Inscriptions. Leuven: PeetersGoogle Scholar
Davis, Norman 1971. Paston Letters and Papers of the Fifteenth Century, 2 vols. Oxford: ClarendonGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, Robert 2006. ‘Speech versus writing in the discourse of linguistics’, Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 33: 31–45Google Scholar
De Boer, Bart 2011. ‘Self-organization and language evolution’, in Tallerman, Maggie and Gibson, Kathleen R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 612–20Google Scholar
Decorte, Roeland P.-J. E. 2017. ‘Cretan “Hieroglyphic” and the nature of script’, in Steele, Philippa M. (ed.), Understanding Relations between Scripts: The Aegean Writing Systems. Oxford/Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, pp. 33–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decorte, Roeland P.-J. E. 2018. ‘The origins of Bronze Age Aegean writing: Linear A, Cretan Hieroglyphic and a new proposed pathway of script formation’, in Ferrara, Silvia and Valério, Miguel (eds.), Paths into Script Formation in the Ancient Mediterranean. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, Nuova Serie, Supplemento 1, pp. 13–50Google Scholar
DeFrancis, John 1984a. The Chinese Language: Fact and Fantasy. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFrancis, John 1984b. ‘Digraphia’, Word 35 (1): 59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFrancis, John 1989. Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFrancis, John 2002. ‘The ideographic myth’, in Erbaugh, Mary S. (ed.), Difficult Characters: Interdisciplinary Studies of Chinese and Japanese Writing. Columbus: National East Asian Language Resource Center, Ohio State University, pp. 1–20Google Scholar
DeFrancis, John and Unger, Marshall J. 1994. ‘Rejoinder to Geoffrey Sampson, “Chinese script and the diversity of writing systems”’, Linguistics 32: 549–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Hamel, Christopher F. R. 1983. ‘Reflexions on the trade in books of hours at Ghent and Bruges’, in Trapp, Joseph B. (ed.), Manuscripts in the Fifty Years after the Invention of Printing: Some Papers Read at a Colloquium at the Warburg Institute on 12–13 March 1982. London: The Warburg Institute, University of London, pp. 29–33Google Scholar
De Hamel, Christopher F. R. 1992. Scribes and Illuminators. London: British Museum PressGoogle Scholar
Del Freo, Maurizio and Perna, Massimo (eds.) 2019. Manuale di epigrafia micenea. Introduzione allo studio dei testi in lineare B, 2 vols. Padua: Libreria Universitaria.Google Scholar
Del Rincón, Αntonio 1885 [1595]. Arte mexicana. Mexico City: Secretaría de FomentoGoogle Scholar
Del Valle, José 2007. ‘Glotopolítica, ideología y discurso categorías para el estudio del estatus simbólico del español’, in Valle, José del (ed.), La lengua, ¿patria común? Ideas e ideologías del español. Madrid/Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana/Vervuert, pp. 13–29Google Scholar
Del Valle, José 2010. ‘La lengua, los bicentenarios y la estrategia del acompañamiento’, Revista de crítica literaria latinoamericana 36 (71): 127–48Google Scholar
Del Valle, José 2011. ‘Panhispanismo e hispanofonía: breve historia de dos ideologías siamesas’, Sociolinguistic Studies 5 (3): 465–84Google Scholar
Del Valle, José 2013. ‘Linguistic emancipation and the academies of the Spanish language in the twentieth century: the 1951 turning point’, in Valle, José del (ed.), A Political History of Spanish: The Making of a Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Valle, José and Gabriel-Stheeman, Luis (eds.) 2002. The Battle over Spanish between 1800 and 2000. Language Ideologies and Hispanic Intellectuals. London/New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Del Valle, José and Villa, Laura 2012. ‘La disputada autoridad de las academias: debate lingüístico-ideológico en torno a la Ortografía de 2010’, Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana 1 (19): 29–53Google Scholar
Demartini, Silvia 2011. ‘Ortografia’, in Enciclopedia Italiana di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ortografia_(Enciclopedia-dell%27Italiano)Google Scholar
Den Heijer, Johannes, Schmidt, Andrea B. and Pataridze, Tamara (eds.) 2014. Scripts beyond Borders. A Survey of Allographic Traditions in the Euro-Mediterranean World. Leuven: PeetersGoogle Scholar
Denholm-Young, Noël 1954. Handwriting in England and Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales PressGoogle Scholar
Denis, Derek 2011. ‘Innovators and innovation: tracking the innovators of and stuff in York English’, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17 (2): 61–70Google Scholar
De Reuse, Willem 2019. ‘Missionary and subsequent traditions in North America’, in Considine, John (ed.), The Cambridge World History of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 597–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derolez, Albert 2003. The Palaeography of Gothic Manuscript Books. From the Twelfth to the Early Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 1967. De la grammatologie. Paris: Les Éditions de MinuitGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 2016 [1967]. Of Grammatology (trans. by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, Bruce L. 1992. ‘Orthographic aspects of linguistic competence’, in Downing, Pamela, Lima, Susan D. and Noonan, Michael (eds.), The Linguistics of Literacy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desbordes, Françoise 1990. Idées romaines sur l’écriture. Lille: Presses Universitaires de LilleGoogle Scholar
Desbordes, Françoise 1997. ‘The notion of orthography: a Latin inheritance’, in Pontecorvo, Clotilde (ed.), Writing Development: An Interdisciplinary View. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 117–28Google Scholar
Deschamps, Alain 1992. ‘De l’anglais écrit à l’anglais oral: esquisse d’une graphématique’, Les langues modernes 86 (3): 23–29Google Scholar
Deschamps, Alain 1994. De l’écrit à l’oral et de l’oral à l’écrit: phonétique et orthographe de l’anglais. Paris: OphrysGoogle Scholar
De Tapia Zenteno, Carlos 1753. Arte novissima de lengua mexicana. Mexico City: Viuda de José Bernardo de HogalGoogle Scholar
Deumert, Ana and Vandenbussche, Wim 2003. ‘Standard languages: taxonomies and histories’, in Deumert, Ana and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deumert, Andrea 1999. ‘Variation and standardisation: tthe case of Afrikaans (1880–1922)’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cape Town, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
Devine, Andrew M. and Stephens, Laurence D. 1994. The Prosody of Greek Speech. New York: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devitt, Amy 2004. Writing Genres. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University PressGoogle Scholar
Devonish, Hubert 2003. ‘Caribbean creoles’, in Deumert, Ana and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 41–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Voogt, Alex 2012. ‘Invention and borrowing in the development and dispersal of writing systems’, in de Voogt, Alex and Quack, Joachim Friedrich (eds.), The Idea of Writing: Writing across Borders. Leiden: BrillCrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, Matthias and Te Winkel, Lambert A. 1866. Woordenlijst voor de spelling der Nederlandsche Taal. The Hague: NijhoffGoogle Scholar
De Vries, Matthias and Te Winkel, Lambert A. (principal eds.) 1864–2001. Woordenboek Der Nederlandsche Taal, 29 vols. plus supplements. The Hague: NijhoffGoogle Scholar
Dewitte, Alfons 1996. ‘Het Brugse St-Jans en St.-Lucasgilde der librariërs 1457, 1469’, Biekorf 96: 334–40Google Scholar
De Wulf, Chris 2019. Klankatlas van het veertiende-eeuwse Middelnederlands. Het dialectvocalisme in de spelling van lokale oorkonden. Ghent: Koninklijke Academie voor Nederlandse Taal en LetterenGoogle Scholar
Dibbets, Geert R. W. 2000. ‘Frühe grammatische Beschreibungen des Niederländischen (ca. 1550–ca. 1650)’, in Auroux, Sylvain, Koerner, Ernst F. K., Niederehe, Hans-Josef and Versteegh, Kees (eds.), History of the Language Sciences/Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften/Histoire des sciences du langage. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 784–92Google Scholar
Dickie, Matthew W. 2001. Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, Jennifer A. 2015. ‘Introduction: language ideologies and writing systems’, Pragmatics 25 (4): 507–16Google Scholar
Die syben hertzenleyt von vnnser lieben Frawen in dem gulden regenbogen Don. ~1500 [Nuremberg: Ambrosius Huber] (ISTC ih00134500)Google Scholar
Dietz, Klaus 2006. Schreibung und Lautung im mittelalterlichen Englisch: Entwicklung und Funktion der englischen Schreibungen ch, gh, sh, th, wh und ihrer kontinentalen Entsprechungen (Anglistische Forschungen 364). Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Diller, Hans-Jürgen 2001. ‘Genre in linguistic and related discourses’, in Diller, Hans-Jürgen and Görlach, Manfred (eds.), Towards a History of English as a History of Genres. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 3–43Google Scholar
DiMeo, Michelle 2011. ‘Lady Katherine Ranelagh or Lady Margaret Orrery? Reattributing Authorship of The Boyle Family Receipt Book’, Early Modern Women: An Interdisciplinary Journal 6: 268–70Google Scholar
Di Renzo, Anthony 2000. ‘His master’s voice: Tiro and the rise of the Roman secretarial class’, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 30 (2): 155–68, https://doi.org/10.2190/B4YD-5FP7-1W8D-V3UCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diringer, David 1943. ‘The origins of the alphabet’, Antiquity 17: 77–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diringer, David 1948. The Alphabet. A Key to the History of Mankind. London/New York/Toronto/ Melbourne/Sydney/Cape Town: Hutchinson’s Scientific and Technical PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Diringer, David 1949. The Alphabet: A Key to the History of Mankind. New York: Philosophical Library (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Diringer, David 1962. Writing. London: Thames and HudsonGoogle Scholar
Doane, Alger N. 1994. ‘The ethnography of scribal writing and Anglo-Saxon poetry: scribe as performer’, Oral Tradition 9 (2): 420–39Google Scholar
Dobbie, Elliott van Kirk 1942. The Anglo-Saxon Minor Poems (The Anglo-Saxon Poetic Records 6). London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Dobson, Eric J. 1955. ‘Early Modern standard English’, Transactions of the Philological Society 54 (1): 25–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobson, Eric J. 1957. English Pronunciation 1500–1700, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Dodoens, Rembert 1578. A Niewe Herball, or, Historie of Plants: wherin is Contayned the Whole Discourse and Perfect Description of All Sortes of Herbes and Plantes. London: Gerard DewesGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan. 2019a. Creating Canadian English: The Professor, the Mountaineer, and a National Variety of English. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, Stefan 2019b. The Pluricentricity Debate: On Austrian German and Other Germanic Standard Varieties. New York/London: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doria, Mario 1965. Avviamento allo studio del Miceneo: struttura, problemi e testi. Rome: Edizioni dell’AteneoGoogle Scholar
Dossena, Marina and Del Lungo Camiciotti, Gabriella (eds.) 2012. Letter Writing in Late Modern Europe. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dossena, Marina and Fitzmaurice, Susan (eds.) 2006. Business and Official Correspondence: Historical Investigations. Bern: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Dossena, Marina and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (eds.) 2008. Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence: Methodology and Data. Bern: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Drackley, Patrick 2019. ‘“Je suis circonflexe”: grassroots prescriptivism and orthographic reform’, Language Policy 18 (2): 295–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, Martha W. 2014. ‘Ina Kok: woodcuts in incunabula printed in the Low Countries’, Journal of the Early Book Society 17: 392–94Google Scholar
Drozd, Andrzej 1994. ‘Zastosowanie pisma arabskiego do zapisu tekstów polskich (zarys historyczny)’, in Dziekan, Marek M. (ed.), Plenas Arabum domos. Warsaw: Instytut Orientalistyczny, Uniwersytet Warszawski, pp. 75–93Google Scholar
Drozd, Andrzej 1997. ‘Wpływy chrześcijańskie na literaturę Tatarów w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Między antagonizmem a symbiozą’, Pamiętnik Literacki 88 (3): 3–34Google Scholar
Drozd, Andrzej 2000. ‘Piśmiennictwo Tatarów polsko-litewskich (XVI−XX w.). Zarys problematyki’, in Drozd, Andrzej, Dziekan, Marek M. and Majda, Tadeusz (eds.), Katalog zabytków tatarskich, vol. 3: Piśmiennictwo i muhiry Tatarów polsko-litewskich. Warsaw: Res Publica Multiethnica, pp. 12–37Google Scholar
Dubrovskiĭ, Pëtr P. 1866 [1852]. Obrazt͡sy pol’skogo i͡azyka v’’ prozi͡e i stikhakh’’ dli͡a russkikh’’ […]. Saint Petersburg: Tipografii͡a Imperatorskoĭ Akademīi Nauk’’Google Scholar
Dücker, Lisa, Hartmann, Stefan and Szczepaniak, Renata 2020. ‘The emergence of sentence-internal capitalization in Early New High German: towards a multifactorial quantitative account’, in Condorelli, Marco (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duden, Konrad 1880. Vollständiges Orthographisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache von Duden Konrad: Nach den neuen preußischen und bayerischen Regeln. Leipzig: Bibliographisches InstitutGoogle Scholar
Duff, Edward G. 1948 [1906]. The Printers, Stationers and Bookbinders of Westminster and London from 1476 to 1535. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Duhoux, Yves 1999. ‘La séparation des mots en linéaire B’, in Deger-Jalkotzy, Sigfrid, Hiller, Stefan and Panagl, Oswald (eds.), Floreant Studia Mycenaea. Akten sed X. Internationalen Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Salzburg vom 1.–5. Mai 1995. Band II. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 227–36Google Scholar
Duhoux, Yves and Morpurgo Davies, Anna (eds.) 2008. A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and Their World, vol. 1. Leuven: PeetersGoogle Scholar
Duhoux, Yves and Morpurgo Davies, Anna 2011. A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and Their World, vol. 2. Leuven: PeetersGoogle Scholar
Duhoux, Yves and Morpurgo Davies, Anna 2014. A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and Their World, vol. 3. Leuven/Walpole: PeetersGoogle Scholar
Dumville, David 1993. English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism AD 950–1030. Woodbridge: The Boydell PressGoogle Scholar
Duncan, Henry 1857. ‘An account of the remarkable monument in the shape of a cross inscribed with Roman and runic letters, preserved in the Garden of Ruthwell Manse, Dumfriesshire’, Archaeologia Scotica: Or, Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 4: 313–26Google Scholar
Dupraz, Emmanuel 2011. ‘Osservazioni sulla coesione testuale nei rituali umbri: il caso delle Tavole I e II a’, Alessandria 5: 49–66Google Scholar
Dupraz, Emmanuel 2012. Sabellian Demonstratives: Forms and Functions. Leiden: BrillCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupraz, Emmanuel 2016. ‘Über den umbrischen Digraph -ei-/-ei-’, Historische Sprachforschung 129: 13–38Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro 2011. ‘Linguistic anthropology: the study of language as a non-neutral medium’, in Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durkin, Philip 2014. Borrowed Words: A History of Loanwords in English. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa 2006. Einführung in die Schriftlinguistik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht (3rd ed.)Google Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa 2016. Einführung in die Schriftlinguistik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht (5th ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa and Meletis, Dimitrios 2019. ‘Emojis: a grapholinguistic approach’, in Haralambous, Yannis (ed.), Graphemics in the 21st Century: Grafematik, Brest, June 13–15, 2018: Proceedings (Grapholinguistics and Its Applications 1). Brest: Fluxus Editions, pp. 167–83Google Scholar
Du Toit, Stefanus J. 1876. Eerste Beginsels van Die Afrikaanse Taal. Cape Colony: Die Genootskap van Regte AfrikanersGoogle Scholar
Dziekan, Marek M. 1997. ‘Chamaił Aleksandrowicza’, Rocznik Tatarów Polskich 4: 27–35Google Scholar
Dziekan, Marek M. 2011. ‘History and culture of Polish Tatars’, in Górak-Sosnowska, Katarzyna (ed.), Muslims in Poland and Eastern Europe: Widening the European Discourse on Islam. Warsaw: University of Warsaw Faculty of Oriental Studies, pp. 27–39Google Scholar
Dziekan, Marek M. 2015. ‘Uwagi o językach i literaturach bośniackiej, serbskiej i chorwackiej pisanych alfabetem arabskim’, in Wida-Behiesse, Marta and Zasztowt, Konrad (eds.), Islam w Europie: Nowe kierunki badań. Księga ku czci Profesor Anny Parzymies. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Akademickie Dialog, pp. 201–14Google Scholar
Early English Text Society Original Series, https://users.ox.ac.uk/~eets/Google Scholar
Ebert, Robert P., Reichmann, Oskar, Solms, Hans-Joachim and Wegera, Klaus-Peter 1993. Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: NiemeyerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echard, Siân 2013. Review of The Production of Books in England 1350–1500 (Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology 14) by Alexandra Gillespie and Daniel Wakelin (eds.), Speculum 88 (1): 298–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope 2001. ‘Style and social meaning’, in Eckert, Penelope and Rickford, John (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–26Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope and McConnell-Ginet, Sally 1992. ‘Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice’, Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 461–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgerton, William F. 1941. ‘Ideograms in English writing’, Language 17 (2): 148–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Anthony S. G. 2000. ‘Representing the Middle English manuscript’, in Pearsall, Derek (ed.), New Directions in Later Medieval Manuscript Studies. Bury St. Edmunds: York Medieval Press, pp. 65–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, John 2012. ‘Language management agencies’, in Spolsky, Bernard (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 418–36Google Scholar
Early English Books Online (EEBO) 2017. Part of the SAMUELS project (ed. by Mark Davies), www.english-corpora.org/eebo/Google Scholar
Early English Books Online: Text Creation Partnership (EEBO-TCP) 2000–20, www.textcreationpartnership.org/Google Scholar
Ehala, Martin 1996. ‘Self-organization and language change’, Diachronica 13 (1): 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehlich, Konrad 2007. Sprache und sprachliches Handeln. Berlin: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eira, Christina 1998. ‘Authority and discourse: towards a model for orthography selection’, Written Language and Literacy 1 (2): 171–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 1979. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 1983. Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter 1983. ‘Orthografie und Schriftsystem’, in Günther, Klaus B. and Günther, Hartmut (eds.), Schrift, Schreiben, Schriftlichkeit: Arbeiten zur Struktur, Funktion und Entwicklung schriftlicher Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 41–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter 1996. ‘Zur Typologie der Alphabetschriften. Das Deutsche und die Reform seiner Orthographie’, in Lang, Ewald and Zifonun, Gisela (eds.), Deutsch – Typologisch. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 615–31Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter 2009. ‘Phonem und Graphem’, in Kunkel-Razum, Kathrin and Münzberg, Franziska (eds.), Die Grammatik, vol. 4. Mannheim/Vienna/Zurich: Dudenverlag, pp. 19–94Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter 2013. Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik, vol. 1: Das Wort. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler (4th ed.)Google Scholar
El Educador 1842, July 31, number 17, pp. 3–4Google Scholar
Elementarz dla dzieci wiejskich 1865. Saint Petersburg: Tipografii͡a Ivana BochkarevaGoogle Scholar
Elementarz dla dzieci wiejskich 1866. Warsaw: Drukarni͡a I͡Ana Kotti (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick and Larsen-Freeman, Diane (eds.) 2009. Language as a Complex Adaptive System. London: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Elmentaler, Michael 2003. Struktur und Wandel vormoderner Schreibsprachen. Berlin/New York: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmentaler, Michael 2011. ʻPrinzipien und Motive des Schreibens in vormoderner Zeitʼ, in Glaser, Elvira, Seiler, Annina and Waldispühl, Michelle (eds.), LautSchriftSprache. Beiträge zur vergleichenden historischen Graphematik. Zurich: Chronos, pp. 17–30Google Scholar
Elmentaler, Michael 2018. Historische Graphematik des Deutschen. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto VerlagGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan 2005. Sprachgeschichte von unten. Untersuchungen zum geschriebenen Alltagsdeutsch im 19. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: NiemeyerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan 2007. ‘A twofold view “from below”. New perspectives on language histories and language historiographies’, in Elspaß, Stephan, Langer, Nils, Scharloth, Joachim and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Germanic Language Histories ‘from Below’ (1700–2000) (Studia Linguistica Germanica 86). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan 2012a. ‘Wohin steuern Korpora die Historische Sprachwissenschaft? Überlegungen am Beispiel des “Neuhochdeutschen”’, in Maitz, Péter (ed.), Historische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 201–25Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan 2012b. ‘The use of private letters and diaries in sociolinguistic investigation’, in Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 156–69Google Scholar
Elspaß, Stephan, Langer, Nils, Scharloth, Joachim and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.) 2007. Germanic Language Histories ‘from Below’ (1700–2000) (Studia Linguistica Germanica 86). Berlin/Boston: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elti di Rodeano, Sveva 2019. ‘Digraphia: the story of a sociolinguistic term’, in Haralambous, Yannis (ed.), Graphemics in the 21st Century: Grafematik, Brest, June 13–15, 2018: Proceedings (Grapholinguistics and Its Applications 1). Brest: Fluxus Editions, pp. 111–26Google Scholar
Elyot, Thomas 1531. The Boke Named the Gouernour Deuised by Thomas Elyot Knight. London: In edibus Tho. BertheletiGoogle Scholar
Emiliano, António 2011. ‘Issues in the typographic representation of medieval primary sources’, in Kawaguchi, Yuji, Minegishi, Makoto and Viereck, Wolfgang (eds.), Corpus-Based Analysis and Diachronic Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 153–73Google Scholar
Encyclopedia Britannica, www.britannica.comGoogle Scholar
Engelbretsdatter, Dorothe 1699. Dorothe Engelbrets-Datters Aandelige Sang- og Taare-Offer. Copenhagen: Bekostet af H. Kong. Højh. Bogtr. Joachim Schmedtgen, https://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2019120928001Google Scholar
Ennis, Juan Antonio 2008. Decir la lengua: debates ideológico-lingüísticos en Argentina desde 1837. Frankfurt am Main: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Ephron, Henry D. 1961. ‘Mycenaean Greek: a lesson in cryptanalysis’, Minos 7: 63–100Google Scholar
Epigrafik-Datenbank Clauss-Slaby, www.manfredclauss.de/Google Scholar
ERRATAS (Orthography): Investigating the Orthographic Reliability of Historical Corpora 2016–19. Project members: Anni Sairio, Samuli Kaislaniemi, Anna Merikallio and Terttu Nevalainen. Funded by the Academy of Finland Digital Humanities Programme, https://blogs.helsinki.fi/stratas-project/subprojects/erratas/Google Scholar
Errington, J. Joseph 2001. ‘Colonial linguistics’, Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Errington, J. Joseph 2008. Linguistics in a Colonial World: A Story of Language, Meaning, and Power. Malden: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Escolano Benito, Agustín 2000. Tiempos y espacios para la escuela. Ensayos históricos. Madrid: Biblioteca NuevaGoogle Scholar
Esparza Torres, Miguel A. 2000. ‘Frühe grammatische Beschreibungen des Spanischen’, in Auroux, Sylvain, Koerner, Ernst F. K., Niederehe, Hans-Josef and Versteegh, Kees (eds.), History of the Language Sciences/Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften/Histoire des sciences du langage. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 749–55Google Scholar
Estarán Tolosa, M. José 2016. Epigrafía bilingüe del Occidente romano. El latín y las lenguas locales en las inscripciones bilingües y mixtas. Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias de ZaragozaGoogle Scholar
Esteve Serrano, Abraham 1982. Estudios de teoría ortográfica del Español. Murcia: Universidad de MurciaGoogle Scholar
Ethnologue, www.ethnologue.comGoogle Scholar
Evans, Arthur J. 1901. ‘Knossos: summary report of the excavations in 1900: the palace’, The Annual of the British Schools at Athens 6: 3–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Arthur J. 1909. Scripta Minoa: The Written Documents of Minoan Crete, with Special Reference to the Archives of Knossos. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Evans, John 1621. The Palace of Profitable Pleasure […]. London: W. StansbyGoogle Scholar
Evans, Mel 2012. ‘A sociolinguistics of early modern spelling? An account of Queen Elizabeth I’s correspondence’, in Tyrkkö, Jukka, Kilpiö, Matti, Nevalainen, Terttu and Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Outposts of Historical Corpus Linguistics: From the Helsinki Corpus to a Proliferation of Resources (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 10). Helsinki: VARIENG, https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/10/evans/Google Scholar
Evans, Mel 2013. The Language of Queen Elizabeth I: A Sociolinguistic Perspective on Royal Style and Identity. Chichester: Wiley/BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Evans, Mel 2020. Royal Voices: Language and Power in Tudor England. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Mel and Hogarth, Alan 2020. ‘Stylistic palimpsests: computational stylistic perspectives on precursory authorship in Aphra Behn’s drama’, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 36 (1): 64–86, https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqz085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Mel and Tagg, Caroline 2020. ‘Women’s spelling in Early Modern English: perspectives from new media’, in Condorelli, Marco (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evertz, Martin 2016. ‘Graphematischer Fuß und graphematisches Wort’, in Primus, Beatrice and Domahs, Ulrike (eds.), Laut – Gebärde – Buchstabe. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 377–97Google Scholar
Evertz, Martin 2018. Visual Prosody. The Graphematic Foot in English and German. Berlin/Boston: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evertz, Martin and Primus, Beatrice 2013. ‘The graphematic foot in English and German’, Writing System Research 5 (1): 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewald, Petra 2004. ʻDas morphematische Prinzip bei den Grammatikern des 18. Jahrhundertsʼ, Sprachwissenschaft 29: 75–132Google Scholar
Faber, Alice 1991. ‘Interpretation of orthographic forms’, in Baldi, Philip (ed.), Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 619–37Google Scholar
Faber, Alice 1992. ‘Phonemic segmentation as epiphenomenon’, in Downing, Pamela, Lima, Susan D. and Noonan, Michael (eds.), The Linguistics of Literacy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 111–34Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman 1992a. Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman 1992b. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
Fairman, Tony 2006. ‘Words in English record office documents of the early 1800s’, in Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats and Smitterberg, Erik (eds.), Nineteenth-Century English: Stability and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairman, Tony 2015. ‘Language in print and handwriting’, in Auer, Anita, Schreier, Daniel and Watts, Richard J. (eds.), Letter Writing and Language Change (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 53–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmer, Steve, Sproat, Richard and Witzel, Michael 2004. ‘The collapse of the Indus-script thesis: the myth of a literate Harappan civilization’, Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 11 (2): 9–57Google Scholar
Favriaud, Michel 2004. ‘Quelques éléments d’une théorie de la ponctuation blanche – par la poésie contemporaine’, L’information grammaticale 102 (1): 18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fayol, Michel and Jaffré, Jean-Pierre 2016. ‘L’orthographe: des systèmes aux usages’, Pratiques 169–70: 1–15, https://journals.openedition.org/pratiques/2984Google Scholar
Fazzioli, Edoardo 1986. Chinese Calligraphy. From Pictograph to Ideogram: The History of 214 Essential Chinese/Japanese Characters (calligraphy by Rebecca Hon Ko). New York: AbbevilleGoogle Scholar
Felder, Egon 2003. Die Personennamen auf den merowingischen Münzen der Bibliothèque nationale de France. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der WissenschaftenGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Laurie B. and Barac-Cikoja, Dragana 1996. ‘Serbo-Croatian: a biscriptal language’, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 769–72Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles 1994. ‘Dialect, register, and genre: working assumptions about conventionalization’, in Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Silvia 2015. ‘The beginnings of writing on Crete: theory and context’, Annual of the British School at Athens 110: 27–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fet, Jostein 1995. Lesande bønder. Litterær kultur i norske allmugesamfunn. Oslo: UniversitetsforlagetGoogle Scholar
Fet, Jostein 2003. Skrivande bønder. Skriftkultur på Nord-Vestlandet 1600–1850. Oslo: SamlagetGoogle Scholar
Fet, Jostein 2005. ‘Utfordringar og svar. Streiftog gjennom eit forskingsfelt’, in Døssland, Atle and Hjorthol, Geir (eds.), Lesande og skrivande bønder. Foredrag frå eit symposium. Volda: Høgskulen i Volda, pp. 13–31Google Scholar
Fidlerová, Alena A., Dittmann, Robert and Vladimírová, Veronika S. 2010. ‘Užívání velkých písmen v českých tištěných Biblích raného novověku’, in Čornejová, Michaela, Rychnovská, Lucie and Zemanová, Jana (eds.), Dějiny českého pravopisu (do r. 1902). Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference Dějiny českého pravopisu (do r. 1902). 23.–25. září 2010, Brno, Česká Republika. History of Czech Orthography (up to 1902). Proceedings of the International Conference History of Czech Orthography (up to 1902). 23.–25. September 2010, Brno, Czech Republic. Brno: Host, Masarykova univerzita, pp. 285–308Google Scholar
Fischer, Steven R. 2001. A History of Writing. London: Reaktion BooksGoogle Scholar
Fisher, John H. 1977. ‘Chancery English and the emergence of standard written English’, Speculum 50 (4): 870–99Google Scholar
Fisher, John H. 1996. The Emergence of Standard English. Lexington: University of Kentucky PressGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Matthew 2012. Scribal Authorship and the Writing of History in Medieval England. Columbus: The Ohio State University PressGoogle Scholar
Fishman, Joshua A. 1977. ‘Advances in the creation and revision of writing systems’, in Fishman, Joshua (ed.), Advances in the Creation and Revision of Writing Systems. The Hague: Mouton, pp. xi–xxviiiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, Joshua A. 2008. ‘Rethinking the Ausbau-Abstand dichotomy into a continuous and multivariate system’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 191: 17–26Google Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang 1966. Strukturelle Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Neuhochdeutschen. Berlin: Akademie-VerlagGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang 1969. ʻDie Entwicklung des neuhochdeutschen Graphemsystemsʼ, in Agricola, Erhard, Fleischer, Wolfgang and Protze, Helmut (eds.), Kleine Enzyklopädie. Die deutsche Sprache. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut, pp. 228–34Google Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang 1970. Untersuchungen zur Geschäftssprache des 16. Jahrhunderts in Dresden. Berlin: Akademie-VerlagGoogle Scholar
Flores, Nelson and Rosa, Jonathan 2015. ‘Undoing appropriateness: raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education’, Harvard Educational Review 85 (2): 149–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortson IV, Benjamin W. 2020. ‘An overlooked usage of apices an I longae? Notes on CIL VI 2080’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 214: 67–79Google Scholar
Fortson IV, Benjamin W. and Weiss, Michael 2019. ‘Oscan Kúnsíf Deívúz and the Di Consentes ’, Classical Philology 114 (4): 637–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouché, Pierre 1959. Traité de prononciation française. Paris: Klincksiek (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Fowkes, Robert A. 1964. ‘The linguistic modernity of Jakob Grimm’, Linguistics 2 (8): 56–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Roger 1986. Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Foxvog, Daniel A. 2014. Introduction to Sumerian Grammar. CreateSpace Independent Publishing PlatformGoogle Scholar
Frago Gracia, Juan A. 1999. Historia del español de América: Textos y contextos. Madrid: GredosGoogle Scholar
Francis, W. Nelson 1958. The Structure of American English. New York: The Ronald Press CompanyGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Simon 2002. Writing, Society and Culture in Early Rus, c. 950–1300. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Simon 2019. The Russian Graphosphere, 1450–1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frawley, William, Hill, Kenneth C. and Munro, Pamela 2002. ‘Making a dictionary: ten issues’, in Frawley, William, Hill, Kenneth C. and Munro, Pamela (eds.), Making Dictionaries. Preserving Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 1–22Google Scholar
Friedlieb, Timotheus (i.e. Gesenius, Justus) 1669. Erörterung der Frage: Warumb wilt du nicht Römisch=Catholisch werden/wie deine Vorfahren waren? s.l. [Hanover] (VD17 3: 003742Z)Google Scholar
Fries, Dagmar 1989. ‘Limpia, Fija y da Esplendor’: La Real Academia Española ante el Uso de la Lengua. Madrid: Sociedad General Española de Librería, S. A.Google Scholar
Fritz, Clemens W. A 2010. ‘A short history of Australian spelling’, Australian Journal of Linguistics 30 (2): 227–81, https://doi.org/10.1080/07268601003678635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, Ram and Katz, Leonard (eds.) 1992. Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning. London: North-Holland (Elsevier Science Publisher)Google Scholar
Frost, Ram, Katz, Leonard and Bentin, Shlomo 1987. ‘Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: a multilingual comparison’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 13 (1): 104–15Google ScholarPubMed
Fuhrhop, Nanna 2008. ‘Das graphematische Wort (im Deutschen): Eine erste Annäherung’, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27: 189–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna 2018. ‘Graphematik des Deutschen im europäischen Vergleich’, in Wöllstein, Angelika, Gallmann, Peter, Habermann, Mechthild and Krifka, Manfred (eds.), Grammatiktheorie und Empirie in der germanistischen Linguistik. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 587–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna and Buchmann, Franziska 2009. ‘Die Längenhierarchie. Zum Bau der graphematischen Silbe’, Linguistische Berichte 218: 127–55Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna and Buchmann, Franziska 2011. ‘Buchstabenformen und ihre Relevanz für eine Schriftgrammatik. Erwiderung auf einige Thesen von Oliver Rezec’, Linguistische Berichte 225: 77–88Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna and Buchmann, Franziska 2016. ‘Graphematische Silbe’, in Primus, Beatrice and Domahs, Ulrike (eds.), Laut – Gebärde – Buchstabe. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 356–76Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna, Buchmann, Franziska and Berg, Kristian 2011. ‘The length hierarchy and the graphematic syllable: evidence from German and English’, Written Language and Literacy 14 (2): 275–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrhop, Nanna and Peters, Jörg 2013. Einführung in die Phonologie und Graphematik. Stuttgart/Weimar: J. B. MetzlerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulk, Robert D. 2003. ‘On argumentation in Old English philology, with particular reference to the editing and dating of Beowulf ’, Anglo-Saxon England 32: 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulk, Robert D. 2010. ‘Localising and dating Old English anonymous prose, and how its inherent problems relate to Anglo-Saxon legislation’, in Jurasinski, Stefan, Oliver, Lisi and Rabin, Andrew (eds.), English Law before Magna Carta: Felix Liebermann and Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen. Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 59–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulk, Robert D. 2012. ‘Anglian features in Late-West-Saxon prose’, in Denison, David, Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo, McCully, Chris and Moore, Emma (eds.), Analysing Older English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 63–74Google Scholar
Fulk, Robert D. 2016. ‘Philological methods’, in Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulk, Robert D. and Cain, Christopher M. 2013. A History of Old English Literature. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell (2nd ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadd, Ian A. 1999 ‘“Being like a field”: corporate identity in the Stationers’ Company 1557–1684’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
Gager, John G. 1992. Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World. New York: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, Susan 2018. ‘Visions and revisions of minority languages: standardization and its dilemmas’, in Lane, Pia, Costa, James and Haley, De Korne (eds.), Standardizing Minority Languages. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 222–42Google Scholar
Gal, Susan and Woolard, Kathryn 2014 [2001a]. ‘Constructing languages and publics: authority and representation’, in Gal, Susan and Woolard, Kathryn (eds.), Languages and Publics: The Making of Authority, 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, Susan and Woolard, Kathryn (eds.) 2001b. Language and Publics. The Making of Authority. London/York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Galdo Guzmán, Diego 1890 [1642]. Arte mexicano. Mexico City: Museo Nacional de MéxicoGoogle Scholar
Gallmann, Peter 1985. Graphische Elemente der geschriebenen Sprache. Grundlagen für eine Reform der Orthographie (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 60). Tübingen: Niemeyer, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111630380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallmann, Peter 1986. ‘The graphic elements of German written language’, in Augst, Gerhard (ed.), New Trends in Graphemics and Orthography. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 43–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gameson, Richard 2011. ‘Anglo-Saxon scribes and scriptoria’, in Gameson, Richard (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol. 1: c. 400–1100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 94–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garborg, Hulda 1896. “Rationelt Fjøsstell”. En Komedie-Akt. Kristiania: Feilberg and LandmarkGoogle Scholar
García, Ofelia 2011. ‘Planning Spanish: nationalizing, minoritizing and globalizing performances’, in Díaz-Campos, Manuel (ed.), The Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 665–85Google Scholar
Garrido Vílchez, Gema B. 2012. ‘De la Gramática al Epítome : la Real Academia Española ante la enseñanza gramatical. El caso de 1857’, Revista argentina de historiografía lingüística 4 (2): 101–15Google Scholar
Garrison, Randy, Anderson, Terry and Walter, Archer 2000. ‘Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education’, The Internet and Higher Education 2 (2–3): 87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garside, Roger 1987. ‘The CLAWS Word-tagging System’, in Garside, Roger, Leech, Geoffrey and Sampson, Geoffrey (eds.), The Computational Analysis of English: A Corpus-Based Approach. London: Longman, pp. 30–41Google Scholar
Garside, Roger and Smith, Nicholas 1997. ‘A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4’, in Garside, Roger, Lech, Geoffrey and McEnery, Anthony (eds.), Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. London: Longman, pp. 102–21, https://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/claws/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gažáková, Zuzana 2014. ‘Some remarks on aljamiado literature and the use of arebica in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, in den Heijer, Johannes, Schmidt, Andrea and Pataridze, Tamara (eds.), Scripts beyond Borders. A Survey of Allographic Traditions in the Euro-Mediterranean World. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 453–71Google Scholar
Geerts, Guido, Jef, van den Broek and Verdoodt, Albert. 1977. ‘Successes and failures in Dutch spelling reform’, in Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.), Advances in the Creation and Revision of Writing Systems. The Hague/Paris: Mouton, pp. 179–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geirnaert, Noël 1994. ‘Boeken in het middeleeuwse Brugge: een verhaal van eeuwen’, Vlaanderen 43: 121–24Google Scholar
Gelb, Ignace J. 1952. A Study of Writing. Chicago: Chicago University PressGoogle Scholar
Gelb, Ignace J. 1963. A Study of Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Gelb, Ignace J. 1969. A Study of Writing. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press (reprint)Google Scholar
Gelumbeckaitė, Jolanta (ed.) 2008. Die litauische Wolfenbütteler Postille von 1573. Kritische kommentierte Edition der Handschrift 1: Kritische Edition und textkritischer Apparat (Lithuanian Sermons of Wolfenbüttel of 1573. Critical Commented Edition and Critical Apparatus). Wiesbaden: HarrassowitzGoogle Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1992. ‘The limits of phonological derivation: spelling pronunciations and schwa in English’, Linguistische Berichte 142: 413–36Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz J. 1999. ‘Phonology and the literate speaker: orthography in Lexical Phonology’, in Giegerich, Heinz (ed.), Lexical Strata in English: Morphological Causes, Phonological Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gieysztor, Aleksander 2009. Zarys dziejów pisma łacińskiego. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Gil, Alexander 1619. Logonomia Anglica. Qua Gentis Sermo Facilius Addiscitur. London: John BealGoogle Scholar
Gil de Zárate, Antonio 1855. De la Instruccion pública en España, 3 vols. Madrid: Imprenta del Colegio de Sordo-MudosGoogle Scholar
Gillen, Julia and Hall, Nigel 2010. ‘Edwardian postcards: illuminating ordinary writing’, in Barton, David and Papen, Uta (eds.), The Anthropology of Writing: Understanding Textually Mediated Worlds. London/New York: Continuum, pp. 168–89Google Scholar
Gillespie, Vincent and Powell, Susan (eds.) 2014. A Companion to the Early Printed Book in Britain, 1476–1558. Cambridge: D. S. BrewerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillmann, Melitta 2018. ‘Das Semikolon als Kohäsionsmittel. Eine Korpusstudie in der überregionalen Pressesprache’, Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 46 (1): 65–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gippert, Jost 2013. ‘An outline of the history of Maldivian writing’, in Chen, Shu-Fen and Slade, Benjamin (eds.), Grammatica et Verba, Glamor and Verve: Studies in South Asian, Historical, and Indo-European Linguistics in Honor of Hans Henrich Hock on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, pp. 81–98Google Scholar
Gippius, Alekseĭ A. 2004. ‘K pragmatike i kommunikativnoĭ organizat͡sii beresti͡anykh gramot’, in I͡Anin, Valentin L., Zalizni͡ak, Andreĭ A and Gippius, Alekseĭ A (eds.), Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1997–2000 gg.), vol. 11. Moscow: Russkie slovari, pp.183–232Google Scholar
Gippius, Alekseĭ A. and Schaeken, Jos 2011. ‘On direct speech and referential perspective in Birchbark letters no. 5 from Tver’ and no. 286 from Novgorod’, Russian Linguistics 35: 13–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Elvira 1985. Graphische Studien zum Schreibsprachenwandel vom 13. bis 16. Jahrhundert: Vergleich verschiedener Handschriften des Augsburger Stadtbuches. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Elvira 1988. ‘Autonomie und phonologischer Bezug bei der Untersuchung älterer Schriftlichkeit’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 110: 313–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Elvira 1998. ʻDas Graphemsystem der Clara Hätzlerin im Kontext der Handschrift Heidelberg, Cpg. 677ʼ, in Ernst, Peter and Patocka, Franz (eds.), Deutsche Sprache in Raum und Zeit. Festschrift für Peter Wiesinger zum 60. Geburtstag. Vienna: Edition Praesens, pp. 479–94Google Scholar
Glasgow, University Library, Ferguson MS 7 (ff. 1r-20v, 23r–48v, 59r)Google Scholar
Glasgow, University Library, Hunter MS 5Google Scholar
Glasgow, University Library, Hunter MS 7Google Scholar
Glasgow, University Library, Hunter MS 95 (ff. 34r–239v)Google Scholar
Glasgow, University Library, Hunter MS 95 (ff. 1r–11v)Google Scholar
Glasgow, University Library, Hunter MS 135 (ff. 34r–121v)Google Scholar
Glasgow, University Library, Hunter MS 197Google Scholar
Glasgow, University Library, Hunter MS 328 (ff. 1r–68v)Google Scholar
Glasgow, University Library, Hunter MS 497 (ff. 1r–92r)Google Scholar
Glessgen, Martin-Dietrich 2012. ‘Trajectoires et perspectives en scriptologie romane’, Medioevo Romanzo 36 (1): 5–23Google Scholar
Glessgen, Martin-Dietrich, Kihaï, Dimitru and Videsott, Paul 2010. ‘L’élaboration philologique et linguistique des Plus anciens documents linguistiques de la France, édition électronique’, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes 158: 5–94Google Scholar
Glück, Helmut 2016. ‘Schrifsystem’, in Glück, Helmut and Rödel, Michael (eds.), Metzler Lexikon Sprache. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler Verlag, pp. 597–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Głuszkowski, Michał 2012. ‘Dwa języki – jedna tożsamość. Wierszyna – polska wieś na Syberii’, in Golachowska, Ewa and Zielińska, Anna (eds.), Konstrukcje i destrukcje tożsamości, vol. 2: Tożsamość wobec wielojęzyczności. Warsaw: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy, pp. 119–30Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. 2009. The Writing Revolution: Cuneiform to the Internet. Malden: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. 2011. ‘Syllables and syllabaries: what writing systems tell us about syllable structure’, in Cairns, Charles E. and Raimy, Eric (eds.), Handbook of the Syllable. Leiden/Boston: Brill, pp. 397–414Google Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. 2012. ‘Maldivian Thaana, Japanese kana, and the representation of moras in writing’, Writing Systems Research 4 (1): 91–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnanadesikan, Amalia E. 2017. ‘Towards a typology of phonemic scripts’, Writing Systems Research 9 (1): 14–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneuss, Helmut 1972. ‘The origin of standard Old English and Æthelwold’s school at Winchester’, Anglo-Saxon England 1: 63–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, Ives 1996. ‘Introduction’, in Goddard, Ives (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 17: Languages. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 1–16Google Scholar
Godoy, Lucía F. 2015. ‘La regulación ortográfica de la lengua castellana. Perspectiva Glotopolítica’, Exlibris 4: 472–82Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans 1975. ‘Qu’est-ce que la scriptologie?’, Medioevo romanzo 2: 3–43 (reprinted in ‘Le Rey est mort, vive le Roy : nouveaux regards sur la scriptologie’, Travaux de linguistique et de littérature 13 (1): 145–210)Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans 1995. ‘Französische Skriptaformen III. Normandie. Les scriptae françaises III. Normandie’, Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik 2 (2): 314–37Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PressGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Dena 2002. ‘L’ortografe des dames: gender and language in the old regime’, French Historical Studies 25 (2): 191–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Google Books, https://books.google.com/Google Scholar
Gordon, Arthur E. 1983. Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy. Berkeley: University of California PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Görlach, Manfred 1990. ‘The development of standard Englishes’, in Görlach, Manfred (ed.), Studies in the History of the English Language. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 9‒64Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Görlach, Manfred 1991. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (revised ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Görlach, Manfred 1999. ‘Regional and social variation’, in Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 3: 1476‒1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 459‒538Google Scholar
Gossen, Charles-Théodore 1967. Französische Skriptastudien. Untersuchungen zu den nordfranzösischen Urkundensprachen des Mittelalters, Vienna: Hermann BöhlausGoogle Scholar
Gossen, Charles-Théodore 1979. ‘Méditations scriptologiques’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 87: 263–83Google Scholar
Goswami, Usha 2006. ‘Orthography, phonology, and reading development: a cross-linguistic perspective’, in Malatesha Joshi, R. and Aaron, P. G. (eds.), Handbook of Orthography and Literacy. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 463–80Google Scholar
Gregory, Michael and Carroll, Susanne 1978. Language and Situation: Language Varieties and Their Social Contexts. London: Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Grenoble, Lenore A. and Bulatova, Nadezhda Ja. 2018. ‘Language standardization in the aftermath of the Soviet language empire’, in Lane, Pia, Costa, James and De Korne, Haley (eds.), Standardizing Minority Languages. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 118–34Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2013. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter (2nd ed., revised)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grigor´eva, Tat´i͡ana M. 2004. Tri veka russkoĭ orfografii (XVIII–XX vv.). Moscow: ĖlpisGoogle Scholar
Grigori͡an, Vartan R. 1980. Istorii͡a armi͡anskikh koloniĭ Ukrainy i Pol’shi (Armi͡ane v Podol’e). Yerevan: Izdatel’stvo AN Аrmi͡anskoĭ SSRGoogle Scholar
Grigoryan, Vartan R. and Pisovichʻ, Andrey 1964. ‘Hayataṛ leheren vaveragrerě ’, Banber Matenadarani 7: 225–36Google Scholar
Grimm, Christian 1991. Zum Mythos Individualstil. Mikrostilistische Untersuchungen zu Thomas Mann. Würzburg: Königshausen and NeumannGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Jacob 1822. Deutsche Grammatik, vol. 1. Göttingen: In der Dieterischschen Buchhandlung (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob 1864. ‘Über das pedantische in der deutschen sprache: Vorgelesen in der öffentlichen sitzung der akademie der wissenschaften am 21 october 1847’, in Kleinere Schriften, vol. 1. Berlin: Dümmler, pp. 328–55Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob and Grimm, Wilhelm 1854–1961. Deutsches Wörterbuch, 16 vols. Leipzig: HirzelGoogle Scholar
Grivelet, Stéphane 2001. ‘Digraphia in Mongolia’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 150: 75–93Google Scholar
Grot, I͡Akov K. 1885. Russkoe pravopisanīe […]. Saint Petersburg: Tipografīi͡a Imperatorskoĭ Akademīi Nauk" (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Gruaz, Claude 1990. Du signe au sens. Pour une grammaire homologique des composants du mot (Publications de l’Université de Rouen No 158). Mont-Saint-Aignan: Publications de l’Université de RouenGoogle Scholar
Gruijs, Albert 1972. ‘Codicology or the archaeology of the book? A false dilemma’, Quærendo 2 (2): 87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grund, Peter J. 2007. ‘From tongue to text: the transmission of the Salem witchcraft examination records’, American Speech 82 (2): 119–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grund, Peter J. 2011. ‘Scribes and scribal practices’, in Kytö, Merja, Grund, Peter J. and Walker, Terry (eds.), Testifying to Language and Life in Early Modern England. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 147–80Google Scholar
Grund, Peter J. 2014. ‘The “forgotten” language of Middle English alchemy: exploring alchemical lexis in the MED and the OED ’, Review of English Studies 65 (271): 575–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grund, Peter J., Hiltunen, Risto, Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, Kytö, Merja, Peikola, Matti and Rissanen, Matti 2009. ‘Linguistic introduction’, in Rosenthal, Bernard, Adams, Gretchen A., Burns, Margo, Grund, Peter J., Hiltunen, Risto, Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, Kytö, Merja, Peikola, Matti, Ray, Benjamin C., Rissanen, Matti, Roach, Marilynne K. and Trask, Richard B. (eds.), Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grund, Peter J., Peikola, Matti, Rastas, Johanna and Xin, Wen 2021. ‘The <u> and <v> alternation in the history of English: spelling dynamics in the handwritten legal documents from the Salem witch trials (1692)’, American Speech 96 (2): 127–60, https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-8661851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüter, Majana 2007. Die Entwicklung der englischen Groß- und Kleinschreibung in der frühen Neuzeit am Beispiel ausgewählter Texte. Osnabrück: Universität Osnabrück, https://repositorium.ub.uni-osnabrueck.de/handle/urn:nbn:de:gbv:700-201001305204Google Scholar
Grüter, Majana 2009. ‘Optimalitätstheoretische Modellierung von Groß- und Kleinschreibung: eine Beispielanalyse englischer Texte um 1730’, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28 (2): 203–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzega, Joachim 2012. ‘Lexical-semantic variables’, in Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 270–92Google Scholar
Guerini, Federica 2018. ‘Orthography as an identity marker: the case of bilingual road signs in the province of Bergamo’, in Beeching, Kate, Ghezzi, Chiara and Molinelli, Piera (eds.), Positioning the Self and Others: Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 263–83Google Scholar
Guerini, Federica 2019. ‘Orthography and graphemics’, in Darquennes, Jeroen, Salmons, Joseph C. and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Language Contact: An International Handbook, vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 76–88Google Scholar
Guerra, Juan 1692. Arte de la lengua mexicana, segun la acostumbran a hablar los indios en todo el obispado de Guadalaxara, parte del de Guadiana y del de Mechoacan. Mexico City: Viuda de Francisco Rodríguez LupercioGoogle Scholar
Guerreau-Jalabert, Anita 1982. Abbo Floriacensis: Quaestiones grammaticales. Paris: Les Belles LettresGoogle Scholar
Gundersen, Trygve R. 2005. ‘Meningens håndarbeidere. Skrift, materialitet og kommunikasjon i Jostein Fets Skrivande bønder’, in Døssland, Atle and Hjorthol, Geir (eds.), Lesande og skrivande bønder. Foredrag frå eit symposium. Volda: Høgskulen i Volda, pp. 123–44Google Scholar
Günther, Hartmut 1988. Schriftliche Sprache. Strukturen geschriebener Wörter und ihre Verarbeitung beim Lesen (Konzepte der Sprach- und Literatur- wissenschaft 40). Tübingen: Niemeyer, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110935851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günther, Hartmut 1990. ‘Typographie, Orthographie, Graphetik. Überlegungen zu einem Buch von Otl Aicher’, in Stetter, Christian (ed.), Zu einer Theorie der Orthographie. Interdisziplinäre Aspekte gegenwärtiger. Schrift- und Orthographieforschung (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 99). Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 90–104, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111372280.90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günther, Hartmut and Ludwig, Otto (eds.) 1994–96. Schrift und Schriftlichkeit/Writing and Its Use. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung/An Interdisciplinary Handbook of International Research, 2 vols. Berlin/New York: DeGruyter MoutonGoogle Scholar
Guzmán Betancourt, Ignacio 2001. ‘La investigación lingüística en México durante el siglo XVII’, Dimensión Antropológica 21: 33–70Google Scholar
Gysseling, Maurits and Pijnenburg, Willy (compilers) 1977. Corpus van Middelnederlandse teksten (tot en met het jaar 1300) uitgegeven door M. Gysseling. M.m.v. en van woordindices voorzien door W. Pijnenburg. Reeks I: Ambtelijke bescheiden. The Hague: M. NijhoffGoogle Scholar
Haarmann, Harald 2006. ‘Language planning: graphization and the development of writing systems’, in Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert, Mattheier, Klaus J. and Trudgill, Peter J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, vol. 3. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 2402–20Google Scholar
Haas, Walter 1990. Jacob Grimm und die deutschen Mundarten (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beihefte 65). Stuttgart: Steiner-Verlag WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
Haas, William 1970. Phono-Graphic Translation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, William 1976. ‘Writing: the basic options’, in Haas, William (ed.), Writing without Letters. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 131–208Google Scholar
Haas, William 1983. ‘Determining the level of a script’, in Coulmas, Florian and Ehlich, Konrad (eds.), Writing in Focus. Berlin: Mouton, pp. 15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermann, Mechthild 1997. ‘Das sogenannte “Lutherische e”. Zum Streit um einen armen Buchstaben’, Sprachwissenschaft 22: 435–77Google Scholar
Habermann, Mechthild 2012. ‘Leichenpredigten des 17. Jahrhunderts im konfessionellen Kontext’, in Macha, Jürgen, Balbach, Anna-Maria and Horstkamp, Sarah (eds.), Konfession und Sprache in der Frühen Neuzeit. Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven. Münster: Waxmann, pp. 63–84Google Scholar
Hagland, Jan Ragnar 2011. ‘Literacy and trade in late medieval Norway’, Journal of Northern Studies 1: 29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagland, Jan Ragnar, Nesse, Agnete and Otnes, Hildegun. 2018. ‘Skriftkunne og språkmedium’, in Mæhlum, Brit (ed.), Praksis, vol. 3 of Sandøy, Helge and Nesse, Agnete (eds.), Norsk språkhistorie. Oslo: Novus, pp. 29–118Google Scholar
Hagland, Jan Ragnar and Page, Ray 1998. ʻRunica manuscripta and runic dating: the expansion of the younger fuþarkʼ, in Dybdahl, Audun and Hagland, Jan Ragnar (eds.), Innskrifter og datering – Dating Inscriptions. Trondheim: Tapir, pp. 55–71Google Scholar
Haile, Getatchew 1996. ‘Ethiopic writing’, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 569–76Google Scholar
Halasz, Alexandra 1997. The Marketplace of Print: Pamphlets and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Robert A., Jr. 1950. Leave Your Language Alone. Ithaca: LinguisticaGoogle Scholar
Hall, Robert A. 1960. ‘A theory of graphemics’, Acta Linguistica, 8 (1): 13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Robert A. 1961. Sound and Spelling in English. Philadelphia: Chilton BooksGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1975. Learning How to Mean. London: Edward ArnoldCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward ArnoldGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward ArnoldGoogle Scholar
Haładewicz-Grzelak, Małgorzata 2014. ‘Neogrammarian Ferdinand: a natural hermeneutics of Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes, Acta Neophilologica 14 (1): 27–40Google Scholar
Hämäläinen, Mika, Säily, Tanja, Rueter, Jack, Tiedemann, Jörg and Mäkelä, Eetu 2018. ‘Normalizing early English letters to present-day English spelling’, in Alex, Beatrice, Degaetano-Ortlieb, Stefania, Feldman, Anna, Kazantseva, Anna, Reiter, Nils and Szpakowicz, Stan (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature (LaTeCH-CLfL-2018). Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 87–96Google Scholar
Hämäläinen, Mika, Säily, Tanja, Rueter, Jack, Tiedemann, Jörg and Mäkelä, Eetu 2019. ‘Revisiting NMT for normalization of early English letters’, in Alex, Beatrice, Degaetano-Ortlieb, Stefania, Kazantseva, Anna, Reiter, Nils and Szpakowicz, Stan (eds.), Proceedings of the Third Joint SIGHUM Workshop on Computational Linguistics for Cultural Heritage, Social Sciences, Humanities and Literature (LaTeCH-CLfL-2019. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics), pp. 71–75Google Scholar
Hammarström, Göran 1981 [1964]. ‘Type and typeme, graph and grapheme’, in Ruszkiewicz, Piotr (ed.), Graphophonemics: A Book of Readings. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, pp. 89–99Google Scholar
Hansen, Maurits 1822. Forsøg til en Grammatik i Modersmaalet. ChristianiaGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maurits 1828. Grammatik i det norske og danske Sprog. ChristianiaGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maurits 1833. Norsk Grammatik. ChristianiaGoogle Scholar
Haralambous, Yannis 2020. ‘Grapholinguistics, TeX, and a June 2020 conference in Paris’, TUGboat 41 (1): 12–19, https://tug.org/TUGboat/tb41-1/tb127haralambous-grapholinguistics.pdfGoogle Scholar
Haralambous, Yannis (ed.) 2019. Graphemics in the 21st Century: Grafematik, Brest, June 13–15, 2018: Proceedings (Grapholinguistics and Its Applications 1). Brest: Fluxus Editions, http://fluxus-editions.fr/gla1.phpGoogle Scholar
Haralambous, Yannis (ed.) 2021. Grapholinguistics in the 21st Century, Paris, June 17–19, 2020. Proceedings(Grapholinguistics and Its Applications 4). Brest: Fluxus Editions, www.fluxus-editions.fr/grafematik2020-proceedingsI.pdfGoogle Scholar
Haralambous, Yannis and Dürst, Martin 2019. ‘Unicode from a linguistic point of view’, in Haralambous, Yannis (ed.), Graphemics in the 21st Century: Grafematik, Brest, June 13–15, 2018: Proceedings (Grapholinguistics and Its Applications 1). Brest: Fluxus Editions, pp. 167–83, https://doi.org/10.36824/2018-graf-hara1Google Scholar
Haring, Ben 2015. ‘Halaḥam on an ostracon of the Early New Kingdom?’, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74: 189–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harpham, Geoffrey G. 2009. ‘Roots, races, and the return to philology’, Representations 106 (1): 35–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrauer, Hermann 2010. Handbuch der Griechischen Paläographie. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann VerlagGoogle Scholar
Harris, Roy 1981. ‘Scriptism’, in Harris, Roy (ed.), The Language Makers. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 6–16Google Scholar
Harris, Roy 1986. The Origin of Writing. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar
Harris, Roy 1995. Signs of Writing. London/New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Harris, Roy 2003. Rethinking Writing. London/New York: ContinuumGoogle Scholar
Harris, Roy 2009. ‘Speech and writing’, in Olson, David R. and Torrance, Nancy (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 46–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, K. David, Lillehaugen, Brook Danielle, Fahringer, Jeremy and Lopez, Felipe H. 2019. ‘Zapotec language activism and talking dictionaries’, in Kosem, Iztok and Krek, Simon (eds.), Electronic Lexicography in the 21st Century (Elex 2019): Proceedings of the Elex 2019 Conference, 1–3 October, 2019, Sintra, Portugal. Brno: Lexical Computing CZ s.r.o., pp. 31–50, https://elex.link/elex2019/proceedings-download/Google Scholar
Hart, John 1569. An Orthographie, conteyning the due order and reason, howe to write or paint thimage of mannes voice, most like to the life or nature. Composed by I. H. Chester Heralt. London: William SeresGoogle Scholar
Hart, John 1955 [1569]. An Orthographie, in Danielsson, Bror (ed. and trans.), John Hart’s Works on English Orthography and Pronunciation [1551. 1569. 1576], 2 vols. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, pp. 165–228Google Scholar
Hartman, George 1696. The Family Physitian, or a Collection of Choice, Approv’d and Experience’d Remedies, for the Cure of Almost All Diseases Incident to Humane Bodies, whether Internal or External. London: Richard WellingtonGoogle Scholar
Harvey, Anthony 2011. ‘Reading the genetic code of early medieval Celtic orthography’, in Glaser, Elvira, Seiler, Annina and Waldispühl, Michelle (eds.), LautSchriftSprache: Beiträge zur vergleichenden historischen Graphematik. Zurich: Chronos, pp. 155–66Google Scholar
Haß, Ulrike 2019. ‘The Germanic languages other than English from c. 1700’, in Considine, John (ed.), The Cambridge World History of Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 460–83Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar 1950. The First Grammatical Treatise: The Earliest Germanic Philology (Language Monograph 25), Language 26 (4): 4–64Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar 1953. The Norwegian Language in America. A Study in Bilingual Behavior I. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PressGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar 1961. ‘Language planning in modern Norway’, Scandinavian Studies 33 (2): 68–81Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar 1966a. Language Conflict and Language Planning: The Case of Modern Norwegian, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar 1966b. ‘Semicommunication: the language gap in Scandinavia’, Sociological Inquiry 36 (2): 280–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar 1966c. ‘Dialect, language, nation’, American Anthropologist 68 (4): 922–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Einar 1987. ‘Language planning’, in Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert, Mattheier, Klaus J. and Trudgill, Peter J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics, vol. 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 626–37Google Scholar
Haugen, Odd E. (ed.) 2013. ‘Dealing with glyphs and characters. Challenges in encoding medieval scripts’, Document numérique 16 (3): 97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugen, Odd E. 2018. ‘Høgmellomalderen 1050–1350’, in Nesse, Agnete (ed.) Tidslinjer, vol. 4 of Sandøy, Helge and Nesse, Agnete (eds.), Norsk språkhistorie. Oslo: Novus, pp. 197–292Google Scholar
Haukland, Linda 2014. ‘Hans Nielsen Hauge: a catalyst of literacy in Norway’, Scandinavian Journal of History 39 (5): 539–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havelock, Eric 1999. ‘The Greek legacy’, in Crowley, David and Heyer, Paul (eds.), Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society. New York: Longman, pp. 54–60 (3rd ed.)Google Scholar
Havinga, Anna D. 2018. Invisibilising Austrian German: On the Effect of Linguistic Prescriptions and Educational Reforms on Writing Practices in 18th-Century Austria, vol. 18. Berlin/Boston: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havinga, Anna D. and Langer, Nils (eds.) 2015. Invisible Languages in the Nineteenth Century. Bern: Peter LangCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healey, John F. 1990. ‘The early alphabet’, in Hooker, James T. (ed.), Reading the Past: Ancient Writing from Cuneiform to the Alphabet. New York: Barnes and Noble, pp. 197–257Google Scholar
Hebda, Anna 2012. ‘Phonological variables’, in Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 237–57Google Scholar
Hector, Leonard C. 1958. The Handwriting of English Documents. London: Edward ArnoldGoogle Scholar
Hector, Leonard C. 1966 [1958]. The Handwriting of English Documents. Ilkley: Scholar Press (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Heikkonen, Kirsi 1996. ‘Regional variation in standardization: a case study of Henry V’s Signet Office’, in Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language History: Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 111–27Google Scholar
Heimann, David and Kay, Richard 1982. ‘Preface’, in Capellli, Adriano, The Elements of Abbreviation in Medieval Latin Paleography (trans. by David Heimann and Richard Kay). Lawrence: University of Kansas Libraries, pp. i–ivGoogle Scholar
Hellinga, Lotte 1991. ‘Importation of books printed on the Continent into England and Scotland before c. 1520’, in: Hindman, Sandra (ed.), Printing the Written Word: The Social History of Books, circa 1450‒1520. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press, pp. 205–24Google Scholar
Hellinga, Lotte 1999. ‘Printing’, in Hellinga, Lotte and Trapp, Joseph B. (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol. 3: 1400–1557. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 65–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellinga, Lotte 2014. Texts in Transit: Manuscript to Proof and Print in the Fifteenth Century. Leiden: BrillCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellinga, Lotte and Trapp, Joseph B. 1999. ‘Introduction’, in Hellinga, Lotte and Trapp, Joseph B. (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol. 3: 1400–1557. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemming, T. D. 1993. ‘Authority and orthography’, in Sampson, Rodney (ed.), Authority and the French Language. Papers from a Conference at the University of Bristol. Münster: Nodus Publikationen, pp. 75–85Google Scholar
Henderson, Leslie 1982. Orthography and Word Recognition in Reading. London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Leslie 1985. ‘On the use of the term “grapheme”’, Language and Cognitive Processes 1 (2): 135–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, Pepijn 2014. Innovation in Tradition. Tonnies Fonne’s Russian-German Phrasebook (Pskov, 1607). Amsterdam/New York: RodopiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henri, France and Pudelko, Béatrice 2003. ‘Understanding and analysing activity and learning in virtual communities’, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19: 474–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel 2015. Sociolinguistic Styles (Language in Society). Malden: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel 2016a. Sociolinguistic Styles. Malden: Wiley-BlackwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel 2016b. ‘Authorship and gender in English historical sociolinguistic research: samples from the Paston Letters’, in Russi, Cinzia (ed.), Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Warsaw/Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 108–42, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110488401-009Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo 1999. ‘The social diffusion of linguistic innovations in 15th century England: Chancery spellings in private correspondence’, Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa 8: 251–74Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo 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): 101–34Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.) 2012. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-BlackwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.) 2014. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell (paperback ed.)Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel, Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo and García-Vidal, Tamara 2019. ‘Tracing patterns of intra-speaker variation in early English correspondence: a change from above in the Paston Letters ’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 54 (1): 287–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and García-Vidal, Tamara 2018a. ‘Persona management and identity projection in English medieval society: evidence from John Paston II’, Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 4 (1): 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and García-Vidal, Tamara 2018b. ‘Style-shifting and accommodative competence in Late Middle English written correspondence: putting audience design to the test of time’, Folia Linguistica Historica 39 (2): 383–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Schilling, Natalie 2012. ‘The application of the quantitative paradigm to historical sociolinguistics: problems with the generalizability principle’, in Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrick, Earl M. 1975. Letters with alternative basic shapes. Visible Language 9 (2): 133–44Google Scholar
Hidalgo, Margarita 2001. ‘Sociolinguistic stratification in New Spain’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 149: 55–78Google Scholar
Hill, Archibald A. 1967. ‘The typology of writing systems’, in Austin, William M. (ed.), Papers in Linguistics in Honor of Leon Dostert. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto and Peikola, Matti 2007. ‘Trial discourse and manuscript context: scribal profiles in the Salem witchcraft records’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8 (1): 43–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars 2012. ‘How to spell the vernacular: a multivariate study of Jamaican emails and blogs’, in Jaffe, Alexandra M., Androutsopoulos, Jannis K., Sebba, Mark and Johnson, Sally A. (eds.), Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power (Language and Social Processes 3). Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 325–58Google Scholar
Hinton, Leanne 2014. ‘Orthography wars’, in Cahill, Michael and Rice, Keren (eds.), Developing Orthographies for Unwritten Languages. Dallas: SIL International Publications, pp. 139–68Google Scholar
Historical Sociolinguistics Network (HiSoN), https://hison.org/Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis 1961. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Madison: The University of Wisconsin PressGoogle Scholar
Hladký, Josef 1985a. ‘Notes on the history of word division in English’, Brno Studies in English 16: 73–83Google Scholar
Hladký, Josef 1985b. ‘Word division in Caxton and Dryden’, Philologica Pragensia 28: 135–41Google Scholar
Hladký, Josef 1987. ‘Word division and syllabification in English’, Brno Studies in English 17: 123–30Google Scholar
Hobsbawm, Eric J. 1992. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press (2nd ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1951. Review of Nationalism and Language Reform in China by John DeFrancis, Language 27 (3): 439–45, https://doi.org/10.2307/409788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: MacmillanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, Richard 1644. A Special Help to Orthographie […]. London: Richard CotesGoogle Scholar
Hodges, Richard 1649. The Plainest Directions for the True-Writing of English […]. London: William Dugard for Thomas EusterGoogle Scholar
Hodges, Richard 1653. Most Plain Directions for True-Writing […]. London: William DugardGoogle Scholar
Hoel, Oddmund L. 2018. ‘Unionstida med Sverige 1814–1905’, in Nesse, Agnete (ed.), Tidslinjer, vol. 4 of Sandøy, Helge and Nesse, Agnete (eds.), Norsk språkhistorie. Oslo: Novus, pp. 425–502Google Scholar
Hoffman, A. Robin 2017. ‘The means and end(s) of spelling reform in the Victorian press’, Victorian Periodicals Review 50 (4): 737–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. 1992a. A Grammar of Old English, vol. 1: Phonology. Chichester: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. 1992b. ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Hogg, Richard M. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 1: The Beginnings to 1066. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 67–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. 2006. ‘Old English dialectology’, in Kemenade, Ans van and Los, Bettelou (eds.), The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 395–416Google Scholar
Holmberg, Börje 1956. James Douglas on English Pronunciation, c. 1740. Lund: GleerupGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet and Meyerhoff, Miriam 1999. ‘The community of practice: theories and methodologies in language and gender research’, Language in Society 28: 173–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtus, Günter, Metzeltin, Michael and Schmitt, Christian (eds.) 1995. Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik (LRL), vol. 2, 2: Die einzelnen romanischen Sprachen und Sprachgebiete vom Mittelalter bis zur Renaissance. Tübingen: Niemeyer, Französische Skriptaformen I–VII, Frankoprovenzalische Skriptae, pp. 289–405; Okzitanische Skriptaformen, pp. 405–66; Katalanische Skriptae, pp. 486–512; Aragonese und Navarresische Skriptae, pp. 512–27; Das Altkastilische in seinen Texten, pp. 537–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honkapohja, Alpo 2013. ‘Manuscript abbreviations in Latin and English: history, typologies and how to tackle them in encoding’, in Meurman-Solin, Anneli and Tyrkkö, Jukka (eds.), Principles and Practices for the Digital Editing and Annotation of Diachronic Data (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 14). Helsinki: VARIENG, https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/14/honkapohja/Google Scholar
Honkapohja, Alpo 2017. ‘“Latin in recipes?” A corpus approach to scribal abbreviations in 15th-century medical manuscripts’, in Pahta, Päivi, Skaffari, Janne and Wright, Laura (eds.), Multilingual Practices in Language History: New Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 243–71Google Scholar
Honkapohja, Alpo 2019. ‘Anchorites and abbreviations: a corpus study of abbreviations of romance and Germanic lexicon in the Ancrene Wisse’, in Stenroos, Merja, Mäkinen, Martti, Thengs, Kjetil V. and Traxel, Oliver M. (eds.), Current Explorations in Middle English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 35–64Google Scholar
Honkapohja, Alpo and Liira, Aino 2020. ‘Abbreviations and standardisation in the Polychronicon: Latin to English, and manuscript to print’, in Wright, Laura (ed.), The Multilingual Origins of Standard English. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 269–316Google Scholar
Hooker, James T. 1980. Linear B: An Introduction. Bristol: Bristol Classical PressGoogle Scholar
Hope, Jonathan 2000. ‘Rats, bats, sparrows, and dogs: biology, linguistics, and the nature of standard English’, in Wright, Laura (ed.), The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts (Studies in English Language). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horley, Paul 2009. ‘Rongorongo script: carving techniques and scribal corrections’, Journal de la Société des Océanistes 129: 249–61Google Scholar
Horn, Wilhelm and Lehnert, Martin 1954. Laut und Leben: englische Lautgeschichte der neueren Zeit (1400–1950). Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der WissenschaftenGoogle Scholar
Horobin, Simon 2001. ‘The language of the fifteenth-century printed editions of The Canterbury Tales’, Anglia 119 (2): 249–58Google Scholar
Horobin, Simon 2003. The Language of the Chaucer Tradition. Cambridge: D. S. BrewerGoogle Scholar
Horobin, Simon 2011. ‘Mapping the words’, in Gillespie, Alexandra and Wakelin, Daniel (eds.), The Production of Books in England 1350–1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horobin, Simon 2013a. Chaucer’s Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (2nd ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horobin, Simon 2013b. Does Spelling Matter? Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Horobin, Simon 2016. ‘The etymological inputs into English spelling’, in Cook, Vivian and Ryan, Des (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 113–24Google Scholar
Horsley, Greg H. R. and Waterhouse, Elisabeth R. 1984. ‘The Greek nomen sacrum XP- in some Latin and Old English manuscripts’, Scriptorium 38 (2): 211–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horstbøll, Henrik 2005. ‘Bogmarkedet og læserevolutionen i Danmark-Norge i det lange 18. århundrede’, in Døssland, Arne and Hjorthol, Geir (eds.), Lesande og skrivande bønder. Foredrag frå eit symposium. Volda: Høgskulen i Volda, pp. 55–73Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1948. ‘Balm, calm, palm’, American Speech 23 (2): 155–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1964. ‘A morphophonemic question and a spelling rule’, in Bennett, Emmett L. (ed.), Mycenaean Studies: Proceedings of the Third International Colloquium for Mycenaean Studies Held at ‘Wingspread’ 4–8 September 1961. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 71–76Google Scholar
Householder, Fred W. 1969. Review of Language and Its Structure: Some Fundamental Linguistic Concepts by Ronald W. Langacker, Language 45 (4): 886–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houston, Stephen D. 1994. ‘Literacy among the pre-Columbian Maya: a comparative perspective’, in Boone, Elizabeth Hill and Mignolo, Walter D. (eds.), Writing without Words: Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 27–49Google Scholar
Houston, Stephen D. 2004. ‘Writing in early Mesoamerica’, in Houston, Stephen D. (ed.), The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 274–309Google Scholar
Howard-Hill, Trevor H. 2006. ‘Early modern printers and the standardization of English spelling’, The Modern Language Review 101 (1): 16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubacek, Svern-Erik 1996. ‘Die Landsmaalbewegung in Bergen von den Anfängen bis sum Tode Henrik Krohns 1879’, vol. 1. Doctoral dissertation, University of Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
Huloet, Richard 1552. Abcedarium anglico latinum […]. London: William RiddelGoogle Scholar
Huloet, Richard and Higgins, John 1572. Huloets Dictionarie […]. London: Thomas MarshGoogle Scholar
Hume, Alexander 1617. Of the Orthographie and Congruitie of the Britan Tongue […]. London: Tübner and Co.Google Scholar
Hume, Alexander 1865 [1617]. Of the Orthographie and Congruitie of the Britan Tongue: A Treates, noe shorter then necessarie for the Schooles. London: Trübner, www.gutenberg.org/files/17000/17000-h/17000-h.htmGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne 2015. ‘Heterogeneity vs. homogeneity’, in Auer, Anita, Schreier, Daniel and Watts, Richard J. (eds.), Letter Writing and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 72–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, Dirk 2003. ‘“Jedes Volk schreibt seine Sprache mit seinen eigenen Buchstaben”: Der altisländische Erste Grammatische Traktat und sein Entwurf eines orthographischen Standards’, in Goyens, Michèle and Verbeke, Werner (eds.), The Dawn of the Written Vernacular in Western Europe. Leuven: Leuven University Press, pp. 441–61Google Scholar
International Short Title Catalogue (ISTC), https://data.cerl.org/istc/_searchGoogle Scholar
Iqbal, Farkhund, Hadjidj, Rachid, Fung, Benjamin C. M. and Debbabi, Mourad 2008. ‘A novel approach of mining write-prints for authorship attribution in e-mail forensics’, Digital Investigation 5 (September): 42–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2008.05.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, Judith and Gal, Susan 2000. ‘Language ideologies and linguistic differentiation’, in Kroskrity, Paul V. (ed.), Regimes of Language. Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, pp. 35–84Google Scholar
Irvine, Martin 2006. The Making of Textual Culture: ‘Grammatica’ and Literary Theory 350–1100. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Ivan Łuckievič’s kitab (KL), MS from the eighteenth century; photocopy in Miškinienė, Galina, Namavičiūtė, Sigita, Pokrovskaja, Jekaterina and Durgut, Hüsein 2009. Ivano Luckevičiaus kitabas: Lietuvos totorių kultūros paminklas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutasGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. and Salmons, Joseph C. 2007. ‘Domains and directionality in the evolution of German final fortition’, Phonology 24: 121–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivković, Dejan 2013. ‘Pragmatics meets ideology: digraphia and non-standard orthographic practices in Serbian online news forums’, Journal of Language and Politics 12 (2): 335–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivković, Dejan 2015a. ‘Jezički krajolik Srbije (prvi deo): percepcija prisustva ćirilice i latinice u javnoj sferi’, Antropologija 15 (2): 87–110Google Scholar
Ivković, Dejan 2015b. ‘Jezički krajolik Srbije (drugi deo): žanrovska digrafija i semiotizacija pisama’, Antropologija 15 (3): 69–99Google Scholar
Iyengar, Arvind 2021. ‘A diachronic analysis of Sindhi multiscriptality’, Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 7 (2): 207–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jack and the Bean-Stalk: A New Version, to which is added Little Jane and her Mother 1848. Boston: William J. ReynoldsGoogle Scholar
Jackson, MacDonald P. 2008. ‘The authorship of “A Lover’s Complaint”: a new approach to the problem’, Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 102 (3): 285–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Andreas and Jucker, Andreas H. 1995. ‘The historical perspective in pragmatics’, in Jucker, Andreas (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobsen, Henrik G. 2010. Ret og skrift. Officiel dansk retskrivning 1739–2005 Bind 1 Direktiver – Aktører – Normer. Odense: Syddansk universitetsforlagGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, Jeri J. 1984. ‘Assessing the psychological status of the Vowel Shift Rule’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 13: 13–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaffe, Alexandra M. 1996. ‘The second annual Corsican spelling contest: orthography and ideology’, American Ethnologist 23 (4): 816–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra M. 1999. Ideologies in Action: Language Politics on Corsica. Berlin: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra M. 2000a. Non-Standard Orthography, special issue of Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (4)Google Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra M. 2000b. ‘Introduction: non-standard orthography and non-standard speech’, in Jaffe, Alexandra M. (ed.), Non-Standard Orthography, special issue of Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (4), pp. 497–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra M. 2012. ‘Transcription in practice: nonstandard orthography’, in Jaffe, Alexandra M., Androutsopoulos, Jannis K., Sebba, Mark and Johnson, Sally A. (eds.), Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power (Language and Social Processes 3). Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 203–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra M., Androutsopoulos, Jannis K., Sebba, Mark and Johnson, Sally A. (eds.) 2012. Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power (Language and Social Processes 3). Boston/Berlin: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagić, Vatroslav 1913. Entstehungsgeschichte der kirchenslavischen Sprache. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Jahr, Ernst H. 1994. Utsyn over norsk språkhistorie etter 1814. Oslo: NovusGoogle Scholar
Jahr, Ernst H. 2014. Language Planning as a Sociolinguistic Experiment: The Case of Modern Norwegian. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar
Jahr, Ernst H., Nedrelid, Gudlaug and Nielsen, Marit A. 2016. Språkhistorieskriving og språkideologi. Oslo: NovusGoogle Scholar
Jajdelska, Elspeth 2007. Silent Reading and the Birth of the Narrator. Toronto: University of Toronto PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman 1960. ‘Closing statement: linguistics and poetics’, in Sebeok, Thomas Albert (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 350–77Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman 1962. Selected Writings. Berlin: MoutonGoogle Scholar
Jakubczyk, Marcin 2014a. ‘Polszczyzna grażdańska w słowniku carycy Katarzyny II’, Poradnik Językowy 2: 78–95Google Scholar
Jakubczyk, Marcin 2014b. ‘Słownik carycy Katarzyny Wielkiej w kontekście europejskich teorii językowych II połowy XVIII wieku i na tle tradycji leksykograficznej’, Poradnik Językowy 9: 64–77Google Scholar
Jamborová, Martina 2010. ‘Kvantita jako významový diferenciační činitel ve středověkém právnickém textu’, in Čornejová, Michaela, Rychnovská, Lucie and Zemanová, Jana (eds.), Dějiny českého pravopisu (do r. 1902). Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference Dějiny českého pravopisu (do r. 1902). 23.–25. září 2010, Brno, Česká Republika. History of Czech Orthography (up to 1902). Proceedings of the International Conference History of Czech Orthography (up to 1902). 23.–25. September 2010, Brno, Czech Republic, Brno: Host/Masarykova univerzita, pp. 120–34Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. and Joseph, Brian D. 2003. ‘On language, change and language change – or, of history, linguistics and historical linguistics’, in Joseph, Brian D and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3–180Google Scholar
Januszowski, Jan 1594. Nowy karakter polski […]. Kraków: Druk. Łazarzowa, Jan JanuszowskiGoogle Scholar
Jaworski, Adam and Coupland, Nikolas 1999. ‘Part six. Power, ideology and control’, in Jaworski, Adam and Coupland, Nikolas (eds.), The Discourse Reader. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 493–588Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto 1909. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. 1: Sounds and Spelling. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Jocelin, Elizabeth 1624. The mothers legacie, to her vnborne childe. London: Iohn Hauiland, for William Barre (EEBO, ProQuest)Google Scholar
Johannessen, Janne B. and Salmons, Joseph C. 2012. ‘Innledning’, Norsk i Amerika Norsk Lingvistisk tidsskrift 30 (2): 139–48Google Scholar
Johansen, Åse M. 2013. ‘Overcoming silence: language emancipation in a coastal Sámi-Norwegian community’, Sociolinguistic Studies 7 (1–2): 57–77, https://doi.org/10.1558/sols.v7i1-2.57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Janet H. 2010. ‘Egyptian demotic script’, in Woods, Christopher, Teeter, Emily and Emberling, Geoff (eds.), Visible Language: Inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and Beyond. Chicago: Oriental Institute, pp. 165–71Google Scholar
Johnson, Sally A. 2005. Spelling Trouble? Language, Ideology and the Reform of German Orthography. Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual MattersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Wyn and Britain, David 2007. ‘L-vocalisation as a natural phenomenon: explorations in sociophonology’, Language Sciences 29: 294–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Edward 1945. Writing and Illuminating, and Lettering. London: PitmanGoogle Scholar
Johnston, William 1764. A pronouncing and spelling dictionary. London: Printed for W. JohnstonGoogle Scholar
Joly, Geneviève 1995. Précis de phonétique historique du français. Paris: Armand ColinGoogle Scholar
Jones, Daniel 1917. An English Pronouncing Dictionary (on Strictly Phonetic Principles). London/Toronto: J. M. Dent and SonsGoogle Scholar
Jones, Daniel 1937. An English Pronouncing Dictionary. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company (4th ed., revised and enlarged)Google Scholar
Jones, Mari C. and Mooney, Damien 2017. ‘Creating orthographies for endangered languages’, in Jones, Mari C. and Mooney, Damien (eds.), Creating Orthographies for Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Stephen 1798. Sheridan improved: A general pronouncing and explanatory dictionary of the English language. London (3rd ed.)Google Scholar
Joos, Martin 1952. ‘The medieval sibilants’, Language 28: 222–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, John 1987. Eloquence and Power: The Rise of Language Standards and Standard Languages. New York: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Joshi, R. Malatesha and Aaron, P. G. (eds.) 2014. Handbook of Orthography and Literacy. London/New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics, www.degruyter.com/view/journals/jhsl/jhsl-overview.xmlGoogle Scholar
Joyce, Terry 2002. ‘The Japanese mental lexicon: the lexical retrieval and representation of two-kanji compound words from a morphological perspective’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tsukuba, JapanGoogle Scholar
Joyce, Terry 2011. ‘The significance of the morphographic principle for the classification of writing systems’, in Borgwaldt, Susanne R. and Joyce, Terry (eds.), Typology of Writing Systems, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 14 (1). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 58–81Google Scholar
Joyce, Terry 2016. ‘Writing systems and scripts’, in Rocci, Andrea and Saussure, Louis de (eds.), Verbal Communication. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 287–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, Terry 2019. ‘The significance of the partial versus full writing dichotomy for the typology of writing systems’. Presentation at Diversity of Writing Systems: Embracing Multiple Perspectives (12th International Workshop on Written Language and Literacy), 26–28 March 2019, Faculty of Classics, Cambridge University, UKGoogle Scholar
Joyce, Terry and Borgwaldt, Susanne R. 2011. ‘Typology of writing systems: special issue introduction’, in Borgwaldt, Susanne R. and Joyce, Terry (eds.), Typology of Writing Systems, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 14 (1). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.14.1.01joyGoogle Scholar
Joyce, Terry, Hodošček, Bor and Nishina, Kikuko 2012. ‘Orthographic representation and variation within the Japanese writing system: some corpus-based observations’, in Joyce, Terry and Roberts, David (eds.), Units of Language – Units of Writing, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 15 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 254–78Google Scholar
Joyce, Terry and Masuda, Hisashi 2018. ‘Introduction to the multi-script Japanese writing system and word processing’, in Pae, Hye (ed.), Writing Systems, Reading Processes, and Cross-Linguistic Influences: Reflections from the Chinese, Japanese and Korean Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 179–99Google Scholar
Joyce, Terry and Masuda, Hisashi 2019. ‘On the notions of graphematic representation and orthography from the perspective of the Japanese writing system’, in Joyce, Terry and Crellin, Robert (eds.), Past, Present (… and Future?), special issue of Written Language and Literacy 22 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 248–80Google Scholar
Joyce, Terry and Meletis, Dimitrios 2021. ‘Alternative criteria for writing system typology: cross-linguistic observations from the German and Japanese writing systems’, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 40 (3), 257–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Kopaczyk, Joanna 2013. ‘Communities of practice as a locus of language change’, in Kopaczyk, Joanna and Jucker, Andreas H. (eds.), Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–16Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma 2012. ‘Pragmatic variables’, in Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 293–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judson, Anna P. 2017a. ‘Process of script adaptation and creation in Linear B: the evidence of the “extra” signs’, in Steele, Philippa M. (ed.), Understanding Relations between Scripts: The Aegean Writing Systems. Oxford/Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, pp. 111–26Google Scholar
Judson, Anna P. 2017b. ‘The decipherment: people, process, challenges’, in Christophilopoulou, Anastasia, Galanakis, Yannis and Grime, James (eds.), Codebreakers and Groundbreakers (Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, 2017: Catalogue of Exhibition Held Oct 2017–Feb 2018). Cambridge: Charlesworth Press, pp. 15–29Google Scholar
Judson, Anna P. 2020. The Undeciphered Signs of Linear B. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juola, Patrick 2006. ‘Authorship attribution for electronic documents’, in Olivier, Martin S. and Shenoi, Sujeet (eds.), Advances in Digital Forensics II. Boston: Springer, pp. 119–30, www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/INR-005Google Scholar
Justeson, John S. 1976. ‘Universals of language and universals of writing’, in Juilland, Alphonse (ed.), Linguistic Studies Offered to Joseph Greenberg on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Saratoga: Anma Libri, pp. 57–94Google Scholar
Justeson, John S. 1986. ‘The origin of writing systems: preclassic Mesoamerica’, World Archaeology 17 (3): 437–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justeson, John S. 1988. Review of Writing Systems: A Linguistic Introduction by Geoffrey Sampson, Language 64: 423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justeson, John S. 2012. ‘Early Mesoamerican writing systems’, in Nichols, Deborah L. and Pool, Christopher A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Mesoamerican Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 830–44Google Scholar
Justeson, John S. and Stephens, Laurence D. 1993. ‘The evolution of syllabaries from alphabets: transmission, language contrast, and script typology’, Die Sprache 35 (1): 2–46Google Scholar
Juška, Liudvikas 1901-09-08: Petition letter to Bishop Mečislovas Paliulionis. Lithuanian State Historical Archives: F. 1671, ap. 4, b. 179, 776–81Google Scholar
Juška, Liudvikas 1901-09-15: Petition letter to Bishop Mečislovas Paliulionis. Lithuanian State Historical Archives: F. 1671, ap. 4, b. 179, 680‒4Google Scholar
Kaislaniemi, Samuli, Evans, Mel, Juvonen, Teo and Sairio, Anni 2017. ‘“A graphic system which leads its own linguistic life?” Epistolary spelling in English, 1400–1800’, in Säily, Tanja, Nurmi, Arja, Palander-Collin, Minna and Auer, Anita (eds.), Exploring Future Paths for Historical Sociolinguistics (Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics 7). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 187–213, https://doi.org/10.1075/ahs.7.08kaiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kao, Henry S. R., van Galen, Gerard P. and Hoosain, Rumjahn (eds.) 1986. Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting. Amsterdam: North-HollandGoogle Scholar
Källström, Magnus 2018. ʻHaraldær stenmæstari – Haraldus magister: a case study on the interaction between runes and Roman scriptʼ, in Bauer, Alessia, Kleivane, Elise and Spurkland, Terje (eds.), Epigraphy in an Intermedial Context. Dublin: Four Courts, pp. 59–74Google Scholar
Kämpfert, Manfred 1980. ‘Motive der Substantivgroßschreibung. Beobachtungen an Drucken des 16. Jahrhunderts’, Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 99: 72–98Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred 1983. Finnish Grammar (trans. by Andrew Chesterman). Porvoo: SöderströmGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, Stefán 2002. ʻThe development of Latin script II: in Icelandʼ, in Bandle, Oskar (ed.), The Nordic Languages. An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 832–40Google Scholar
Karskiĭ, Efim F. 1901. Ocherki slavyanskoĭ kirillovskoĭ paleografii. Iz lekt͡sciĭ, chitannykh v Imperatorskom Varshavskom universitete. Warsaw: Tipografii͡a Varshavskago Uchebnago OkrugaGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Frances 1985. Nahuatl and Maya in Contact with Spanish. Austin: Texas Linguistic Forum/University of Texas at AustinGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Frances and Lockhart, James 1976. Nahuatl in the Middle Years: Language Contact Phenomena in Texts of the Colonial Period. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Katz, Leonard and Feldman, Laurie B. 1983. ‘Relation between pronunciation and recognition of printed words in deep and shallow orthographies’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 9 (1): 157–66Google ScholarPubMed
Katz, Leonard and Frost, Ram 1992a. ‘Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning: an overview’, in Frost, Ram and Katz, Leonard (eds.), Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning. London: North-Holland (Elsevier Science Publisher), pp. 1–8Google Scholar
Katz, Leonard and Frost, Ram 1992b. ‘The reading process is different for different orthographies: the orthographic depth hypothesis’, in Frost, Ram and Katz, Leonard (eds.), Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., pp. 67–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, Friedrich 1892. ‘Über althochdeutsche Orthographie’, Germania 37 (n.s. 25): 243–64Google Scholar
Kawasaki, Yasushi 2004. Eine graphematische Untersuchung zu den Heliand-Handschriften. Munich: IudiciumGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Alan S. 1996. ‘Adaptations of Arabic’, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 743–62Google Scholar
Keil, Heinrich and Mommsen, Theodor (eds.) 2009 [1864]. Grammatici Latini, vol. 4: Probi, Donati, Servii qui feruntur De arte grammatica libri, et Notarum laterculi. Leipzig: Teubner (reprint by Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar
Kempgen, Sebastian and Tomelleri, Vittorio S. (eds.) 2019. Slavic Alphabets and Identities. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press, https://fis.uni-bamberg.de/handle/uniba/45157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenrick, William 1773. A New Dictionary of the English Language. London: Printed for John and Francis Rivington, William Johnston, Thomas Longman, and Thomas CadellGoogle Scholar
Kerek, Andrew 1976. ‘The phonological relevance of spelling pronunciation’, Visible Language 10 (4): 323–38Google Scholar
Keszler, Borbála 2003. ‘A magyar írásjelhasználat és Európa’, Magyar Nyelvőr 127: 24–36Google Scholar
Keszler, Borbála 2004. Írásjeltan. Az írásjelhasználat szabályai, problémái és történet. Budapest: National Textbook PublisherGoogle Scholar
Kettmann, Gerhard 1967. Die kursächsische Kanzleisprache zwischen 1486 und 1546. Studien zum Aufbau und zur Entwicklung. Berlin: Akademie-VerlagGoogle Scholar
Kildal, Arne 1948. Boksamlinga åt Sivert Årflot 150 år. Oslo: SamlagetGoogle Scholar
Kim, Dong-Hyuk 2004. ‘Free orthography in a strict society: reconsidering Tov’s “Qumran Orthography”’, Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (1): 72–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, John H. 1999. ‘The book-trade under Edward VI and Mary I’, in Hellinga, Lotte and Trapp, Joseph B. (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol. 3: 1400–1557. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 164–75Google Scholar
Kinn, Kari 2020. ‘Stability and attrition in American Norwegian nominals: a view from predicate nouns’, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 23 (1): 3–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintzinger, Martin 2016a. ‘Trivium’, in Melville, Gert and Staub, Martial (eds.), Brill’s Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages Online, https://doi.org/10.1163/2213-2139_bema_SIM_033838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintzinger, Martin 2016b. ‘Quadrivium’, in Melville, Gert and Staub, Martial (eds.), Brill’s Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages Online, https://doi.org/10.1163/2213-2139_bema_SIM_033842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchhoff, Frank 2017. Von der Virgel zum Komma: die Entwicklung der Interpunktion im Deutschen (Germanistische Bibliothek 61). Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag WinterGoogle Scholar
Kirchhoff, Frank and Primus, Beatrice 2016. ‘Punctuation’, in Cook, Vivian and Ryan, Des (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 114–31Google Scholar
Kirchweg, Christoph 1670. Res pro anima. Eine Seelen Sach/Welche um Rettung der irrigen Gewissen vorgenommen ist Uber die Frage: Wie lang wilst du noch Lutherisch bleiben? Hanover: Schwendimann (VD17 1: 078180X)Google Scholar
Kjeldstadli, Knut 1994. Et splittet samfunn 1905–35, in Helle, Knut, Kjeldstadli, Knut, Lange, Even and Songer, Sølvi (eds.), Aschehougs norgeshistorie, vol. 10. Oslo: AschehougGoogle Scholar
Klausenburger, Jürgen 1978. ‘French linking phenomena: a natural generative analysis’, Language 54 (1): 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klausenburger, Jürgen 1984. French Liaison and Linguistic Theory. Wiesbaden: F. SteinerGoogle Scholar
Klein, Jared, Joseph, Brian and Fritz, Matthias 2017. Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Berlin: De GruyterGoogle Scholar
[Kleinas, Danielius 1653]. GRAMMATICA Litvanica Mandato & Autoritate SERENISSIMI ELECTORIS BRANDENBURGICI adornata, & præviâ Cenſurâ primùm in lucem edita à M. DANIELE Klein […] REGIOMONTI, Typis & ſumptibus JOHANNIS REUSNERI, ANNO χριστογονίας cIɔ. Iɔc. LIII, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=42Google Scholar
Kleinas, Danielius [1666]. Σὺν τῷ Θεῷ. Neu Littauſches / verbeſſert=und mit vielen neuen Liedern vermehretes Geſangbuch […]. NAUJOS GIESMJU KNYGOS. […] KARALAUCZUJE Iśſpaude ſawo iſſirádimais PRIDRIKIS REUSNERIS Metůſe M. DC. LXVI, http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=40Google Scholar
Klemensiewicz, Zenon, Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz and Urbańczyk, Stanisław 1955. Gramatyka historyczna języka polskiego. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo NaukoweGoogle Scholar
Klinkenberg, Jean-Marie and Polis, Stéphane 2018. ‘On scripturology’, Signata. Annals of Semiotics 9/Signatures. Sémiotique de l’écriture 9: 57–102Google Scholar
Kloss, Heinz 1967. ‘Abstand languages and Ausbau languages’, Anthropological Linguistics 9 (7): 29–41Google Scholar
Kloss, Heinz 1978. Die Entwicklung neuer Germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800. Düsseldorf: Schwann (revised ed.)Google Scholar
Klöter, Henning 2010. ‘What is being borrowed? Language and script contact in Taiwan’, in de Voogt, Alex and Finkel, Irving (eds.), The Idea of Writing: Play and Complexity. Leiden: Brill, pp. 93–115Google Scholar
Kniffka, Hannes 2007. Working in Language and Law: A German Perspective. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230590045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kober, Alice E. 1946. ‘Inflection in Linear Class B: I – Declension’, American Journal of Archaeology 50: 268–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kober, Alice E. 1948. ‘The Minoan scripts: facts and theory’, American Journal of Archaeology 52: 82–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Peter and Österreicher, Wulf 1994. ‘Schriftlichkeit und Sprache’, in Günther, Hartmut and Ludwig, Otto (eds.), Schrift und Schriftlichkeit/Writing and Its Use. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung/An Interdisciplinary Handbook of International Research. 1, vol. 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 587–604Google Scholar
Koch, Peter and Österreicher, Wulf 2008. ‘Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit von Texten’, in Janich, Nina (ed.), Textlinguistik. 15 Einführungen, Tübingen: Narr, pp. 199–215Google Scholar
Köcher, Adolf 1895. Geschichte von Hannover und Braunschweig, 1648–1714, vol. 2. Leipzig: HirzelGoogle Scholar
Koeppel, Emil 1901. Spelling–Pronunciations: Bemerkungen über den Einfluß des Schriftbildes auf den Laut im Englischen (Quellen und Forschungen 89). Strasbourg: Karl J. TrübnerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohrt, Manfred 1985. Problemgeschichte des Graphembegriffs und des frühen Phonembegriffs. Tübingen: NiemeyerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohrt, Manfred 1986. ‘The term ‘grapheme’ in the history and theory of linguistics’, in Augst, Gerhard (ed.), New Trends in Graphemics and Orthography. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 80–96, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110867329.80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohrt, Manfred 1987. Theoretische Aspekte der deutschen Orthographie (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 70). Tübingen: NiemeyerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kok, Ina 2013. Woodcuts in Incunabula Printed in the Low Countries. Houten: Hes and De GraafGoogle Scholar
Kökeritz, Helge 1959. ‘English place–name elements by A. H. Smith’, Speculum 34: 135–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kökeritz, Helge 1964. ‘Spelling–pronunciation in American English’, Abercrombie, D. (ed.), In Honor of Daniel Jones: Papers Contributed on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday 12 September 1961, London: Longmans, pp. 137–45Google Scholar
Konopacki, Artur 2010. Życie religijne Tatarów na Ziemiach Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w XVI–XIX wieku. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu WarszawskiegoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konopacki, Artur 2015. ‘Autorzy, kompilatorzy, kopiści – rzecz o rękopisach Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego’, in Kulwicka-Kamińska, Joanna and Łapicz, Czesław (eds.), Tefsir Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego: Teoria i Praktyka Badawcza. Toruń: Wydział Filologiczny UMK, pp. 271–86, www.tefsir.umk.pl/pliki/Tefsir_Tatarow_WKL.pdfGoogle Scholar
Königliches Ministerium der geistlichen, Unterrichts- und Medizinalangelegenheiten 1880. Regeln und Wörterverzeichnis für die deutsche Rechtschreibung zum Gebrauch in den preußischen Schulen. Berlin: Weidmannsche BuchhandlungGoogle Scholar
Kopaczyk, Joanna 2011. ‘A V or not a V? Transcribing abbreviations in seventeen manuscripts of the “Man of Law’s Tale” for a digital edition’, in Thaisen, Jacob and Rutkowska, Hanna (eds.), Scribes, Printers, and the Accidentals of Their Texts. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 91–106Google Scholar
Kopaczyk, Joanna and Jucker, Andreas H. (eds.) 2013. Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopaczyk, Joanna, Benjamin, Molineaux, Karaiskos, Vasilios, Alcorn, Rhona, Los, Bettelou and Maguire, Warren 2018. ‘Towards a grapho-phonologically parsed corpus of medieval Scots: database design and technical solutions’, Corpora 13 (2): 255–69, https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2018.0146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korkiakangas, Timo 2018. ʻSpelling variation in historical text corpora: the case of early medieval documentary Latinʼ, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 33 (3): 575–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korkiakangas, Timo and Lassila, Matti 2018. ʻVisualizing linguistic variation in a network of Latin documents and scribesʼ, Journal of Data Mining and Digital Humanities (Special Issue on Computer-Aided Processing of Intertextuality in Ancient Languages), 4472, https://jdmdh.episciences.org/4472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornicki, Peter F. 2018. Languages, Scripts, and Chinese Texts in East Asia. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart 1979. Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten. Frankfurt am Main: SuhrkampGoogle Scholar
Koster, Josephine A. 2009. ‘Most excellent and curious hands: the future of paleography and related arts in early modern studies’, The Sixteenth Century Journal 40 (1): 255–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraków, Jagiellonian Library, MS 1961Google Scholar
Kramer, Christina 2015. ‘Macedonian orthographic controversies’, in Villa, Laura and Vosters, Rik (eds.), The Historical Sociolinguistics of Spelling, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 18 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 287–308Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore 2003. ‘Danish’, in Deumert, Ana and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 69–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristol, Andres M. 2000. ‘Les premières descriptions grammaticales du français’, in Auroux, Sylvain, Koerner, Ernst F. K., Niederehe, Hans-Josef and Versteegh, Kees (eds.), History of the Language Sciences/Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften/Histoire des sciences du langage. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 764–70Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1994. ‘Morphosyntactic variation’, in Beals, Katherine, Denton, Jeannette, Knippen, Robert, Melnar, Lynette, Suzuki, Hisami and Zeinfeld, Erica (eds.), Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2: The Parasession on Variation in Linguistic Theory. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 180–201Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 2001. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, pp. 698–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krogull, Andreas 2018. Policy versus Practice. Language Variation and Change in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-century Dutch (dissertation, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands). Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics (LOT)Google Scholar
Kroskrity, Paul V. (ed.) 2000. Regimes of Language. Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe: School of American Research PressGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Sherman M. 1961. ‘The syllabic phonemes of Old English’, Language 37: 522–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Sherman M. 1970. ‘On the consonantal phonemes of Old English’, in Rosier, James L. (ed.), Philological Essays: Studies in Old and Middle English Language and Literature in Honour of Herbert Dean Meritt. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 16–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Sherman M. and Quirk, Randolf 1953. ‘Some recent interpretations of Old English digraph spellings’, Language 29: 143–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Sherman M. and Quirk, Randolf 1955. ‘The Old English digraphs: a reply’, Language 31: 390–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Küster, Marc W. 2019. ‘Open and closed writing systems: some reflections’, in Haralambous, Yannis (ed.), Graphemics in the 21st Century. Brest, June 13–15, 2018. Proceedings (Grapholinguistics and Its Applications 1). Brest: Fluxus Editions, pp. 17–26, https://doi.org/10.36824/2018-graf-kuesGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja, Grund, Peter J. and Walker, Terry (compilers) 2011. An Electronic Text Edition of Depositions, 1560–1760, CD-ROM, in Kytö, Merja, Grund, Peter J. and Walker, Terry (eds.), Testifying to Language and Life in Early Modern England. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja, Grund, Peter J. and Walker, Terry 2011. Testifying to Language and Life in Early Modern England: Including CD-ROM: An Electronic Text Edition of Depositions 1560–1760. Philadelphia: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja and Walker, Terry 2006. Guide to A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 130). Uppsala: Uppsala UniversityGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 1972a. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PressGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 1972b. ‘Some principles of linguistic methodology’, Language in Society 1: 97–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 1: Internal Factors. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 2006 [1966]. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 2007. ‘Transmission and diffusion’, Language 83: 344–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labs-Ehlert, Brigitte 1993. Versalschreibung in Althochdeutschen Sprachdenkmälern: ein Beitrag über die Anfänge der Großschreibung im Deutschen unter Berücksichtigung der Schriftgeschichte. Göppingen: KümmerleGoogle Scholar
Laing, Margaret 1988. ‘Dialectal analysis and linguistically composite texts in Middle English’, Speculum 63: 83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laing, Margaret 1999. ‘CONFUSION “WRS” CONFOUNDED: litteral substitution sets in early Middle English writing systems’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 100 (3): 251–70Google Scholar
Laing, Margaret 2000. ‘The linguistic stratification of the Middle English texts in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 86’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 101 (4): 523–69Google Scholar
Laing, Margaret 2004. ʻMultidimensionality: time, space and stratigraphy in historical dialectologyʼ, in Dossena, Marina and Lass, Roger (eds.), Methods and Data in Historical Dialectology. Bern: Lang, pp. 49–96Google Scholar
Laing, Margaret 2013–. A Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English 1150 to 1325 (LAEME), Version 3.2. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/laeme2/laeme2.htmlGoogle Scholar
Laing, Margaret and Lass, Roger 2003. ‘Tales of the 1001 nists: the phonological implications of litteral substitution sets in some thirteenth-century South-West Midland Texts’, English Language and Linguistics 7 (2): 257–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laing, Margaret and Lass, Roger 2006. ‘Early Middle English dialectology: problems and prospects’, in van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.), The Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 417–51Google Scholar
Laing, Margaret and Lass, Roger 2009. ‘Shape-shifting, sound-change and the genesis of prodigal writing systems’, English Language and Linguistics 13 (1): 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laing, Margaret and Lass, Roger 2014. ‘On Middle English she, sho: a refurbished narrative’, Folia Linguistica Historica 35 (1): 201–40Google Scholar
Laing, Margaret and Lass, Roger 2019. ‘Old and Middle English spellings for OE hw-, with special reference to the ‘qu-’ type: in celebration of LAEME, (e)LALME, LAOS and CoNE’, in Alcorn, Rhona, Kopaczyk, Joanna, Los, Bettelou and Molineaux, Benjamin (eds.), Historical Dialectology in the Digital Age. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 91–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, Joseph 2010. ‘The invention and development of the alphabet’, in Woods, Christopher, Teeter, Emily and Emberling, Geoff (eds.), Visible Language: Inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and Beyond. Chicago: Oriental Institute, pp. 189–95Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M. 1966. Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University PressGoogle Scholar
Lane, Pia, Costa, James and De Korne, Haley (eds.) 2018. Standardizing Minority Languages: Competing Ideologies of Authority and Authenticity in the Global Periphery. New York/London: Routledge, www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781315647722Google Scholar
Lane Ford, Margaret 1999. ‘Importation of printed books into England and Scotland’, in Hellinga, Lotte and Trapp, Joseph B. (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol. 3: 1400–1557. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 179–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, Claudia 2012. ‘Standardization: standards in the history of English’, in Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook, vol. 1. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 994–1006Google Scholar
L’Année Épigraphique (AE) 1889–. ParisGoogle Scholar
La Parra López, Emilio, Pérez Ledesma, Manuel, Luis, Jean-Philippe, Portillo Valdés, José M., Fuentes, Juan Francisco, Romeo Mateo, María Cruz, Ramos Santana, Alberto and Romero Ferrer, Alberto 2012. El nacimiento de la política en España (1808–1869). Madrid: Editorial Pablo IglesiasGoogle Scholar
Lapidge, Michael 2000. ‘The Archetype of Beowulf ’, Anglo-Saxon England 29: 5–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapidge, Michael and Winterbottom, Michael (eds.) 1991. The Life of St. Aethelwold. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Larousse, Pierre 1850. Lexicologie des écoles primaires. Première année. Nature et rapport des mots. Paris: L’auteurGoogle Scholar
Larousse, Pierre 1856. Nouveau dictionnaire de la langue française […]. Paris: Larousse et BoyerGoogle Scholar
Larsen, Niels-Erik 2001. Grafematische analyse van een Middelnederlandse tekst: het grafeemsysteem van de Vroegmiddelnederlandse Statuten van de Gentse Leprozerie uit 1236. Amsterdam: Rozenberg PublishersGoogle Scholar
Larsen, Niels-Erik 2004. ‘Historical linguistics and graphemic analysis’, NOWELE 44: 3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger 1976. English Phonology and Phonological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger 1992. ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Blake, Norman (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 2: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger 1999. ‘Phonology and morphology’, in Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 3: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–186Google Scholar
Lass, Roger 2004. ‘Ut custodiant litteras: editions, corpora and witnesshood’, in Dossena, Marina and Lass, Roger (eds.), Methods and Data in English Historical Dialectology. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 21–48Google Scholar
Lass, Roger 2015. ʻInterpreting alphabetic orthographies: Early Middle English spellingʼ, in Honeybone, Patrick and Salmons, Joseph (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 100–20Google Scholar
Lass, Roger and Laing, Margaret 2010. ‘In celebration of early Middle English “h”’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 111 (3): 345–54Google Scholar
Late Medieval English Scribes, www.medievalscribes.com/Google Scholar
Laufer, Roger 1972. Introduction à la textologie. Vérification, établissement, édition des textes. Paris: LarousseGoogle Scholar
Launey, Michel 2011. An Introduction to Classical Nahuatl (trans. and adapted by Christopher Mackay). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavinsky, David 2014. ‘An early sixteenth-century Lutheran dialogue and its Wycliffite excerpt’, Journal of the Early Book Society for the Study of Manuscripts and Printing History 17: 195–220Google Scholar
Lazar, Marija 2016. ‘Transfer des Rechts und Transfer der Rechtssprache. Sächsisch-magdeburgisches Recht und seine Verbreitung im Ostmitteleuropa nach den Hussitenkriegen’, in Kuße, Holger and Kosourová, Hana (eds.), Persönlichkeiten in der tschechischen Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte. Beiträge zum 8. Bohemicum Dresdense: Tomáš Garrigue Masarik (1850–1937) 07. 11.2014und 9. Bohemicum Dresdense: Jan Hus (~1370–1415) – Erbe und Bedeutung 30. 10.2015 (Specimina Philologiae Slavicae. Bd. 191). Leipzig: Biblion Media, pp. 177–202Google Scholar
Lazar, Marija 2018. ‘Übersetzen, übertragen, deuten. Übersetzungspraktiken als Einflussfaktor für den Transfer des sächsisch-magdeburgischen Rechts in Ostmitteleuropa’, in Köster, Gabriele, Link, Christina and Lück, Heiner (eds.), Kulturelle Vernetzung in Europa. Das Magdeburger Recht und seine Städte. Wissenschaftlicher Begleitband zur Ausstellung “Faszination Stadt”. Dresden: Sandstein Verlag, pp. 195–214Google Scholar
Lazar, Marija forthcoming. ‘Rechtssprache als systemischer Erkenntnisgegenstand und Wege seiner digitalen Erforschung’, in Carls, Wieland (ed.), IVS SAXONICO-MAIDEBVRGENSE IN ORIENTE. Das Sächsisch-magdeburgische Recht als kulturelles Bindeglied zwischen den Rechtsordnungen Ost- und Mitteleuropas. Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven der Forschung (IVS SAXONICO-MAIDEBVRGENSE IN ORIENTE 6). Berlin: De GruyterGoogle Scholar
Lebsanft, Franz and Tacke, Felix 2020. ‘Romance standardology: roots and traditions’, in Lebsanft, Franz and Tacke, Felix (eds.), Manual of Standardization in the Romance Languages. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 3–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehfeldt, Werner 2001. ‘L’écriture arabe chez les Slaves’, Slavica occitania 12: 267–82Google Scholar
Lehr-Spławiński, Tadeusz and Bartula, Czesław 1976. Zarys gramatyki języka staro-cerkiewno-słowiańskiego na tle porównawczym. Wrocław/Warsaw/Kraków/Gdańsk: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich (7th ed.)Google Scholar
Leith, Dick 1983. A Social History of English. London: Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Lejeune, Michel 1962. ‘Les signes TA2 et TWO’, Revue de Philologie 36: 217–24Google Scholar
Lejeune, Michel 1970. ‘Phonologie osque et graphie grecque’, Revue des Études Anciennes 72: 271–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lejeune, Michel 1975. ‘Réflexions sur la phonologie du vocalisme osque’, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 70 (1): 233–51Google Scholar
Lennard, John 1995. ‘Punctuation: and – “Pragmatics” ’, in Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 65–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Page, Robert and Tabouret-Keller, Andrée 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Lepschy, Anna L. and Lepschy, Giulio 2008. ‘Punteggiatura e linguaggio’, in Garavelli, Bice Mortara (ed.), Storia della punteggiatura in Europa. Rome/Bari: Laterza, pp. 3–24Google Scholar
Levenshtein, Vladimir I. 1966. ‘Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals’, Soviet Physics Doklady 10 (8): 707–10Google Scholar
Levitt, Jesse 1968. ‘Spelling–pronunciation in Modern French: its origin and its functional significance’, Linguistics 42: 19–28Google Scholar
Levitt, Jesse 1978. ‘The influence of orthography on phonology: a comparative study (English, French, Spanish, Italian, German)’, Linguistics 208: 43–67Google Scholar
Lewicka, Magdalena 2015. ‘Kitabistics a new direction of the Islam studies in Poland (the literature of Polish-Lithuanian Tatars)’, in Ghazali, Redzaudin, Ismail, Mohamad Rofian and Ahmad, Che Wan Shamsul Bahri C. W. (eds.), E-Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Arabic Studies & Islamic Civilization 2015. Kuala Lumpur: World Conferences, pp. 290–303Google Scholar
Lewicka, Magdalena 2016. ‘The literature of the Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – characteristics of the Tatar writings and areas of research’, Journal of Language and Cultural Education 4 (1): 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Thomas T. 1854. Letters of the Lady Brilliana Harley, Wife of Sir Robert Harley, of Brampton Bryan, Knight of the Bath, with Introduction and Notes. London: Camden SocietyGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M., Cooper, Franklin S., Shankweiler, Donald P. and Studdert-Kennedy, Michael 1967. ‘Perception of the speech code’, Psychological Review 74 (6): 431–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, Isabelle Y., Shankweiler, Donald, Fischer, F. William and Carter, Bonnie 1974. ‘Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child’, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 18: 201–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liestøl, Aslak 1963. Runer frå Bryggen. Bergen: Bryggens MuseumGoogle Scholar
Lifanov, Konstantin V. 2001. Genezis slovackogo literaturnogo jazyka. Munich: LINCOM EuropaGoogle Scholar
Lindqvist, Christer 1997. ‘Schriftinduzierter Sprachwandel: Synchrone und diachrone Auswirkungen im Deutschen’, in Birkmann, Thomas, Klingenberg, Heinz, Nübling, Damaris and Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke (eds.), Vergleichende germanische Philologie und Skandinavistik: Festschrift für Otmar Werner. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 193–212Google Scholar
Linguistic Typology 20 (3) 2016Google Scholar
Lisowski, Tomasz 2001. Grafia druków polskich z 1521 i 1522 roku. Problemy wariatywności i normalizacji. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAMGoogle Scholar
Lisowski, Tomasz 2020. ‘A phonological-graphemic approach to the investigation of spelling functionality, with reference to Early Modern Polish’, in Condorelli, Marco (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Literature Online (Proquest), https://proquest.libguides.com/lionpqpGoogle Scholar
Litovskīi͡a narodnyi͡a pi͡esni: s” perevodom” na russkīĭ i͡azyk”. I. A. I͡Ushkevicha 1867. Saint PetersburgGoogle Scholar
Li͡ublinskai͡a, Aleksandra D. (ed.) 1974. Problemy paleografii i kodikologii v SSSR. Moscow: NaukaGoogle Scholar
Liuzza, Roy M. 1996. ‘Orthography and historical linguistics’, Journal of English Linguistics 24 (1): 25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llamas-Pombo, Elena 2007. ‘Réflexions méthodologiques pour l’étude de la ponctuation médiévale’, in Lavrentiev, Alexei (ed.), Systèmes graphiques de manuscrits médiévaux et incunables français. Ponctuation, segmentation, graphies. Chambéry: Université de Savoie, pp. 11–48Google Scholar
Llamas-Pombo, Elena 2009. ‘Variación gráfica y secuenciación de la palabra en manuscritos medievales hispánicos’, in Cátedra, Pedro M. (ed.), Los códices literarios de la Edad Media. Interpretación, historia, técnicas y catalogación. San Millán de la Cogolla: Cilengua, pp. 225–57Google Scholar
Llamas-Pombo, Elena 2012. ‘Variation and standardization in the history of Spanish spelling’, in Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 15–62Google Scholar
Llamas-Pombo, Elena 2019. ‘Pour une étude de la ponctuation du Halotti beszéd és könyörgés dans un contexte européen’, in Bartók, Zsófia Ágnes and Horváth, Balázs (eds.), Írások a Pray-kódexről. Budapest: Argumentum Kiadó, pp. 111–27Google Scholar
Llamas-Pombo, Elena 2020. ‘Punctuation in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century French and Spanish: a model of diachronic and comparative graphematics’, in Condorelli, Marco (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 93–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loach, Jennifer 1986. ‘The Marian establishment and the printing press’, English Historical Review 101: 135–48Google Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. and Strässler, Jürg 2008. ‘Introduction: standards and norms’, in Locher, Miriam A. and Strässler, Jürg (eds.), Standards and Norms in the English Language. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockhart, James 1991. Νahuas and Spaniards: Postconquest Central Mexican History and Philology. Stanford: Stanford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockhart, James 1992. The Nahuas after the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
Lockwood, David G. 2001. ‘Phoneme and grapheme: how parallel can they be?’, LACUS Forum 27: 307–16Google Scholar
Lockwood, David G. 2009 [2001]. ‘Phoneme and grapheme: how parallel can they be?’ LACUS Forum 27: 307–16 (reprint)Google Scholar
Lodge, Anthony 2010. ‘Les Lettres de Montmartre (1749) et l’histoire du français parlé’, in Abécassis, Michael (ed.), Les voix des Français, vol. 1. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 11–29Google Scholar
Løland, Rasmus 1892. Paa sjølvstyr. Bergen: Mons LitlereGoogle Scholar
Lomagistro, Barbara 2004. ‘Paleografska pitanja periodizacije i klasifikacije glagoljice’, in Dürrigl, Marija-Ana, Mihaljević, Milan and Velčić, Franjo (eds.), Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam. Zagreb/Krk: Staroslavenski institut – Krčka biskupija, pp. 453–83Google Scholar
Lomagistro, Barbara 2008. ‘La scrittura cirillica minuscola: genesi ed evoluzione’, in Alberti, Alberto, Garzonio, Stefano, Marcialis, Nicoletta and Sulpasso, Bianca (eds.), Contributi italiani al 14. congresso internazionale degli Slavisti. Florence: Firenze University Press, pp. 111–48Google Scholar
London, British Library, Add MS 34206Google Scholar
London, British Library, Cotton MS Caligula A VIIIGoogle Scholar
London, British Library, Cotton MS Nero A XGoogle Scholar
London, British Library, Egerton MS 2622 (ff. 136r–165v)Google Scholar
London, British Library, Harley MS 3542Google Scholar
London, British Library, Lansdowne MS 807Google Scholar
London, British Library, Royal MS 18 D IIGoogle Scholar
London, British Library, Sloane MS 316Google Scholar
London, British Library, Sloane MS 340 (ff. 39v–63v)Google Scholar
London, British Library, Sloane MS 513Google Scholar
London, British Library, Sloane MS 3580AGoogle Scholar
London, British Library, Vitelius MS A.xv (ff. 94r–131v)Google Scholar
London, Wellcome Library, Wellcome MS 542 (ff. 1r–20v)Google Scholar
London, Wellcome Library, Wellcome MS 1340Google Scholar
London, Wellcome Library, Wellcome MS 3009 (ff. 17r–90r)Google Scholar
London, Wellcome Library, Wellcome MS 6812 (ff. 1r–91v)Google Scholar
Lorenc, Anita 2018. ‘Articulatory characteristics of Polish retoflex sibilants. Analysis using electromagnetic articulography’, Logopedia 47 (2): 131–49Google Scholar
Love, Harold 1993. Scribal Publication in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford: Clarendon PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, Harold 2002. Attributing Authorship: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, Peter J. 1999. ‘Parker, Lamparde and the provision of special sorts for printing Anglo-Saxon in the sixteenth century’, Journal of the Printing Historical Society 28: 41–69Google Scholar
Lucas, Peter J. 2000. ‘Sixteenth-century English spelling reform and the printers in continental perspective: Sir Thomas Smith and John Hart’, Library: The Transactions of the Bibliographical Society 1 (1): 3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luelsdorff, Philip A. 1990. ‘Principles of orthography’, Theoretical Linguistics 16 (2‒3): 165‒214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luelsdorff, Philip A. (ed.) 1987. Orthography and Phonology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie 1982. Studien zur Sprache des Hildebrandliedes, vol. 1: Herkunft und Sprache. Frankfurt am Main: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Lüpke, Friederike 2011. ‘Orthography development’, in Austin, Peter K. and Sallabank, Julia (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 312–36Google Scholar
Luto-Kamińska, Anetta 2015. ‘Alfurkan tatarski Piotra Czyżewskiego – opis zabytku (grafia z elementami fonetyki)’, Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskiej 50: 18–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutz, Angelika 1986. ‘The syllabic basis of word division in Old English manuscripts’, English Studies 67 (3): 193–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łapicz, Czesław 1986. Kitab Tatarów Litewsko-Polskich: Paleografia. Grafia. Język. Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja KopernikaGoogle Scholar
Łapicz, Czesław 2017. ‘Kitabistyka: źródła, metodologia i badawcze’, Poznańskie Studia Polonistyczne. Seria Językoznawcza 24 (2): 111–23Google Scholar
Łoś, Jan 1907. Jakóba syna Parkoszowego traktat o ortografii polskiej. Kraków: Nakładem Akademii UmiejętnościGoogle Scholar
Maas, Utz 1985. ‘Schrift – Schreiben – Rechtschreiben’, Diskussion Deutsch 16: 4–25Google Scholar
Maas, Utz 2007. ‘Die Grammatikalisierung der satzinternen Großschreibung. Zur schriftkulturellen Dimension der Orthographieentwicklung’, in Redder, Angelika (ed.), Diskurse und Texte. Festschrift für Konrad Ehlich. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 385–99Google Scholar
Mabillon, Jean 1681a. De Re Diplomatica. Libra VI. Paris: Carol RobusterGoogle Scholar
Mabillon, Jean 1681b. De Re Diplomatica. Paris: Sumtibus Ludovici BillaineGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, David N. 1971. A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary. London: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, Laurel 2019. ‘Perturbing the community grammar: individual differences and community-level constraints on sociolinguistic variation’, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4 (1): 28, https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackridge, Peter 2009. Language and National Identity in Greece, 1766–1976. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacMahon, Michael K. C. 2013. ‘Orthography and the early history of phonetics’, in Allan, Keith (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–21, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585847.013.0006Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian 2013. ‘Consonant inventories’, in Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, http://wals.info/chapter/1Google Scholar
Maggiani, Adriano and Nardo, Andrea 2014. ‘Le Città umbre e la scrittura’, in Paoletti, Orazio (ed.), Gli umbri in età preromana – atti del XXVII convegno di studi etruschi ed italici – Perugia – Gubbio – Urbino – 27–31 ottobre 2009. Pisa/Rome: Fabrizio Serra, pp. 391–411Google Scholar
Magoun, Francis P. 1943. ‘Otfrid’s Ad Liutbertum ’, Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 58: 869–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, Ingrid and Shamin, Stepan M. 2018. ‘Gathering information for the Kuranty and translation technique at the Collegium of Foreign Affairs in the 1720s’, in Science Journal of VolSU. History. Area Studies. International Relations 23 (2): 71–88Google Scholar
Mair, Christian 2019. ‘American English: no written standard before the twentieth century?’, in Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria, Moore, Emma, Bergen, Linda van and Hollmann, Willem B. (eds.), Categories, Constructions, and Change in English Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 336–65Google Scholar
Mair, Victor H. 1996. ‘Modern Chinese writing’, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 200–8Google Scholar
Maisels, Charles K. 1993. The Near East: Archaeology in the ‘Cradle of Civilization’. London/New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Makaruk, Larysa 2013. ‘Hrafichna linhvistyka: stanovlenni͡a, suchasnyĭ stan ta perspektyvy rozvytku’, Inozemna filolohii͡a 125: 16–21, http://publications.lnu.edu.ua/collections/index.php/foreighnphilology/article/view/301Google Scholar
Malling, Ove 1777. Store og gode Handlinger af Danske, Norske og Holstenere. Copenhagen: Gyldendals ForlagGoogle Scholar
Malone, Kemp 1959. ‘Diphthong and glide’, in Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie: Fernand Mossé in memoriam. Paris: Didier, pp. 256–66Google Scholar
Manchester, John Rylands University Library, Rylands MS 1310 (ff. 1r–21r)Google Scholar
Marazzini, Claudio 2000. ‘Early grammatical descriptions of Italian’, in Auroux, Sylvain, Koerner, Ernst F. K., Niederehe, Hans-Josef and Versteegh, Kees (eds.), History of the Language Sciences/Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften/Histoire des sciences du langage. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 742–49Google Scholar
Marcos, Juan-José 2017. Fonts for Paleography. User’s Manual (5th ed.), www.academia.edu/29815961/Short_manual_of_LATIN_PALEOGRAPHY_January_2017 and http://guindo.pntic.mec.es/jmag0042/LATIN_PALEOGRAPHY.pdfGoogle Scholar
Marcos Marín, Francisco 1979. Reforma y modernización de la lengua española. Madrid: CátedraGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Joyce 2006. ‘Mesoamerica: scripts’, in Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 8. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 16–27 (2nd ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maretić, Tomo 1889. Istorija hrvatskoga pravopisa latinskijem slovima. Zagreb: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnostiGoogle Scholar
Marković, Ivan 2015. ‘O grafemu i hrvatskoj abecedi’, Filologija 65: 77–112Google Scholar
Markus, Manfred (compiler) 1999. Innsbruck Computer-Archive of Machine-Readable English Texts (ICAMET). Innsbrucker Beitraege zur Kulturwissenschaft, Anglistische Reihe 7. Innsbruck: Leopold-Franzens-Universitaet InnsbruckGoogle Scholar
Markus, Manfred 2006. ‘Abbreviations in Early Modern English correspondence’, in Dossena, Marina and Fitzmaurice, Susan (eds.), Business and Official Correspondence: Historical Investigations. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 107–29Google Scholar
Marotti, Arthur F. 1995. Manuscript, Print, and the English Renaissance Lyric. Ithaca: Cornell University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marquilhas, Rita 2015. ‘The Portuguese language spelling accord’, in Villa, Laura and Vosters, Rik (eds.), The Historical Sociolinguistics of Spelling, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 18 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 275–86Google Scholar
Marti, Roland 2012. ‘On the creation of Croatian: the development of Croatian Latin orthography in the 16th century’, in Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 269–320Google Scholar
Marti, Roland 2014. ‘Historische Graphematik des Slavischen: Glagolitische und kyrillische Schrift’, in Kempgen, Sebastian, Kosta, Peter, Berger, Tilman and Gutschmidt, Karl (eds.), Die slavischen Sprachen/The Slavic Languages, vol. 2. New York: De Gruyter, pp. 1497–513Google Scholar
Martin, Hans-Jürgen 1997–. ‘“Rechtschreibreform”: Aktuell’, in ‘Rechtschreibung and “Rechtschreibreform”’, www.schriftdeutsch.de/orthogra.htmGoogle Scholar
Martin, Peter 2019. The Dictionary Wars: The American Fight over the English Language. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Martineau, France (ed.) 2005–. Le corpus LFFA (Laboratoire de français familier ancien), https://diachronie.org/2016/08/01/corpus-lffa-francais-familier-ancien/Google Scholar
Martineau, France 2013. ‘Written documents: what they tell us about linguistic usage’, in van der Wal, Marijke J. and Rutten, Gijsbert (eds.), Touching the Past: Studies in the Historical Sociolinguistics of Ego-Documents. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 129–47Google Scholar
Martineau, France 2014. ‘L’Acadie et le Québec: convergences et divergences’, Minorités linguistiques et société/Linguistic Minorities and Society 4: 16–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martineau, France 2017. ‘Entre les lignes: écrits de soldats peu-lettrés de la Grande Guerre’ in Tyne, Henry, Bilger, Mireille, Cappeau, Paul and Guerin, Emmanuelle (eds.), La variation en question(s). Hommages à Françoise Gadet, Brussels: Peter Lang, pp. 211–35Google Scholar
Martineau, France 2021. ‘Parler entre les lignes’, in Urbain, Emilie and Arrighi, Laurence (eds.), Retour en Acadie: penser les langues et la sociolinguistique à partir des marges. Textes en hommage à Annette Boudreau. Quebec City: Presses de l’Université Laval, pp. 63–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martineau, France and Dionne, Jennifer 2008. ‘Morphologie du nombre dans les échanges épistolaires d’une famille ouvrière de Montréal au XIXe siècle’ in Desrochers, Alain, Martineau, France and Morin, Yves Charles (eds.), Orthographe française: Évolution et pratique. Ottawa: Les Éditions David, pp. 229–57Google Scholar
Martineau, France and Remysen, Wim 2019. ‘Bouleversements sociaux et normes orthographiques: l’exemple du Régime anglais dans l’histoire du français québécois’, in Dufter, Andreas, Grübl, Klaus and Scharinger, Thomas (eds.), Des parlers d’oïl à la francophonie: contact, variation et changement linguistique (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 440). Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 271–98Google Scholar
Martineau, France and Tailleur, Sandrine 2011. ‘Written vernacular: variation and change in 19th century Acadian French’, in Pooley, Tim and Lagorgette, Dominique (eds.), On Linguistic Change in French: Socio-Historical Approaches/Le changement linguistique en français: aspects socio-historiques. Chambéry: Université de Savoie, Laboratoire Langages, Littératures, Sociétés, pp. 153–74Google Scholar
Martineau, France and Tailleur, Sandrine 2014. ‘Hybridity in French written documents from the nineteenth century’, in Rutten, Gijsbert, Vosters, Rik and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 223–48Google Scholar
Martínez Alcalde, María José (ed.) 1999. Textos clásicos sobre la historia de la ortografía castellana. Madrid: Mapfre-Fundación Histórica Tavera-Digibis Publicaciones DigitalesGoogle Scholar
Martínez Alcalde, María José 2010. La fijación ortográfica del Español: norma y argumento historiográfico. Bern: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Martínez Marín, Juan 1992. ‘La ortografía española: perspectiva historiográfica’, Cauce 14–15: 125–34Google Scholar
Marynissen, Ann and Janssen, Theo A. J. M. 2014. ‘Vroegnieuwnederlands voor commercie en cultuur’, in Freek, Van de Velde, Smessaert, Hans, Frank, Van Eynde and Verbrugge, Sara (eds.), Patroon en argument. Een dubbelfeestbundel bij het emeritaat van William Van Belle en Joop Van der Horst. Leuven: Universitaire Pers, pp. 500–12Google Scholar
Masson, Michel 1976. Les mots nouveaux en hébreu moderne. Paris: Publications orientalistes de FranceGoogle Scholar
Masson, Michel 1986. Langue et idéologie: les mots étrangers en hébreu modern. Paris: Éditions du CNRSGoogle Scholar
Masuda, Hisashi and Joyce, Terry 2018. ‘Constituent-priming investigations of the morphological activation of Japanese compound words’, in Pae, Hye (ed.), Writing Systems, Reading Processes, and Cross-Linguistic Influences: Reflections from the Chinese, Japanese and Korean Languages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 221–44Google Scholar
Mathisen, Ralph W. 2008. ‘Paleography and codicology’, in Harvey, Susan Ashbrook and Hunter, David G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 140–66Google Scholar
Mattheier, Klaus J. 1990. ʻOtfrid als Orthographiereformer? Überlegungen zu den Bemerkungen Otfrids von Weissenburg über den Gebrauch der Buchstaben <z> und <k> im Evangelienbuchʼ, in Besch, Werner (ed.), Deutsche Sprachgeschichte: Grundlagen, Methoden, Perspektiven: Festschrift für Johannes Erben zum 65. Geburtstag. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, pp. 67–83Google Scholar
Mattheier, Klaus J. 2003. ‘German’, in Deumert, Ana and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 211–44Google Scholar
Mattingly, Ignatius 1992. ‘Linguistic awareness and orthographic form’, in Frost, Ram and Katz, Leonard (eds.), Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning. London: North-Holland (Elsevier Science Publisher), pp. 11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maunde, Edward 1878. Correspondence of the Family of Hatton, Being Chiefly Letters Addressed to Christopher, First Viscount Hatton, AD 1601–1704, vol. 1 of 2. London: Camden SocietyGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, Kate 2016. ‘Beyond sound, image, and text: the (more) hidden modes of the manuscript’. Paper presented at the Medieval/ Digital Multimodalities seminar for the New Chaucer Society, The New Chaucer Society Twentieth International Congress, July 2016, Queen Mary University of LondonGoogle Scholar
Mazzocchi, Fulvio 2015. ‘Could Big Data be the end of theory in science? A few remarks on the epistemology of data‐driven science’, EMBO Reports 16 (10): 1250–55, https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201541001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mæhlum, Brit K. 2019. ‘Southern Saami language and culture – between stigma and pride, tradition and modernity’, in Hermanstrand, Håkon, Kolberg, Asbjørn, Nilssen, Trond Risto and Sem, Leiv (eds.), The Indigenous Identity of the South Saami. Historical and Political Perspectives on a Minority within a Minority. Springer Open, pp. 17–28, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-05029-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McArthur, Tom 1998. ‘Spelling pronunciation’, Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
McClumpha, Charles F. 1890. ‘Differences between the scribes of “Beowulf”’, Modern Language Notes 5 (4): 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConchie, Roderick W. 2011. ‘Compounds and code-switching: compositorial practice in William Turner’s Libellus de re Herbaria Novvs, 1538’, in Thaisen, Jacob and Rutkowska, Hanna (eds.), Scribes, Printers, and the Accidentals of Their Texts. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 177–90Google Scholar
McDonald, Katherine 2015. Oscan in Southern Italy and Sicily: Evaluating Language Contact in a Fragmentary Corpus. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Katherine 2017. ‘Fragmentary ancient languages as “bad data”’, Sociolinguistica 31: 31–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Katherine 2019. ‘Education and literacy in ancient Italy: evidence from the Dedications to the Goddess Reitia’, Journal of Roman Studies 109: 131–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Katherine and Zair, Nicholas 2017. ‘Changing script in a threatened language: reactions to Romanisation at Bantia in the first century BC’, in Jones, Mari C. and Mooney, Damien (eds.), Orthography Development for Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, Tony and Hardie, Andrew (compilers) 2007. The Lancaster Newsbooks Corpus. Lancaster: University of LancasterGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, Angus 1956. ‘The analysis of written Middle Englishʼ, Transactions of the Philological Society 55: 26–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, Angus 1961. ‘“Graphology” and meaning’, Archivum Linguisticum 13: 107–20Google Scholar
McIntosh, Angus 1963. ‘A new approach to Middle English dialectology’, English Studies 44 (1): 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, Angus 1974. ‘Towards an inventory of Middle English scribes’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 75: 602–74Google Scholar
McIntosh, Angus, Samuels, Michael L. and Benskin, Michael, with the assistance of Laing, Margaret and Williamson, Keith 1986a. A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English (LALME), 4 vols. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University PressGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, Angus, Samuels, Michael L. and Benskin, Michael, with the assistance of Laing, Margaret and Williamson, Keith 1986b. A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English, vol. 1: General Introduction, Index of Sources, Dot Maps. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University PressGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, Angus, Samuels, Michael L. and Benskin, Michael, with the assistance of Laing, Margaret and Williamson, Keith 1986c. A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English, vol. 3: Linguistic Profiles. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University PressGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, Angus, Samuels, Michael L. and Benskin, Michael, with the assistance of Margaret Laing and Keith Williamson, revised and supplemented by Benskin, Michael and Laing, Margaret, webscripts by Karaiskos, Vasilis and Williamson, Keith 2013. An Electronic Version of A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English (eLALME), vol. 1, www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/elalme/elalme.htmlGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, Donald F. 1969. ‘Printers of the mind: some notes on bibliographical theories and printing-house practices’, Studies in Bibliography 22: 1–75Google Scholar
McKitterick, David 2003. Print, Manuscript, and the Search for Order, 1450–1830. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, John C. 1963. A Graphemic-Phonemic Study of a Middle English Manuscript. The Hague: MoutonGoogle Scholar
McLelland, Nicola 2014. ‘Language description, prescription and usage in seventeenth-century German’, in Rutten, Gijsbert, Vosters, Rik and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1700. A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 251–75Google Scholar
Mechkovskai͡a, Nina B. 2017. ‘Pervyĭ opyt sot͡siolingvisticheskoĭ tipologii dvugrafichnykh situat͡siĭ. O knige Daniėli͡a Bunchicha i drugikh “Biscriptality: A Sociolinguistic Typology”’ (Heidelberg, 2016)’, Slověne 2017 (2): 721–39Google Scholar
Medina, Alberto 2013. ‘The institutionalization of language in eighteen-century Spain’, in del Valle, José (ed.), A Political History of Spanish: The Making of a Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisenburg, Trudel 1990. ‘Die großen Buchstaben und was sie bewirken können: Zur Geschichte der Majuskel im Französischen und Deutschen’, in Raible, Wolfgang (ed.), Erscheinungsformen kultureller Prozesse. Jahrbuch 1988 des Sonderforschungsbereichs “Übergänge und Spannungsfelder zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit”. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 281–315Google Scholar
Meiser, Gerhard 1986. Lautgeschichte der Umbrischen Sprache. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität InnsbruckGoogle Scholar
Meissburger, Gerhard 1965. ʻUrkunde und Mundartʼ, in Besch, Werner, Kleiber, Wolfgang, Maurer, Friedrich, Meissburger, Gerhard and Singer, Horst (eds.), Vorarbeiten und Studien zur Vertiefung der südwestdeutschen Sprachgeschichte. Freiburg: Eberhard Albert Verlag, pp. 47–103Google Scholar
Meissner, Torsten 2008. ‘Mycenaean spelling’, in Sacconi, Anna, Del Freo, Maurizio, Godart, Louis and Negri, Mario (eds.), Colloquium Romanum: atti del XII colloquio internazionale di micenologia, Roma, 20–25 febbraio 2006, vol. 2. Pisa/Rome: Fabrizio Serra, pp. 507–19Google Scholar
Meissner, Torsten 2019. ‘Griechisch σίαλος Mastschwein’, Glotta 95: 190–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissner, Torsten forthcoming. ‘Mycenaean word division’, in Killen, John T. and Morpurgo Davies, Anna (eds.), Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (3rd ed.)Google Scholar
Meissner, Torsten and Steele, Philippa M. 2017. ‘Linear A and Linear B: structural and contextual concerns’, in Nosch, Marie-Louise and Enegren, Hedvig Landenius (eds.), Aegean Scripts. Proceedings of the 14th International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, Copenhagen, 2–5 September 2015, vol. 1. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, pp. 99–114Google Scholar
Melchert, H. Craig 1994. Hittite Historical Phonology. Amsterdam: RodopiGoogle Scholar
Melena, José L. 1978. ‘En torno a la identification del silabograma *79 del silabario micénico’, in Actas del V Congreso Espagñol de Estudios Clásicos, pp. 751–57Google Scholar
Melena, José L. 1983. ‘Notas de philologia micénica, III: El silabograma *86’, Emerita 51: 255–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melena, José L. 1985. ‘Notas de philologia micénica, IV: El silabograma *83’, in Serta Gratulatoria in Honorem Juan Régulo. La Laguna: Universidad de La Laguna, pp. 473–86Google Scholar
Melena, José L. 1987. ‘On untranslitterated syllabograms *56 and *22’, in Ilievski, Petar and Crepajac, Ljiljana (eds.), Tractata Mycenaea. Proceedings of the Eighth International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, Held in Ohrid (15–20 September 1985). Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, pp. 203–32Google Scholar
Melena, José L. 2014a. ‘Filling gaps in the basic Mycenaean syllabary’, in Bernabé, Alberto and Luján, Eugenio R. (eds.), Donum Mycenologicum: Mycenaean Studies in Honour of Francisco Aura Jorro. Leuven/Walpole: Peeters, pp. 75–85Google Scholar
Melena, José L. 2014b. ‘Filling gaps in the Mycenaean Linear B additional syllabary: the case of syllabogram *34’, in Martínez Fernández, A., Ortega Villaro, B., Velasco López, H., Zamora Salamanca, H. (eds.), AGALMA Homenaje a Manuel García Teijeiro. Valladolid: Editorial Universidad de Valladolid, pp. 207–26Google Scholar
Melena, José L. 2014c. ‘Mycenaean writing’, in Duhoux, Yves and Morpurgo Davies, Anna (eds.), A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and Their World, vol. 3. Leuven/Walpole: Peeters, pp. 1–186Google Scholar
Melena, José L. in preparation. ‘On the structure of the Mycenaean Linear B syllabary. I. The untransliterated syllabograms. Preliminary report’Google Scholar
Meletis, Dimitrios 2015a. Graphetik. Form und Materialität von Schrift. Glückstadt: Verlag Werner HülsbuschGoogle Scholar
Meletis, Dimitrios 2015b. ‘Graphetik’, in Neef, Martin, Sahel, Said and Weingarten, Rüdiger (eds.), Schriftlinguistik/Grapholinguistics (Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science 5). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, www.degruyter.com/view/db/wskGoogle Scholar
Meletis, Dimitrios 2018. ‘What is natural in writing? Prolegomena to a Natural Grapholinguistics’, in Beeksma, Merijn and Neef, Martin (eds.), Understanding Writing Systems, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 21 (1). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 52–88, https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00010.melGoogle Scholar
Meletis, Dimitrios 2019a. ‘The grapheme as a universal basic unit of writing’, Writing Systems Research 11 (1): 26–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meletis, Dimitrios 2019b. ‘Naturalness in scripts and writing systems: outlining a Natural Grapholinguistics’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Graz, AustriaGoogle Scholar
Meletis, Dimitrios 2020a. The Nature of Writing. A Theory of Grapholinguistics (Grapholinguistics and Its Applications 3). Brest: Fluxus Editions, www.fluxus-editions.fr/meletis-the-nature-of-writing-2020.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meletis, Dimitrios 2020b. ‘Types of allography’, Open Linguistics 6 (1): 249–66, https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2020-0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meletis, Dimitrios 2022. ‘Universality and diversity in writing systems’, LACUS Forum 46 (1): 72–83Google Scholar
Meletis, Dimitrios and Dürscheid, Christa 2022. Writing Systems and Their Use. An Overview of Grapholinguistics. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter MoutonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mencken, Henry L. 1936. The American Language: An Inquiry into the Development of English in the United States. New York: A. A. Knopf (4th ed.)Google Scholar
Meredith-Owens, Georg M. and Nadson, Alexander 1970. ‘The Byelorussian Tartars and their writings’, Journal of Belarusian Studies 2 (2): 141–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meriggi, Piero 1955. ‘I testi micenei in trascrizione’, Athenaeum 33: 64–92Google Scholar
Merriam, Thomas 2006. ‘Orthographic changes in John A Kent and Hand M of More’, Notes and Queries 53 (4): 475–78, https://doi.org/10.1093/notesj/gjl161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam, Thomas 2011. ‘Moore the Merier’, Notes and Queries 58 (2): 241–42, https://doi.org/10.1093/notesj/gjr056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriam-Webster.com. 2011, www.merriam-webster.comGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Wilhelm 1905. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur mittellateinischen Rythmik, vol. 2. Berlin: Weidmannsche BuchhandlungGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam 2006. Introducing Sociolinguistics. London: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michel, Andreas 2012. ‘Italian orthography in Early Modern times’, in Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 63–96Google Scholar
Migliorini, Bruno and Griffith, T. Gwynfor (trans.) 1966. The Italian Language (The Great Languages). London: FaberGoogle Scholar
Mihm, Arend 2000. ʻZur Deutung der graphematischen Variation in historischen Textenʼ, in Häcki Buhofer, Annelies (ed.), Vom Umgang mit sprachlicher Variation: Soziolinguistisk, Dialektologie, Methoden und Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Festschrift für Heinrich Löffler zum 60. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Francke, pp. 367–90Google Scholar
Mihm, Arend 2016. ʻZur Theorie der vormodernen Orthographien. Straßburger Schreibsysteme als Erkenntnisgrundlageʼ, Sprachwissenschaft 41 (3–4): 271–309Google Scholar
Mihm, Arend 2017. ʻSprachwandel in der frühen Neuzeit. Augsburg und Köln im Vergleichʼ, in Denkler, Markus, Elspaß, Stephan, Hüpper, Dagmar and Topalović, Elvira (eds.), Deutsch im 17. Jahrhundert. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 265–319Google Scholar
Miklas, Heinz, Gau, Melanie and Hürner, Dana 2016. ‘Preliminary remarks on the Old Church Slavonic Psalterium Demetrii Sinaitici’, in Kulik, Alexander, MacRobert, Catherine M., Nikolova, Svetlina, Taube, Moshe and Vakareliyska, Cynthia M. (eds.), The Bible in Slavic Tradition. Leiden/Boston: Brill, pp. 21–88Google Scholar
Mikšas, Jurgis, 1885-11-06: Postcard to Martynas Jankus. Vilnius University Library, Manuscript collection: F. 1 – D584Google Scholar
Mikuła, Maciej 2018. Prawo miejskie Magdeburskie (Ius Municipale Magdeburgense) w Polsce XIV–pocz. XVI w. Studium o ewolucji adaptacji prawa. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu JagiellońskiegoGoogle Scholar
Milkamanowič’s kitab (KM), MS from the eighteenth/nineteenth century (the photocopy of the document kept at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń)Google Scholar
Millar, Robert McColl 2005. Language, Nation and Power: An Introduction. Houndmills, Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave MacmillanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millar, Robert McColl 2012. English Historical Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Daniel 1996. ‘Why it’s safer to build on concrete than epistemology: a comment on “On Materiality” by Gosewijn van Beek’, Etnofoor 9 (1): 25–27Google Scholar
Miller, Thomas (ed.) 1890. Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Early English Text Society, old series 95–6, 110–1). London: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Millward, Celia M. and Hayes, Mary 2012 [1989]. A Biography of the English Language. Boston: Wadsworth (3rd ed.)Google Scholar
Milroy, James 1992a. Linguistic Variation and Change. Oxford/Cambridge: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James 1992b. ‘Middle English dialectology’, in Blake, Norman (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 2: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 156–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James 1994. ‘The notion of “standard language” and its applicability to the study of Early Modern English pronunciation’, in Stein, Dieter and van Ostade, Ingrid Tieken‒Boon (eds.), Towards a Standard English 1600‒1800. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 19‒29Google Scholar
Milroy, James 2000. ‘Historical description and the ideology of the standard language’, in Wright, Laura (ed.), The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts (Studies in English Language). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James 2001. ‘Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (4): 530–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley 1985a. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation. London: Routledge and Kegan PaulCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley 1985b. ‘Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation’, Journal of Linguistics 21: 339–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley 1999 [1985a]. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation. London: Routledge (3rd ed.)Google Scholar
Milroy, James and Milroy, Lesley 2012 [1985a]. Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. London: Routledge (4th ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, Lesley 2002. ‘Social networks’, in Chambers, Jack K., Trudgill, Peter J. and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden: Blackwell, pp. 549–72Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley 2007. ‘Off the shelf or under the counter? On the social dynamics of sound changes’, in Cain, Christopher M. and Russom, Geoffrey (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language, vol. 3: Managing Chaos: Strategies for Identifying Change in English. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 149–72Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley and Gordon, Matthew 2003. Sociolinguistics. Method and Interpretation. Oxford: BlackwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, Lesley and Milroy, James 1992. ‘Social network analysis and social class: towards an integrated research model’, Language in Society 21 (1): 1–26, www.jstor.org/stable/4168309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miltenov, I͡Avor 2009–10. ‘Kirilski rŭkopisi s glagolicheski vpisvanii͡a’, Wiener slavistisches Jahrbuch 55: 191–219; 56: 83–98Google Scholar
Miltenov, I͡Avor 2013. ‘Glagolit͡sa v kirilski rŭkopisi kato tekstologicheski marker’, Krakowsko-Wileńskie Studia Slawistyczne 8: 39–48Google Scholar
Minkova, Donka 1991. The History of Final Vowels in English: The Sound of Muting. Berlin/New York: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkova, Donka 2015a. ʻEstablishing phonemic contrast in written sourcesʼ, in Honeybone, Patrick and Salmons, Joseph (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 72–85Google Scholar
Minkova, Donka 2015b. ‘Metrical resolution, spelling, and the reconstruction of Old English syllabification’, in Adams, Michael, Brinton, Laurel J. and Fulk, Robert D. (eds.), Studies in the History of English Language VI: Evidence and Method in Histories of English. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 137–60Google Scholar
Miranda-García, Antonio, Calle-Martín, Javier, Moreno-Olalla, David, González Fernández-Corugedo, Santiago and Caie, Graham D. 2014. The Málaga Corpus of Late Middle English Scientific Prose (MCLMESP). Málaga: University of Málaga, https://hunter.uma.esGoogle Scholar
Miškinienė, Galina 2001. Seniausi Lietuvos totorių rankraščiai: Grafika. Transliteracija. Vertimas. Tekstų struktūra ir turinys. Vilnius: Vilniaus UniversitetasGoogle Scholar
Miškinienė, Galina 2015. ‘K istorii transliterat͡sii slavi͡anoi͡azychnykh arabografichnykh rukopiseĭ litovskikh tatar: na primere Vil’ni͡usskoĭ shkoly kitabistiki’, in Kulwicka-Kamińska, Joanna and Łapicz, Czesław (eds.), Tefsir Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego: Teoria i praktyka badawcza. Toruń: Wydział Filologiczny UMK, pp. 61–72, www.tefsir.umk.pl/pliki/Tefsir_Tatarow_WKL.pdfGoogle Scholar
Miškinienė, Galina, Namavičiūtė, Sigita, Pokrovskaja, Jekaterina and Durgut, Hüseyin 2009. Ivano Luckevičiaus kitabas: Lietuvos totorių kultūros paminklas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutasGoogle Scholar
Molero Pintado, Antonio 1994. Ciento cincuenta años de perfeccionamiento del magisterio en España. Desde las academias de profesores a la creación de los CEPs. 1840–1984. Madrid: Universidad de Alcalá de HenaresGoogle Scholar
Molina, Alonso de 1571. Arte de la lengua mexicana y castellana. Mexico City: Pedro OcharteGoogle Scholar
Montfaucon, Bernard de 1708. Palaeographia Graeca, sive, De Ortu et Progressu Literarum Graecarum. Paris: L. GuerinGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Scott 2001. ‘The case for synchronic orthographic primacy: the effect of literacy on phonological processing’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Scott 2005. ‘Lax vowels, orthography and /ə/: the need for orthographic primacy’, Linguistische Berichte 201: 14–64Google Scholar
Mooney, Linne R. 2006. ‘Chaucer’s scribe’, Speculum 81 (1): 97–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Linne R. 2008. ‘Locating scribal activity in late-medieval London’, in Connolly, Margaret and Mooney, Linne R. (eds.), Design and Distribution of Late Medieval Manuscripts in England. York: York Medieval Press, pp. 183–204Google Scholar
Moore, Colette 2019. ‘Communities of practice and incipient standardization in Middle English written culture’, English Studies 100 (2): 117–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Michael 2004. Fahrenheit 9/11. FLIC Distributors/Lionsgate FilmsGoogle Scholar
Morala Rodríguez, José R. 1998. ‘Norma gráfica y variedades orales en el leonés medieval’, in Blecua, José M, Gutiérrez, Juan and Sala, Lidia (eds.), Estudios de grafemática en el dominio hispánico. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, pp. 169–88Google Scholar
Morala Rodríguez, José R. 2004. ‘Norma y usos gráficos en la documentación leonesa’, Aemilianense 1: 405–29Google Scholar
Morala Rodríguez, José R. 2015. ‘Norma y variación en el romance de la documentación leonesa del siglo XIII’, in Paz, Ramón Mariño and Barreiro, Xavier Varela (eds.), Lingüística histórica e edición de textos galegos medievais, Verba, Anexo 73. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago, pp. 11–28Google Scholar
Mora-Marín, David F. 2003. ‘The origin of Mayan syllabograms and orthographic conventions’, Written Language and Literacy 6 (2): 193–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, Steven and Cysouw, Michael 2018. The Unicode Cookbook for Linguists. Managing Writing Systems Using Orthography Profiles. Berlin: Language Science PressGoogle Scholar
Mørck, Endre 1999. ‘Sociolinguistic studies on the basis of medieval Norwegian charters’, in Jahr, Ernst H. (ed.), Language Change. Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 263–90Google Scholar
Mørck, Endre 2018. ‘Seinmellomalderen 1350–1536’, in Nesse, Agnete (ed.) Tidslinjer, vol. 4 of Sandøy, Helge and Nesse, Agnete (eds.), Norsk språkhistorie. Oslo: Novus, pp. 293–356Google Scholar
Mørck, Endre 2019. ‘The Reformation and the linguistic situation in Norway’, Nordlit 43: 115–26, https://doi.org/10.7557/13.4903Google Scholar
Moreno-Olalla, David 2020. ‘Spelling practices in late Middle English medical prose: a quantitative analysis’, in Wright, Laura (ed.), The Multilingual Origins of Standard English. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 141–63Google Scholar
Moreton, Emma 2016. ‘“I never could forget my darling mother”: the language of recollection in a corpus of female Irish emigrant correspondence’, The History of the Family 21 (3): 315–36, https://doi.org/10.1080/1081602X.2016.1155469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morpurgo Davies, Anna 1987. ‘Mycenaean and Greek syllabification’, in Ilievski, Petar and Crepajac, Ljiljana (eds.), Tractata Mycenaea. Proceedings of the Eighth International Colloquium on Mycenaean Studies, Held in Ohrid (15–20 September 1985). Skopje: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, pp. 91–103Google Scholar
Mortara Garavelli, Bice 2008. Storia della punteggiatura in Europa. Rome-Bari: LaterzaGoogle Scholar
Moser, Hans 1977. Die Kanzlei Kaiser Maximilians I. Graphematik eines Schreibusus. Teil I: Untersuchungen. Teil II: Texte. Innsbruck: Institut für deutsche Philologie der Universität InnsbruckGoogle Scholar
Moser, Virgil 1929. Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik. I. Band: Lautlehre. 1. Hälfte: Orthographie, Betonung, Stammsilbenvokale (Germanische Bibliothek). Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Mosser, Daniel W. and Mooney, Linne R. 2014. ‘More manuscripts by the Beryn scribe and his cohort’, The Chaucer Review 49 (1): 39–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mougeon, Raymond and Beniak, Édouard 1989. ‘Présentation’, in Beniak, Édouard and Mougeon, Raymond (eds.), Le français canadien parlé hors Québec: aperçu sociolinguistique. Quebec City: Presses de l’Université Laval, pp. 1–16Google Scholar
Moulin, Claudine 1990. Der Majuskelgebrauch in Luthers Deutschen Briefen (1517–1546). Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Moulin, Claudine 2004. ʻDas morphematische Prinzip bei den Grammatikern des 16. und 17. Jahrhundertsʼ, Sprachwissenschaft 29: 33–73Google Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, Salikoko 2018. ‘Language evolution from an ecological perspective’, in Fill, Alwin and Penz, Hermine (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 73–88Google Scholar
Mugdan, Joachim 1984. Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1845–1929): Leben und Werk. Munich: Wilhelm FinkGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter 1990. ‘“Reducing” Pacific languages to writings’, in Joseph, John and Taylor, Talbot (eds.), Ideologies of Language. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 189–205Google Scholar
Mulcaster, Richard 1581. Positions vvherin those primitiue circumstances be examined, which are necessarie for the training vp of children, either for skill in their booke, or health in their bodie. London: Thomas Vautrollier for Thomas Chare [Chard] (EEBO, ProQuest)Google Scholar
Mulcaster, Richard 1582. The First Part of the Elementarie vvhich Entreateth Chefelie of the right writing of our English tung. London: Vautroullier (EEBO, ProQuest)Google Scholar
Mullen, Alex 2013. Southern Gaul and the Mediterranean: Multilingualism and Multiple Identities in the Iron Age and Roman Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Ernst E. 1953. Die Basler Mundart im ausgehenden Mittelalter. Bern: FranckeGoogle Scholar
Müller, Rudolf W. 1964. Rhetorische und syntaktische Interpunktion. Untersuchungen zur Pausenbezeichnung im antiken Latein. Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Murray, Heather and Portebois, Yannick 2016. ‘Steam writing in the urli daiz: William Orr, the Canadian phonetic pioneer, and the cause of phonographic reform’, Papers of The Bibliographical Society of Canada 54 (1–2): 57–92, https://doi.org/10.33137/pbsc.v54i1-2.22657Google Scholar
Murray, James A. H., Bradley, Henry, Craigie, William A. and Onions, Charles T. 1888–1928. A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles: Founded Mainly on the Materials Collected by The Philological Society, 10 vols. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Murray, James A. H., Bradley, Henry, Craigie, William A. and Onions, Charles T. 1901. A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles: Founded Mainly on the Materials Collected by The Philological Society, vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Murray, James A. H., Bradley, Henry, Craigie, William A. and Onions, Charles T. 1933. The Oxford English Dictionary: Being a Corrected Re-Issue with an Introduction, Supplement and Bibliography, of A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles: Founded Mainly on the Materials Collected by the Philological Society, 10 vols. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Murzynowski, Stanisław 1551. Ortografia. Królewiec: Aleksander AujezdeckiGoogle Scholar
Musakova, Elisaveta 2004. ‘Kirilski rŭkopisi s glagolicheski vpisvanii͡a’, in Dürrigl, Marija-Ana, Mihaljević, Milan and Velčić, Franjo (eds.), Glagoljica i hrvatski glagolizam. Zagreb/Krk: Staroslavenski institut-Krčka biskupija, pp. 523–47Google Scholar
Nadeau, Jean-Benoît and Barlow, Julie 2006. The Story of French. New York: St. Martin’s PressGoogle Scholar
National Library of Scotland, Advocates’ MS 19. 2. 1Google Scholar
Naumann, Carl L. 1989. Gesprochenes Deutsch und Orthographie. Linguistische und didaktische Studien zur Rolle der gesprochenen Sprache in System und Erwerb der Rechtschreibung. Frankfurt am Main: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Naveh, Joseph 1982. Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Paleography. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew UniversityCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nebrija, Antonio de 1492. Gramática de la lengua castellana. Salamanca: Juan de Porras, Biblioteca digital hispánica, bdh0000174208Google Scholar
Needham, Paul 1999. ‘The custom rolls as documents for the printed book trade in England’, in Hellinga, Lotte and Trapp, Joseph B. (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol. 3: 1400–1557. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 148–63.Google Scholar
Neef, Martin 2005. Die Graphematik des Deutschen. Tübingen/Berlin: Niemeyer/De Gruyter, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110914856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neef, Martin 2012. ‘Graphematics as part of a modular theory of phonographic writing systems’, Writing Systems Research 4 (2): 214–28, https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2012.706658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neef, Martin 2013. ‘Das Konzept des morphologischen Prinzips und seine Rolle in einer modularen Schriftsystemtheorie’, in Neef, Martin and Scherer, Carmen (eds.), Die Schnittstelle von Morphologie und geschriebener Sprache. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 9–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neef, Martin 2015. ‘Writing systems as modular objects: proposals for theory design in grapholinguistics’, Open Linguistics 1: 708–21, https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2015-0026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neef, Martin and Balestra, Miriam 2011. ‘Measuring graphematic transparency: German and Italian compared’, in Borgwaldt, Susanne R. and Joyce, Terry (eds.), Typology of Writing Systems, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 14 (1). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 109–42Google Scholar
Neef, Martin, Neijt, Anneke and Sproat, Richard 2002. ‘Introduction’, in Neef, Martin, Neijt, Anneke and Sproat, Richard (eds.), The Relation of Writing to Spoken Language. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neef, Martin and Primus, Beatrice 2001. ‘Stumme Zeugen der Autonomie – Eine Replik auf Ossner’, Linguistische Berichte 187: 353–78Google Scholar
Neef, Martin, Sahel, Said and Weingarten, Rüdiger (eds.) 2012. ‘Schriftlinguistik’/‘Grapholinguistics’, in Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science 5. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, www.degruyter.com/view/db/wskGoogle Scholar
Neidorf, Leonard 2013. ‘Scribal errors of proper names in the Beowulf manuscript’, Anglo-Saxon England 42: 249–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidorf, Leonard 2017. The Transmission of Beowulf: Language, Culture, and Scribal Behavior. Ithaca: Cornell University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neidorf, Leonard, Pascual, Rafael J. and Shippey, Tom (eds.) 2016. Old English Philology: Studies in Honour of R. D. Fulk. Woodbridge: Boydell and BrewerGoogle Scholar
Neis, Cordula 2011. ‘European conceptions of writing from the Renaissance to the eighteenth century’, in Hassler, Gerda (ed., with the assistance of Gesina Volkmann), History of Linguistics 2008: Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHOLS XI), Potsdam, 28 August–2 September 2008 (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 115). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 169–86Google Scholar
Nelde, Peter 1997. ‘Language conflict’, in Coulmas, Florian (ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 285–300Google Scholar
Nemirovskiĭ, Evgeniĭ L. 2008. ‘Sosushchestvovanie kirillovskogo t͡serkovnoslavi͡anskogo i grazhdanskogo shriftov v XVIII v.’, in Samarin, Aleksandr I͡U. (ed.), Tri stoletii͡a russkogo grazhdanskogo shrifta (1708–2008). Moscow: Pashkov dom, pp. 156–59Google Scholar
Nerius, Dieter (ed.) 2007. Deutsche Orthographie. Hildesheim/Zurich/New York: Georg Olms VerlagGoogle Scholar
Nerius, Dieter and Augst, Gerhard (eds.) 1988. Probleme der geschriebenen Sprache. Beiträge zur Schriftlinguistik auf dem XIV. internationalen Linguistenkongreß 1987 in Berlin (Linguistische Studien, A, 173). Berlin: Akademiede Wissenschaften der DDRGoogle Scholar
Nesse, Agnete 2002. Språkkontakt mellom norsk og tysk i hansatidens Bergen. Oslo: NovusGoogle Scholar
Nesse, Agnete 2003. ‘Written and spoken languages in Bergen in the Hansa era’, in Braunmüller, K. and Ferraresi, G. (eds.), Aspects of Multilingualism in European Language History. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 61–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesse, Agnete 2011. ‘“Norskheter i språket hos…” – Et eksempel på minimalistisk språkhistorieskriving?’, in Sandøy, Helge and Jahr, Ernst H. (eds.), Norsk språkhistorie i eldre nynorsk tid (1525–1814). Oslo: Novus, pp. 32–47Google Scholar
Nesse, Agnete 2013. Innføring i norsk språkhistorie. Oslo: CappelenDammGoogle Scholar
Nesse, Agnete 2017. ‘Language choice in forming an identity: linguistic innovations by German traders in Bergen’, in Wagner, Esther-Miriam, Beinhoff, Bettina and Outhwaite, Ben (eds.), Merchants of Innovation. The Languages of Traders. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 158–78Google Scholar
Nesse, Agnete 2021. Bergens Fundas. Til moderne norsk ved Agnete Nesse. Bergen: KapabelGoogle Scholar
Nesse, Agnete and Torp, Arne 2018. ‘Dansketiden (1536–1814)’, in Nesse, Agnete (ed.), Tidslinjer, vol. 4 of Sandøy, Helge and Nesse, Agnete (eds.), Norsk språkhistorie. Oslo: Novus, pp. 357–424Google Scholar
Neuman, Yishai 2009. ‘L’influence de l’écriture sur la langue’. Doctoral dissertation, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, FranceGoogle Scholar
Neuman, Yishai 2013. ‘Graphophonemic assignment’, in Khan, Geoffrey (ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Boston/Leiden: Brill, vol. 2: G–O, pp. 135–45Google Scholar
Neuman, Yishai 2021. ‘Sociocultural motivation for spelling variation in Modern Hebrew’, in Haralambous, Yannis (ed.), Grapholinguistics in the 21st Century, Paris, June 17–19, 2020. Proceedings (Grapholinguistics and Its Applications 4). Brest: Fluxus Editions, pp. 489–99Google Scholar
Nevala, Minna and Palander-Collin, Minna 2005. ‘Letters and letter writing: introduction’, European Journal of English Studies 9 (1): 1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu 1996. ‘Gender difference’, in Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language History: Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu 2003. ‘English’, in Deumert, Ana and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Germanic Standardizations. Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 127–56Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu 2012a. ‘Variable focusing in English spelling between 1400 and 1600’, in Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 127–65Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu 2012b. ‘New perspectives, theories and methods: historical sociolinguistics’, in Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook, vol. 2. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 1438–57Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu 2013. ‘Words of kings and counsellors: register variation and language change in early English courtly correspondence’, in Wagner, Esther-Miriam, Beinhoff, Bettina and Outhwaite, Ben (eds.), Scribes as Agents of Language Change. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 99–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu 2014. ‘Norms and usage in seventeenth-century English’, in Rutten, Gijsbert, Vosters, Rik and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 103–28Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu 2015. ‘What are historical sociolinguistics?’, Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 1 (2): 243–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: PearsonGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 2005. ‘Sociolinguistics and the history of English: a survey’, International Journal of English Studies 5 (1): 33–58Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 2012. ‘Historical sociolinguistics: origins, motivations, and paradigms’, in Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 22–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 2016. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Routledge (2nd ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Keränen, Jukka, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja and Palander-Collin, Minna 1993–98. Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC). Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki, www2.helsinki.fi/en/researchgroups/varieng/corpus-of-early-english-correspondenceGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Keränen, Jukka, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja, Palander-Collin, Minna, Taylor, Ann, Pintzuk, Susan and Warner, Anthony 2006. Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence (PCEEC), Oxford Text Archive, https://ota.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repository/xmlui/handle/20.500.12024/2510Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa (eds.) 2007. Letter Writing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid 2006. ‘Standardisation’, in Hogg, Richard and Denison, David (eds.), A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, John 1996. ‘The Cree syllabary’, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 599–611Google Scholar
Nichols, Stephen 1990. ‘Introduction: philology in a manuscript culture’, Speculum 65 (1): 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaysen, Nic 1858. Norske Magasin, vol. 1. Christiania: Johan Dahls forlagshandelGoogle Scholar
Nievergelt, Andreas 2009. Althochdeutsch in Runenschrift. Geheimschriftliche volkssprachige Griffelglossen. Stuttgart: HirzelGoogle Scholar
Nordlund, Taru 2012. ‘Standardization of Finnish orthography: from reformists to national awakeners’, in Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 351–72Google Scholar
Norsk salmebok 1985. Oslo: VerbumGoogle Scholar
Novgorodian Birchbark Letters, http://gramoty.ruGoogle Scholar
Novickas, Elizabeth 2004. ‘The printer and the scholar: the making of Daniel Klein’s Grammatica Litvanica ’, Archivum Lithuanicum 6: 17–42Google Scholar
Nowak, Jessica 2019. ʻZur Diachronie der satzinternen Großschreibung im Kontrast: Englisch – Niederländisch – Deutschʼ, Jahrbuch für Germanistische Sprachgeschichte 10 (1): 96–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris, Dammel, Antje, Duke, Janet and Szczepaniak, Renata 2017. Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen. Eine Einführung in die Prinzipien des Sprachwandels (Narr Studienbücher). Tübingen: Narr (5th ed.)Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey 1990. The Linguistics of Punctuation. Stanford: CSLIGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Briscoe, Ted and Huddleston, Rodney D. 2002. ‘Punctuation’, in Huddleston, Rodney D. and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1723–78Google Scholar
O’Brien, Robert L. 1904. ‘Machinery and English style’, Atlantic Monthly 94: 464–72Google Scholar
Ó Ciosáin, Niall 2004. Explaining Change in Cultural History (Historical Studies 23). Dublin: University College Dublin Press, pp. 1–12Google Scholar
O’Connor, Michael P. 1983. ‘Native speaker analysis, and the earliest stages of Northwest Semitic orthography’, in Myers, Carol L. and O’Connor, Michael P. (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, pp. 439–65Google Scholar
Oczkowa, Barbara 2004. ‘Głagolityzm i neogłagolityzm w Chorwacji’, Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego 60: 56–63Google Scholar
Okasha, Elisabeth 2018. ʻRoman script and runes in Anglo-Saxon inscriptions: an intermedial usage?ʼ, in Bauer, Alessia, Kleivane, Elise and Spurkland, Terje (eds.), Epigraphy in an Intermedial Context. Dublin: Four Courts, pp. 31–42Google Scholar
Oldireva Gustafsson, Larisa 2002. Preterite and Past Participle Forms in English: 1680–1790. Stockholm: Uppsala UniversitetGoogle Scholar
Olivier, Jean-Pierre 1986. ‘Cretan writing in the second millennium BC’, World Archaeology 17 (3): 377–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olivier, Jean-Pierre and Godart, Louis (eds.) 1996. Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae. Paris: De BoccardGoogle Scholar
Olko, Justyna 2015. ‘Alphabetic writing in the hands of the colonial Nahua nobility’, Contributions in New World Archaeology 7: 177–98Google Scholar
Olko, Justyna and Sullivan, John 2013. ‘Empire, colony and globalization: a brief history of the Nahuatl language’, Colloquia Humanistica 2: 181–216Google Scholar
Olmos, Andrés de 1875. Grammaire de la langue nahuatl ou mexicaine. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale (originally written in 1547 as Arte para aprender la lengua mexicana)Google Scholar
Olsson, John 2012. Wordcrime: Solving Crime through Forensic Linguistics. London: ContinuumGoogle Scholar
Olsson, John 2018. More Wordcrime: Solving Crime with Linguistics. London/New York: Bloomsbury AcademicGoogle Scholar
Ong, Walter J. 2005 [1982]. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London/New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis GroupGoogle Scholar
Open Language Archives Community (OLAC), olac.ldc.upenn.eduGoogle Scholar
Oppliger, Rahel 2016. ‘Automatic authorship attribution based on character g-grams in Swiss German’, in Dipper, Stefanie, Neubarth, Friedrich and Zinsmeister, Heike (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS 2016), 16. Bochum: Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, pp. 177–85Google Scholar
O’Rourke, Bernadette 2017. ‘Negotiating the standard in contemporary Galicia’, in Lane, Pia, Costa, James and Haley, De Korne (eds.), Standardizing Minority Languages. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 84–100Google Scholar
Osselton, Noel E. 1963. ‘Formal and informal spelling in the 18th century: errour, honor, and related words’, English Studies: A Journal of English Language and Literature 44 (4): 267–75Google Scholar
Osselton, Noel E. 1984. ‘Informal spelling in Early Modern English, 1500–1800’, in Blake, Norman F. and Jones, Charles (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development. Sheffield: CECTAL, University of Sheffield, pp. 123–37Google Scholar
Osselton, Noel E. 1985. ‘Spelling-book rules and the capitalization of nouns in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’, in Arn, Mary-Jo and Wirtjes, Hanneke (eds.), Historical and Editorial Studies in Medieval and Early Modern English, for Johan Geritsen. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff, pp. 49–61Google Scholar
Osselton, Noel E. 1998 [1984]. ‘Informal spelling systems in Early Modern English: 1500–1800’, in Rydén, Mats, Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid and Kytö, Merja (eds.) 1998. A Reader in Early Modern English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 33–45 (reprinted from Norman F. Blake and Charles Jones (eds.), English Historical Linguistics. Studies in Development. Sheffield: Department of English Language, University of Sheffield, pp. 123–37)Google Scholar
Ostrowski, Donald G. 1977. Review of Problemy paleografii i kodikologii v SSSR. Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, Neue Folge 25 (2): 264–65Google Scholar
Oxford, Balliol College, MS 224aGoogle Scholar
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley MS 34Google Scholar
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hatton MS 20Google Scholar
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Tanner MS 10Google Scholar
Page, Raymond I. 1999. An Introduction to English Runes. Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Pahta, Päivi, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja and Palander-Collin, Minna (eds.) 2010. Social Roles and Language Practices in Late Modern English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palaima, Thomas G. and Sikkenga, Elizabeth 1999. ‘Linear A > Linear B’, in Betancourt, Philip P., Karageorghis, Vassos, Laffineur, Robert and Niemeier, Wolf-Dietrich (eds.), Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year, vol. 2. Liège/Austin: Histoire de l’art et archéologie de la Grèce antique, Université de Liège/Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory, University of Texas at Austin, pp. 599–608Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna 2010. ‘Correspondence’, in Jucker, Andreas H. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 677–703Google Scholar
Palander-Collin, Minna, Nevala, Minna and Nurmi, Arja 2009. ‘The language of daily life in the history of English: studying how macro meets micro’, in Nurmi, Arja, Nevala, Minna and Palander-Collin, Minna (eds.), The Language of Daily Life in England (1400–1800). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–23Google Scholar
Palionis, Jonas 1995. Lietuvių rašomosios kalbos istorija. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidyklaGoogle Scholar
Pallas, Peter S. 1787, 1789. Linguarum totius orbis vocabularia comparativa; augustissimae cura collecta […] Linguas Europae et Asiae complexae, 2 vols. Petrópolis: Typis Iohannis Caroli SchnoorGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Leonard R. 1955. ‘Observations on the Linear B tablets from Mycenae’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 2: 36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Leonard R. 1963. The Interpretation of Mycenaean Greek Texts. Oxford: The Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Palumbo, Alessandro 2020. Skriftsystem i förändring. En grafematisk studie av de svenska medeltida runinskrifterna. Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala universitetGoogle Scholar
Palumbo, Alessandro 2022. ʻHow Latin is runic Latin? Thoughts on the influence of Latin writing on medieval runic orthographyʼ, in Marold, Edith and Zimmermann, Christiane (eds.), Studien zur runischen Graphematik: Methodische Ansätze und digitale Umsetzung. Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala universitet, pp. 177–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papp, Ference 1994. A Magyar Nyelv Szóvégmutató Szótára. Budapest: Akadémiai KiadóGoogle Scholar
Parkes, Malcolm B. 1987 ‘The contribution of insular scribes of the seventh and eighth centuries to the “grammar of legibility”’, in Maierù, Alfonso (ed.), Grafia e interpunzione del latino nel medioevo (Seminario Internazionale, Roma, 27–29 septembre 1984). Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, pp. 15–31Google Scholar
Parkes, Malcolm B. 1992. Pause and Effect. An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Aldershot: Scholar PressGoogle Scholar
Parkes, Malcolm B. 1993 [1992]. Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Parkes, Malcolm B. 1997. ‘Punctuation in copies of Nicholas Love’s Mirror of the Blessed Life of Jesus Christ’, in Oguro, Shoichi, Beadle, Richard and Sargent, Michael G. (eds.), Nicholas Love at Waseda. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, pp. 47–59Google Scholar
Parkosz, Jakub from Żórawice [Parcossii, Jacobus de Zoravice] c. 1470. Pugna pro patria (incunabulum), MS, in Kucała, Marian (ed.) 1985, Jakuba Parkosza traktat o ortografii polskiej. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, pp. 41–54Google Scholar
Parodi, Claudia 2006. ‘The indianization of Spaniards in New Spain’, in Hidalgo, Margarita (ed.), Mexican Languages at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 29–52Google Scholar
Parpola, Asko 1994. Deciphering the Indus Script. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Patrick, Donna, Murasugi, Kumiko and Palluq-Cloutier, Jeela 2018. ‘Standardization of Inuit languages in Canada’, in Lane, Pia, Costa, James and Haley, De Korne (eds.), Standardizing Minority Languages: Competing Ideologies of Authority and Authenticity in the Global Periphery. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 135–53Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann 1909. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer (4th ed.)Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann 2009 [1880]. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer (reprinted by Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann and Klein, Thomas 2007. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer (25th ed.)Google Scholar
Pavlenko, Aneta 2010. ‘Linguistic landscape of Kyiv, Ukraine: a diachronic study’, in Shohamy, Elana, Ben-Rafael, Eliezer and Barni, Monica (eds.), Linguistic Landscape in the City. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 133–50Google Scholar
Pavlenko, Aneta and Mullen, Alex 2015. ‘Why diachronicity matters in the study of linguistic landscapes’, Linguistic Landscapes 1 (1–2): 108–26Google Scholar
Pearsall, Derek 2011. ‘Foreword’, in Gillespie, Alexandra and Wakelin, Daniel (eds.), The Production of Books in England 1350–1500 (Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology 14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. xv–xviCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, Aud-Kirsti 2016. ‘Is the official use of names in Norway determined by the Place-Names Act or by attitudes?’, in Puzey, Guy and Kostanski, Laura (eds.), Names and Naming: People, Places, Perceptions and Power. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 213–28Google Scholar
Peikola, Matti 2011. ‘Copying space, length of entries, and textual transmission in Middle English tables of lessons’, in Thaisen, Jacob and Rutkowska, Hanna (eds.), Scribes, Printers, and the Accidentals of Their Texts. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 107–24Google Scholar
Pellat, Jean-Christophe 1988. ‘Indépendance ou interaction de l’écrit et de l’oral? Recensement critique des définitions du graphème’, in Catach, Nina (ed.), Pour une théorie de la langue écrite. Paris: Éditions du CNRS, pp. 133–46Google Scholar
Pellegrini, Giovanni B. and Prosdocimi, Aldo L. 1967. La lingua venetica. Padua: Instituto di glottologia dell’UniversitàGoogle Scholar
Pemberton, Caroline 1899. Boethius, De Consolatione Philosophiae, AD 1593, Plutarch, De Curiositate, Horace, De Arte Poetica (Part), AD 1598. Edited from the Unique MS, Partly in the Queen’s Hand, in the Public Record Office, London (Early English Text Society). London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner and CoGoogle Scholar
Peng, Jian, Choo, Kim-Kwang Raymond and Ashman, Helen 2016. ‘Bit-level n-gram based forensic authorship analysis on social media: identifying individuals from linguistic profiles’, Journal of Network and Computer Applications 70 (July): 171–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2016.04.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penny, Ralph 2004. ‘Evolución lingüística en la Baja Edad Media: evoluciones en el plano fonético’, in Aguilar, Cano, Rafael (ed.), Historia de la lengua española. Barcelona: Ariel, pp. 593–612Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert 1950. ‘Orthography and phonemes in Wulfila’s Gothic’, Journal of English and Germanic Philology 49: 217–30Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert 1957. ‘The evidence for phonemic changes’, in Pulgram, Ernst (ed.), Studies Presented to Joshua Whatmough on His Sixtieth Birthday. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 193–208Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert 1959. ‘Konsonantenphoneme und Orthographie im althochdeutschen Isidor’, Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie Fernand Moddé in memoriam. Paris: Didier, pp. 354–61Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert 1971. ‘Scribal practice, phonological change, and biuniqueness’, The German Quarterly 44 (3): 305–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penzl, Herbert 1982. ‘Zur Methodik der historischen Phonologie: Schreibung – Lautung und die Erforschung des Althochdeutschen’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 104: 169–89Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert 1987. ‘Zur alphabetischen Orthographie als Gegenstand der Sprachwissenschaft’, in Luelsdorff, Philip A. (ed.), Orthography and Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 225–38Google Scholar
Percy, Carol 2012. ‘Standardization: codifiers’, in Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook, vol. 1. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 1006–20Google Scholar
Pérez, Manuel 1713. Arte de el idioma mexicano. Mexico City: Francisco de Ribera CalderónGoogle Scholar
Pérez Ledesma, Manuel and Saz, Ismael (eds.) 2014. Historia de las culturas políticas en España y América Latina. Madrid/Zaragoza: Marcial Pons Historia/Prensas Universitarias de ZaragozaGoogle Scholar
Peters, Robert 2017. Atlas spätmittelalterlicher Schreibsprachen des niederdeutschen Altlandes und angrenzender Gebiete (ASnA), 3 vols. Berlin/Boston: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petruševski, Mihail D. and Ilievski, Petar H. 1958. ‘The phonetic value of the Mycenaean syllabic sign *85’, Živa Antika 8: 265–78Google Scholar
Pettersen, Egil 1957. Norskhet i språket hos Dorothe Engelbretsdatter. Bergen: UniversitetsforlagetGoogle Scholar
Pettersson, Eva and Megyesi, Beáta 2018. ʻThe HistCorp collection of historical corpora and resourcesʼ, in Mäkelä, Eetu, Tolonen, Mikko and Tuominen, Jouni (eds.), DHN 2018: Proceedings of the Digital Humanities in the Nordic Countries 3rd Conference. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, pp. 306–20Google Scholar
Pettersson, Jonatan 2019. ‘The Swedish Bible translations and the transition from Old Swedish to Early Modern Swedish’, in Kauko, Mikko, Norro, Miika, Nummila, Kirsi-Maria, Toropainen, Tanja and Fonsén, Tuomo (eds.), Languages in the Lutheran Reformation: Textual Networks and the Spread of Ideas. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 129–48Google Scholar
Petti, Anthony G. 1977. English Literary Hands from Chaucer to Dryden. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Pharao Hansen, Marcus 2016. ‘How to spell Nahuatl? Nawatl? Nauatl?’, http://nahuatlstudies.blogspot.com/2016/07/how-to-spell-nahuatl-nawatl-nauatl.htmlGoogle Scholar
Pharo, Lars K. 2015. ‘Authorities of scriptural technologies in America’, in Wimbush, Vincent L. (ed.), Scripturalizing the Human: The Written as the Political. New York/London: Routledge, 150–75Google Scholar
Pheifer, Joseph D. 1974. Old English Glosses in the Épinal-Erfurt Glossary. Oxford: Clarendon PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 2006. Word Frequency and Lexical Diffusion. New York: Palgrave MacmillanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierini, Rachele 2014. ‘Ricerche sul segno 25 del sillabario miceneo’, in Bernabé, Alberto and Luján, Eugenio R. (eds.), Donum Mycenologicum: Mycenaean Studies in Honour of Francisco Aura Jorro. Leuven/Walpole: Peeters, pp. 105–37Google Scholar
Pilz, Thomas, Ernst-Gerlach, Andrea, Kempken, Sebastian, Rayson, Paul and Archer, Dawn 2007. ‘The identification of spelling variants in English and German historical texts: manual or automatic?’ Literary and Linguistic Computing 23 (1): 65–72, https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqm044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piotrowski, Michael 2012. Natural Language Processing for Historical Texts. San Rafael: Morgan and ClaypoolCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisowicz, Andrzej 2014 [2001]. Gramatyka ormiańska (grabar – aszcharabar). Kraków: Księgarnia AkademickaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pisowicz, Andrzej 2000. ‘Ormianie polscy. Problem świadomości narodowej a kwestia języka’, in Bobrownicka, Maria (ed.), Język a tożsamość narodowa: Slavica. Kraków: Towarzystwo Autorów i Wydawców Prac Naukowych “Universitas”, pp. 135–42Google Scholar
Plans, Antonio S. 2004. ‘Los lenguajes especiales y de las minorías en el Siglo de Oro’, in Aguilar, Cano, Rafael (ed.), Historia de la lengua española. Barcelona: Ariel, pp. 771–97Google Scholar
Pleij, Herman 1982. De wereld volgens Thomas van der Noot, boekdrukker en uitgever te Brussel in het eerste kwart van de zestiende eeuw. Muiderberg: Dirk CoutinhoGoogle Scholar
Pleij, Herman 2010. ‘Printing as a long-term revolution’, in Wijsman, Hanno (ed.), Books in Transition at the Time of Philip the Fair. Manuscripts and Printed Books in the Late Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Century Low Countries. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, pp. 297–307Google Scholar
Pleij, Herman and Reynaert, Joris 2004. ‘Inleiding. Boekproductie in de overgang van het geschreven naar het gedrukte boek’, in Pleij, Herman and Reynaert, Joris (eds.), Geschreven en gedrukt. Boekproductie van handschrift naar druk in de overgang van de Middeleeuwen naar de moderne tijd. Ghent: Academia Press, pp. 1–18Google Scholar
Pocklington, Robert 1986. ‘El sustrato arábigo-granadino en la formación de los dialectos orientales del andaluz’, Revista de Filología Española 61: 75–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, Maurice 1999. The Story of Decipherment: From Egyptian Hieroglyphs to Maya Script. London: Thames and Hudson (revised ed.)Google Scholar
Pope, Maurice 2008. ‘The decipherment of Linear B’, in Duhoux, Yves and Davies, Anna Morpurgo (eds.), A Companion to Linear B: Mycenaean Greek Texts and Their World, vol. 1. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 1–23Google Scholar
Popp, Daniel 1977. Asbjørnsen’s linguistic reform. I Orthography. Oslo/Bergen/Tromsø: UniversitetsforlagetGoogle Scholar
Portebois, Yannick 2003. ‘La réforme de l’orthographe, une affaire d’état’, Histoire, Épistémologie, Langage 25 (1): 71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poser, William. J. 1992. ‘The structural typology of phonological writing’. Oral presentation at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Philadelphia, USAGoogle Scholar
Poussa, Patricia 1982. ‘The evolution of early standard English’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 14: 69–85Google Scholar
Pountain, Christopher J. 2016. ‘Standardization’, in Ledgeway, Adam and Maiden, Martin (eds.), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 634–43Google Scholar
Pouzet, Jean-Pascal 2011. ‘Book production outside commercial contexts’, in Gillespie, Alexandra and Wakelin, Daniel (eds.), The Production of Books in England 1350–1500 (Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology 14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 212–38Google Scholar
Powell, Barry B. 2009. Writing: Theory and History of the Technology of Civilization. Chichester: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Powers, David S. 2009. ‘Chapter 8: Paleography and codicology: Bibliothèque nationale de France, Arabe 328a’, in Muhammad Is Not the Father of Any of Your Men: The Making of the Last Prophet. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prakulevičius, Stanislovas, 1879-01-05: Letter to Mykolas Godliauskis and His Family. Vilnius University Library, Manuscript collection: F. 1 – E441.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis 2000. ‘Mowr and mowr bayud spellin’: confessions of a sociolinguist’, in Jaffe, Alexandra M. (ed.), Non-Standard Orthography, special issue of Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (4): 614–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pride, John 1971. The Social Meaning of Language. London: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Primus, Beatrice 2003. ‘Zum Silbenbegriff in der Schrift-, Laut- und Gebärdensprache - Versuch einer mediumübergreifenden Fundierung’, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 22 (1): 3–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primus, Beatrice 2004. ‘A featural analysis of the modern Roman alphabet’, in Neef, Martin and Primus, Beatrice (eds.), From Letter to Sound: New Perspectives on Writing Systems, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 7 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 235–74Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice 2006. ‘Buchstabenkomponenten und ihre Grammatik’, in Bredel, Ursula and Günther, Hartmut (eds.), Orthographietheorie und Rechtschreibunterricht. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 5–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primus, Beatrice 2007. ‘The typological and historical variation of punctuation systems: comma constraints’, in Nottbusch, Guido and Segers, Eliane (eds.), Constraints on Spelling Changes, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 10 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 103–28Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice 2010. ‘Strukturelle Grundlagen des deutschen Schriftsystems’, in Bredel, Ursula, Müller, Astrid and Hinney, Gabriele (eds.), Schriftsystem und Schrifterwerb: linguistisch – didaktisch – empirisch. Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 9–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primus, Beatrice 2011. ‘Buchstabendekomposition – Replik auf Oliver Rezec’, Linguistische Berichte 225: 63–76Google Scholar
Prosdocimi, Aldo L. 1983. ‘Puntuazione sillabica e insegnamento della scrittura nel venetico e nelle fonti etrusche’, AION (Ling) 5: 75–126Google Scholar
Prosdocimi, Aldo L. 1984. Le Tavole Iguvine, vol. 1. Florence: Leo S. OlschkiGoogle Scholar
Puchmír, Jaroslav 1851. Pravopis rusko-český. Prague: Bohumil Haase (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Puelles Benítez, Manuel 2010. Estado y educación en la España liberal, 1809–1857. Un sistema educativo nacional frustrado. Barcelona: PomaresGoogle Scholar
Pulgram, Ernst 1951. ‘Phoneme and grapheme: a parallel’, Word 7: 15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putschke, Wolfgang 1998. ‘Die Arbeiten der Junggrammatiker und ihr Beitrag zur Sprachgeschichtsforschung’, in Besch, Werner, Betten, Anne, Reichmann, Oskar and Sonderegger, Stefan (eds.), Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 2.1). Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 474–94 (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Puttenham, George 1968 [1589]. The Arte of English Poesie. Menston: Scholar PressGoogle Scholar
Quintilian, 1920. Institution Oratoria (with a translation by Harold E. Butler). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Rabasa, José 1993. ‘Writing and evangelization in sixteenth-century Mexico’, in Williams, Jerry and Lewis, Robert (eds.), Early Images of the Americas: Transfer and Invention. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 65–92Google Scholar
Rada Języka Polskiego przy Prezydium PAN (ed.) 2007. Język polski. Warsaw: Rada Języka Polskiego przy Prezydium PANGoogle Scholar
Radziszewska, Iwona 2015. ‘Przegląd autorskich systemów transliteracji i transkrypcji. Uwagi do zestawienia tabelarycznego’, in Kulwicka-Kamińska, Joanna and Łapicz, Czesław (eds.), Tefsir Tatarów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego: Teoria i praktyka badawcza. Toruń: Wydział Filologiczny UMK, pp. 173–94, www.tefsir.umk.pl/pliki/Tefsir_Tatarow_WKL.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rambaran-Olm, Mary R. 2014. ‘Chapter 1: Palaeography, codicology and language’, in ‘John the Baptist’s Prayer’ or ‘The Descent to Hell’ from the Exeter Book: Text, Translation and Critical Study. Rochester: Boydell and BrewerGoogle Scholar
Ramírez Aisa, Elías 2003. Educación y control en los orígenes de la España liberal. Madrid: UNED/Biblioteca NuevaGoogle Scholar
Raschellà, Fabrizio 1994. ʻRune e alfabeto latino nel trattato grammaticale di Óláfr Þórðarsonʼ, in Sigurðsson, Gísli, Kvaran, Guðrún and Steingrímsson, Sigurgeir (eds.), Sagnaþing helgað Jónasi Kristjánssyni sjötugum 10. apríl 1994. Reykjavík: Hið íslenska bókmenntafélag, pp. 679–90Google Scholar
Raubicheck, Letitia E., Davis, Estelle H. and Carll, Lydia A. 1940. Voice and Speech Problems, New York: Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
Remacle, Louis 1948. Le problème de l’ancien wallon. Liège: Faculté de Philosophie et LettresCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rambø, Gro-Renée 2018. ‘Det selvstendige Norge 1905–1945’, in Nesse, Agnete (ed.), Tidslinjer, vol. 4 of Sandøy, Helge and Nesse, Agnete (eds.), Norsk språkhistorie. Oslo: Novus, pp. 503–602Google Scholar
Rastle, Kathleen 2019. ‘EPS mid-career prize lecture 2017: writing systems, reading, and language’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 72 (4): 677–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rauch, Irmengard and Carr, Gerald F. (eds.) 1979. Linguistic Method: Essays in Honor of Herbert Penzl (Janua linguarum. Series maior 79). The Hague: MoutonGoogle Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena and Nevalainen, Terttu 1990. ‘Dialectal features in a corpus of Early Modern Standard English?’, in Caie, Graham, Haastrup, Kirsten, Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, Nielsen, Jørgen Erik, Sevaldsen, Jørgen, Specht, Henrik and Zettersten, Arne (eds.), Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Conference for English Studies, vol. 1. Copenhagen: Department of English, University of Copenhagen, pp. 119–131Google Scholar
Raven, James 2007. The Business of Books: Booksellers and the English Book Trade 1450–1850. New Haven: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
Ravida, Fausto 2012. Graphematisch-phonologische Analyse der Luxemburger Rechnungsbücher (1388–1500). Ein Beitrag zur historischen Stadtsprachenforschung. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Joad 2011. ‘Development of the book trade’, in Raymond, Joad (ed.), The Oxford History of Popular Print Culture, vol. 1: Cheap Print in Britain and in Ireland to 1660. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 59–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayner, Keith and Pollatsek, Alexander 1989. The Psychology of Reading. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice HallGoogle ScholarPubMed
Read, Charles 1983. ‘Orthography’, in Martlew, Margaret (ed.), The Psychology of Written Language: Developmental and Educational Perspectives. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 143–62Google Scholar
Read, Charles, Yun-Fei, Zhang, Hong-Yin, Nie and Bao-Qing, Ding 1986. ‘The ability to manipulate speech sounds depends on knowing alphabetic writing’, Cognition 24: 31–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Real Academia Española 1815. Ortografía de la lengua castellana. Madrid: Imprenta Real (8th ed.)Google Scholar
Real Academia Española 1884. Diccionario de la lengua castellana por la Real Academia Española. Madrid: Imprenta de Gregorio Hernando (12th ed.)Google Scholar
Real Academia Española 1999. Ortografía de la lengua española. Madrid: EspasaGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española 2010. Ortografía de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa CalpeGoogle Scholar
Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española 2019. Gramática y ortografía básicas de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa CalpeGoogle Scholar
Recasens, Daniel 2012. ‘A phonetic interpretation of the sound changes affecting dark /l/ in Romance’, in Solé, Maria-Josep and Recasens, Daniel (eds.), The Initiation of Sound Change: Perception, Production, and Social Factors. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reczek, Józef 1987. ‘Językowa polonizacja Ormian’, Język Polski 67 (1–2): 1–8Google Scholar
Reid, S. W. 1974. ‘Justification and spelling in Jaggard’s Compositor B’, Studies in Bibliography 27: 91–111Google Scholar
Reiner, Erica 2000. ‘The Sumerian and Akkadian linguistic tradition’, in Auroux, Sylvain, Koerner, Ernst F. K., Niederehe, Hans-Josef and Versteegh, Kees (eds.), History of the Language Sciences/Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften/Histoire des sciences du langage. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Rem, Margit 2003. De taal van de klerken uit de Hollandse grafelijke kanselarij (1300–1340). Naar een lokaliseringsprocedure voor het veertiende-eeuwse Middelnederlands. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VUGoogle Scholar
Reyes Equiguas, Salvador 2016. ‘El scriptorium del Colegio de la Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco a través de los códices Florentino y De la Cruz-Badiano’, in Hernández, Esther and Máynez, Pilar (eds.), El Colegio de Tlatelolco: Síntesis de Historias, Lenguas y Culturas. Mexico City: Destiempos, pp. 26–38Google Scholar
Rezec, Oliver 2010. ‘Der vermeintliche Zusammenhang zwischen Buchstabenformen und Lautwerten. Erwiderung auf einige Thesen von Beatrice Primus’, Linguistische Berichte 223: 343–66Google Scholar
Rezec, Oliver 2011. ‘Der vermeintliche Zusammenhang zwischen Buchstabenformen und Lautwerten. Zweite Erwiderung’, Linguistische Berichte 225: 89–100Google Scholar
Rezec, Oliver 2013. ‘Ein differenziertes Strukturmodell des deutschen Schriftsystems’, Linguistische Berichte 234: 227–54Google Scholar
Rice, Keren and Saxon, Leslie 2002. ‘Issues of standardization and community in Aboriginal language lexicography’, in Frawley, William, Hill, Kenneth C. and Munro, Pamela (eds.), Making Dictionaries. Preserving Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 125–54Google Scholar
Ricento, Thomas 2006. ‘Language policy: theory and planning. An introduction’, in Ricento, Thomas (ed.), Language Policy: Theory and Planning. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 10–23Google Scholar
Richardson, Brian 2001. ‘Questions of language’, in Barański, Zygmunt G. and West, Rebecca J. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Modern Italian Culture. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 63–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Kay P. 2018. ‘Spelling-gate: politics, propriety and power’, Journal of Language and Politics 17 (6): 812–30, https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17072.ricCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Malcolm 1980. ‘Henry V, the English Chancery and Chancery English’, Speculum 55: 726–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickard, Peter 1989. A History of the French Language. London: Unwin Hyman (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Rickford, John and Eckert, Penelope 2001. ‘Introduction’, in Eckert, Penelope and Rickford, John (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–18Google Scholar
Rimzhim, Anurag, Katz, Leonard and Fowler, Carol A. 2014. ‘Brāhmī-derived orthographies are typologically Āksharik but functionally predominantly alphabetic’, Writing Systems Research 6: 41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rinas, Karsten 2017. Theorie der Punkte und Striche. Die Geschichte der deutschen Interpunktionslehre. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Don and Taylor, Ann 2014. The Development of Old English. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risch, Ernst 1957. ‘Mykenisch wo-wo ko-to-no’, Minos 5: 28–34Google Scholar
Risch, Ernst and Hajnal, Ivo 2006. Grammatik des mykenischen Griechisch, http://sprawi.at/de/content/mykenisches_griechischGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti 2012. ‘Corpora and the study of the history of English’, in Kytö, Merja (ed.), English Corpus Linguistics: Crossing Paths. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, pp. 197–220Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja, Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, Kilpiö, Matti, Nevanlinna, Saara, Taavitsainen, Irma, Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena (compilers) 1991. The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki, https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/14/rissanen_tyrkko/Google Scholar
Risse, Ursula 1980. Untersuchungen zum Gebrauch der Majuskel in deutschsprachigen Bibeln des 16. Jahrhunderts: ein historischer Beitrag zur Diskussion um die Substantivgroßschreibung (Studien zum Frühneuhochdeutschen 5). Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Rix, Helmut 1985. ‘Descrizioni di rituali in etrusco e in italico’, in Quattordio, Adriana (ed.), L’etrusco e le lingue dell’Italia antica. Atti del Convegno della Società italiana di glottologia, Pisa, 8 e 9 dicembre 1984. Pisa: Giardini, pp. 21–37Google Scholar
Rix, Helmut 2002. Sabellische Texte. Die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Südpikenischen. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Rizvi, Pervez 2016. ‘The use of spellings for compositor attribution in the First Folio’, The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 110 (1): 1–53, https://doi.org/10.1086/685663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberge, Paul T. 2003. ‘Afrikaans’, in Deumert, Ana and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 15–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, David 2011. ‘A tone orthography typology’, in Borgwaldt, Susanne R. and Joyce, Terry (eds.), Typology of Writing Systems, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 14 (1). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 82–108Google Scholar
Roberts, Jane 2005. Guide to Scripts Used in English Writings Up to 1500. London: The British LibraryGoogle Scholar
Robertson, John S. 2004. ‘The possibility and actuality of writing’, in Houston, Stephen D. (ed.), The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–38Google Scholar
Robinson, Andrew 1995. The Story of Writing: Alphabets, Hieroglyphs and Pictograms. London: Thames and HudsonGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Andrew 2009. Writing and Script: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocha, Luis M. 1998. ‘Selected self-organization and the semiotics of evolutionary systems’, in Gertrudis, van de Vijver, Salthe, Stanley N. and Delpos, Manuela (eds.), Evolutionary Systems: Biological and Epistemological Perspectives on Selection and Self-Organization. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 341–58Google Scholar
Rogers, Henry 2005. Writing Systems: A Linguistic Approach. Malden: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Rogos, Justyna 2013. ‘Crafting text language: spelling systems in manuscripts of the “Man of Law’s Tale” as a means of constructing scribal community of practice’, in Kopaczyk, Joanna and Jucker, Andreas H. (eds.), Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 105–21Google Scholar
Rogos-Hebda, Justyna 2016. ‘The visual text: bibliographic codes as pragmatic markers on a manuscript page’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 51 (3): 37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogos-Hebda, Justyna 2020. ‘Visual pragmatics of abbreviations and otiose strokes in John Lydgate’s Siege of Thebes’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21 (1): 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogos-Hebda, Justyna 2023. ‘Multimodal contexts for visual code-switching: scribal practices in two manuscrips of Gower’s Confessio Amantis’, in Włodarczyk, Matylda, Tyrkkö, Jukka and Adamczyk, Elżbieta (eds.), Multilingualism from Manuscript to 3D: Intersections of Multimodalities from Medieval to Modern Times. London: Routledge, pp. 19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollings, Andrew G. 2004. The Spelling Patterns of English. Munich: LincomGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne 1982. Socio-Historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne 1998. ‘Introduction’, in Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 4: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–56Google Scholar
Romero-Barranco, Jesús 2020. ‘Spelling normalisation and POS-tagging of historical corpora: the case of GUL, MS Hunter 135 (ff. 34r–121v)’, in Fuster-Márquez, Miguel, Gregori-Signes, Carmen and Santaemilia Ruiz, José (eds.), Multiperspectives in Analysis and Corpus Design. Granada: Comares, pp. 103–14Google Scholar
Rosa, Jonathan and Flores, Nelson 2017. ‘Unsettling race and language: toward a raciolinguistic perspective’, Language in Society 46: 621–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblat, Ángel 1951. ‘Las ideas ortográficas de Bello’, in Rosenblat, Ángel, Obras completes, vol. 5: Estudios gramaticales. Caracas: Ministerio de Educación, pp. ix–cxxxviiiGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Bernard, Adams, Gretchen A., Burns, Margo, Grund, Peter J., Hiltunen, Risto, Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, Kytö, Merja, Peikola, Matti, Ray, Benjamin C., Rissanen, Matti, Roach, Marilynne K. and Trask, Richard B. (eds.) 2009. Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rospocher, Massimo, Salman, Jeroen and Hannu, Salmi (eds.) 2019. Crossing Borders, Crossing Cultures: Popular Print in Europe (1450–1900). Berlin/Boston: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rospond, Stanisław 1953. ‘Problem genezy polskiego języka literackiego: uwagi polemiczne do artykułów T. Milewskiego oraz W. Taszyckiego’, Pamiętnik Literacki 44 (2): 512–47Google Scholar
Rössing-Hagar, Monika 2000. ‘Frühe grammatische Beschreibungen des Deutschen’, in Auroux, Sylvain, Koerner, Ernst F. K., Niederehe, Hans-Josef and Versteegh, Kees (eds.), History of the Language Sciences/Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften/Histoire des sciences du langage. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 777–84Google Scholar
Rössler, Paul 2000. ‘Von der Virgel zum Slash. Zur Zeichensetzung zwischen Gutenberg und Internet’, Zeitschrift für Germanistik 3: 508–20Google Scholar
Rössler, Paul 2005. Schreibvariation, Sprachregion, Konfession. Graphematik und Morphologie in österreichischen und bayerischen Drucken vom 16. bis ins 18. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Rössler, Paul, Besl, Peter and Saller, Anna (eds.) 2021. Vergleichende Interpunktion – Comparative Punctuation. Berlin/New York: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Robert 1977. ‘Spelling and society: the Polish orthographic controversy of the 1930s’, in Stolz, Benjamin (ed.), Papers in Slavic Philology I. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, pp. 225–36Google Scholar
Rozhdestvenskai͡a, Tat’i͡ana V. 1992. Drevnerusskie nadpisi na stenakh khramov: novye istochniki XI–XV vv. Saint Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universitetaGoogle Scholar
Ruge, Nikolaus 2004. Aufkommen und Durchsetzung morphembezogener Schreibungen im Deutschen 1500–1770. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Ruge, Nikolaus 2013. ‘Graphematik’, in Neef, Martin, Sahel, Said and Weingarten, Rüdiger (eds.), Schriftlinguistik/ Grapholinguistics (Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science 5). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, www.degruyter.com/view/db/wskGoogle Scholar
Ruijgh, Cornelius 1985. ‘Problèmes de philologie mycénienne’, Minos 19: 105–67Google Scholar
Rumble, Alexander R. 1994. ‘Using Anglo-Saxon manuscripts’, in Richards, Mary P. (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Paleography: Basic Readings. New York: Garland Press, 3–24Google Scholar
Ruscelli, Girolamo 1595. The Secrets of the Reuerend Maister Alexis of Piemont, Containing Excellent Remedies Against Diuerse Diseases, Wounds, and Other Accidents. London: Peter ShortGoogle Scholar
Russell, James R. 2006. Review of Album of Armenian Paleography by Michael E. Stone, Dickran Kouymjian and Henning Lehmann, Speculum 81 (1): 278–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russi, Cinzia (ed.) 2016. ‘Introduction’, in Russi, Cizia (ed.), Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russon, Allien R. 2016. ‘Shorthand’, Encyclopedia Britannica Online, www.britannica.com/topic/shorthandGoogle Scholar
Ruszkiewicz, Piotr 1972. ‘Tytus Benni’s views on English graphemics’, Acta Philologica 5: 5–37Google Scholar
Ruszkiewicz, Piotr 1976. Modern Approaches to Graphophonemic Investigations in English. Katowice: Uniwersytet ŚląskiGoogle Scholar
Ruszkiewicz, Piotr 1978. ‘Jan Baudouin de Courtenay’s theory of the grapheme’, Acta Philologica 7: 111–28Google Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna 2003. Graphemics and Morphosyntax in the Cely Letters (1472–88). Frankfurt am Main: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna 2005. ‘Selected orthographic features in English editions of the Book of good maners (1487–1507)’, SELIM 12 (2003–2004): 127–42Google Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna 2012. ‘Linguistic levels: orthography’, in Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics. An International Handbook, vol. 1. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 224–37Google Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna 2013a. Orthographic Systems in Thirteen Editions of the Kalender of Shepherdes (1506–1656). Berlin: Peter LangCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna 2013b. ‘Typographical and graphomorphemic features of five editions of the Kalender of Shepherdes as elements of the early printers’ community of practice’, in Kopaczyk, Joanna and Jucker, Andreas H. (eds.), Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 123–49Google Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna 2013c. ‘Towards regularisation: morphological spelling in several editions of the Kalender of Shepherdes ’, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 48 (1): 7–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna 2015a. ‘Late medieval dialectal and obsolescent spellings in the sixteenth-century editions of the Kalender of Shepherdes’, in Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo and Calle-Martín, Javier (eds.), Approaches to Middle English. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 129–47Google Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna 2015b. Review of Orthographies in Early Modern Europe by Susan Baddeley and Anja Voeste (eds.), Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 1 (2): 297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna 2016. ‘Orthographic regularization in Early Modern English printed books: grapheme distribution and vowel length indication’, in Russi, Cinzia (ed.), Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Warsaw/Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 165–93Google Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna 2017. ‘Orthography’, in Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel (eds.), The History of English, vol. 1: Historical Outlines from Sound to Text. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 200–17Google Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna 2020a. ‘Morphological spelling: present-tense verb inflection in the early editions of The Book of Good Manersʼ, International Journal of English Studies 20 (2): 31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna 2020b. ‘Visual pragmatics of an early modern book: printers’ paratextual choices in the editions of The School of Vertue, in Tagg, Caroline and Evans, Mel (eds.), Message and Medium: English Language Practices across Old and New Media (Topics in English Linguistics 105). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 199–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutkowska, Hanna and Rössler, Paul 2012. ‘Orthographic variables’, in Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 213–36Google Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert 2016a. ‘Historicizing diaglossia’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 20 (1): 6–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert 2016b. ‘Diaglossia, individual variation and the limits of standardization: evidence from Dutch’, in Russi, Cinzia (ed.), Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 194–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert 2019. Language Planning as Nation Building. Ideology, Policy and Implementation in the Netherlands, 1750–1850. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert and Krogull, Andreas 2022. ‘The observee’s paradox: theorizing linguistic differences between historical ego-documents’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 122 (1–2): 284–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert, Krogull, Andreas and Schoemaker, Bob 2020. ‘Implementation and acceptance of national language policy: the case of Dutch (1750–1850)’, Language Policy 19: 259–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert and van der Wal, Marijke J. 2011. ‘Local dialects, supralocal writing systems: the degree of orality of Dutch private letters from the seventeenth century’, Written Language and Literacy 14 (2): 251–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert and van der Wal, Marijke J. 2014. Letters as Loot: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Dutch. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin, https://doi.org/10.1075/ahs.2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert and van der Wal, Marijke J. 2018. ‘Dutch private letters from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: the linguistic experiences of the lower and middle ranks’, in Thun, Joachim Steffen Harald and Zaiser, Rainer (eds.), Classes populaires, scripturalité, et histoire de la langue. Un bilan interdisciplinaire. Kiel: Westensee-Verlag, pp. 227–49Google Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert and Vosters, Rik 2010. ‘Chaos and standards: orthography in the southern Netherlands (1720–1830)’, Multilingua 29 (3–4): 417–38, https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2010.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert and Vosters, Rik 2013. ‘Une tradition néerlandaise? Du bon usage aux Pays-Bas (1686–1830)’, in Ayres-Bennett, Wendy and Seijido, Magali (eds.), Bon usage et variation sociolinguistique. Perspectives diachroniques et traditions nationales. Lyon: Éditions de l’École Normale Supérieure (ENS), pp. 233–43Google Scholar
Rutten, Gijsbert, Vosters, Rik and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.) 2014. Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruus, Hanne 2005. ‘The development of Danish from the mid-16th century to 1800’, in Bandle, Oskar, Braunmüller, Kurt, Jahr, Ernst H., Karker, Allan, Naumann, Hans-Peter and Teleman, Ulf (eds.), The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 22.2). Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1282–91Google Scholar
Ryan, Des 2016. ‘Linguists’ descriptions of the English writing system’, in Cook, Vivian and Ryan, Des (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 41–64Google Scholar
Ryan, Des 2017. ‘Principles of English spelling formation’. Doctoral dissertation, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, www.academia.edu/36177552/Principles_of_English_spelling_formation_final_Ph.D._thesis_Google Scholar
Rypins, Stanley (ed.) 1998. Three Old English Prose Texts in MS. Cotton Vitellius A xv (Early English Text Society OS 161). London: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Saenger, Paul 1997. Space between Words: The Origins of Silent Reading (Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture). Stanford: Stanford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saenger, Paul 2000. Space between Words. The Origins of Silent Reading. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press (paperback ed.)Google Scholar
Sahle, Patrick 2013. Digitale Editionsformen. Zum Umgang mit der Überlieferung unter den Bedingungen des Medienwandels. 3 Bände. Norderstedt: Books on DemandGoogle Scholar
Sairio, Anni. 2009. Language and Letters of the Bluestocking Network: Sociolinguistic Issues in Eighteenth-Century Epistolary English (Mémoires de La Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 75). Helsinki: Société NéophilologiqueGoogle Scholar
Sairio, Anni 2010. ‘“if You think me obstinate I can’t help it”: exploring the epistolary styles and social roles of Elizabeth Montagu and Sarah Scott’, in Pahta, Päivi, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja and Palander-Collin, Minna (eds.), Social Roles and Language Practices in Late Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sairio, Anni 2013. ‘Elizabeth Montagu’s Shakespeare essay (1769): the final draft and the first edition as evidence of two communities of practice’, in Kopaczyk, Joanna and Jucker, Andreas H. (eds.), Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 177–97Google Scholar
Sairio, Anni 2017. Bluestocking Corpus: Letters of Elizabeth Montagu, 1730s–1780s. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, http://bluestocking.ling.helsinki.fi/Google Scholar
Sairio, Anni 2018. ‘Weights and measures of eighteenth-century language: a sociolinguistic account of Montagu’s correspondence’, Huntington Library Quarterly 81 (4): 633–56, https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2018.0024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sairio, Anni, Kaislaniemi, Samuli, Merikallio, Anna and Nevalainen, Terttu 2018. ‘Charting orthographical reliability in a corpus of English historical letters’, ICAME Journal 42 (1): 79–96, https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2018-0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salgarella, Ester 2018. ‘Some thoughts on Mycenaean o-u-qe’, in Jasink, Anna Margherita and Alberti, Maria E. (eds.), Akrothinia 2: Contributi di giovani ricercatori agli studi egei e ciprioti. Florence: Firenze University Press, pp. 249–57Google Scholar
Salgarella, Ester 2019a. ‘Non-connective behaviour of the particle -qe in the Linear B documents from Pylos’, Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici. Nuova Serie 5: 71–84Google Scholar
Salgarella, Ester 2019b. ‘Form and function of clausal particles in the Mycenaean documents from Pylos’, Journal of Greek Linguistics 19: 196–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salgarella, Ester 2020. Aegean Linear Script(s): Rethinking the Relationship between Linear A and Linear B. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salgarella, Ester 2021. ‘Imagining Cretan scripts: the influence of visual motifs on the creation of script-signs in Bronze Age Crete’, Annual of the British School at Athens 116: 63–94, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245421000034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Vivian 1999. ‘Orthography and punctuation’, in Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 3: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–55Google Scholar
Salomies, Olli 2015. ‘The Roman Republic’, in Bruun, Christer and Edmondson, Jonathan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 153–77Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey 1985. Writing Systems: A Linguistic Introduction. London: Hutchinson/Stanford: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey 1994. ‘Chinese script and the diversity of writing systems’, Linguistics 32: 117–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey 2015. Writing Systems. Sheffield: Equinox (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey 2016a. ‘Typology and the study of writing systems’, Linguistic Typology 20 (3): 561–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey 2016b. ‘Writing systems: methods for recording language’, in Allan, Keith (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Linguistics. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 47–61Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey 2018a. ‘The redundancy of self-organization as an explanation of English spelling’, Language 94 (1): e43–e47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey 2018b. ‘From phonemic spelling to distinctive spelling’, in Beeksma, Merijn and Neef, Martin (eds.), Understanding Writing Systems, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 21 (1). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 3–25Google Scholar
Samuels, Michael L. 1963. ‘Some applications of Middle English dialectology’, English Studies 44 (2): 81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, Michael L. 1969 [1963]. ‘Some applications of Middle English dialectology’, in Lass, Roger (ed.), Approaches to English Historical Linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 404–18 (reprinted from English Studies, 44, pp. 81–94)Google Scholar
Samuels, Michael L. 1972. Linguistic Evolution, with Special Reference to English. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, Michael L. 1981. ‘Spelling and dialect in the late and post-Middle English periods’, in Benskin, Michael and Samuels, Michael L. (eds.), So Meny People Longages and Tonges: Philological Essays in Scots and Mediaeval English Presented to Angus McIntosh. Edinburgh: Middle English Dialect Project, pp. 43–54Google Scholar
Samuels, Michael L. 1989 [1963]. ‘Some applications of Middle English dialectology’, in McIntosh, Angus, Samuels, Michael L. and Laing, Margaret (eds.), Middle English Dialectology: Essays on Some Principles and Problems. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, pp. 64–80Google Scholar
Sánchez Méndez, Juan 2003. Historia de la lengua española en América. Valencia: Tirant Lo BlancGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Prieto Borja, Pedro 2012. ‘Para una historia de la escritura romance en León, Castilla y Aragón: algunas claves interpretativas’, Medioevo romanzo 36: 24–61Google Scholar
Sandoval, Rafael 1965 [1810]. ‘Arte de la lengua mexicana’, Estudios de cultura náhuatl 5: 221–76Google Scholar
Sandøy, Helge 1975 Språk og politikk. Oslo: Det norske SamlagetGoogle Scholar
Sandøy, Helge 2018. ‘Idéhistoria om norsk språk’, in Bull, Tove (ed.), Ideologi, vol. 3 of Sandøy, Helge and Nesse, Agnete (eds.), Norsk språkhistorie I–IV. Oslo: Novus, pp. 149–243Google Scholar
Sandøy, Helge and Nesse, Agnete (eds.) 2016–18. Norsk språkhistorie, 4 vols. Oslo: NovusGoogle Scholar
Sandved, Arthur O. 1981. ‘Prolegomena to a renewed study of the rise of standard English’, in Benskin, Michael and Samuels, Michael L. (eds.), So Meny People Longages and Tonges: Philological Essays in Scots and Mediaeval English Presented to Angus McIntosh. Edinburgh: Middle English Dialect Project, pp. 31–42Google Scholar
Sanz-Sánchez, Israel 2019. ‘Documenting feature pools in language expansion situations: sibilants in Early Colonial Latin American Spanish’, Transactions of the Philological Society 117: 199–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Hartcourt, Brace and CompanyGoogle Scholar
Sartininkai parishioners, c. 1901. Petition letter to Bishop Mečislovas Paliulionis. Lithuanian State Historical Archives: F. 1671, ap. 4, b. 179, 806Google Scholar
Sass, Benjamin 2005. The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millennium: The West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150–850 BCE: The Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek, and Phrygian Alphabets (Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Occasional Publications, 4). Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications in ArchaeologyGoogle Scholar
Sassoon, Rosemary 2004 [1995]. The Acquisition of a Second Writing System. Bristol: Intellect BooksGoogle Scholar
Saturno, William A., Stuart, David and Beltrán, Boris 2006. ‘Early Maya writing at San Bartolo, Guatemala’, Science 311 (5765): 1281–83CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saussure, Ferdinand 1983 [1916]. Course in General Linguistics. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand 1993 [1916]. Troisième cours de linguistique générale (1910–11) d’après les Cahiers d’Emile Constantin (ed. by Komatsu, Eisuke and Harris, Roy). Oxford: Pergamon PressGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand 1995 [1916]. Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bailly et Albert Séchehaye avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. Édition critique préparée par Tullio de Mauro. Postface de Louis-Jean Calvet. Paris: Éditions Payot and RivagesGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand 2011 [1916]. Course in General Linguistics (trans. by Wade Baskin; ed. by Perry Meisel and Haun Saussy). New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
Savage, Andrew 2008. ‘Writing Tuareg: the three script options’, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 192: 5–13Google Scholar
Scancarelli, Janine 1996. ‘Cherokee writing’, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 587–92Google Scholar
Schaefer, Ursula 2006. ‘The beginnings of standardization: the communicative space in fourteenth-century England’, in Schaefer, Ursula (ed.), The Beginnings of Standardization: Language and Culture in Fourteenth-Century England. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 3–24Google Scholar
Schaefer, Ursula 2012. ‘Interdisciplinarity and historiography: spoken and written English – orality and literacy’, in Bergs, Alexandre and Brinton, Laurel (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook, vol. 2. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 1274–88, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110251609.1274Google Scholar
Schaeken, Jos 1995. ‘Line-final word division in Russian birchbark documents’, Russian Linguistics 19 (1): 91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaeken, Jos 2011a. ‘“Don’t shoot the messenger.” A pragmaphilological approach to Birchbark Letter no. 497 from Novgorod’, Russian Linguistics 35 (1): 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaeken, Jos 2011b. ‘Sociolinguistic variation in Novgorod birchbark documents: the case of no. 907 and other letters’, Russian Linguistics 35 (3): 351–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaeken, Jos 2019. Voices on Birchbark: Everyday Communication in Medieval Russia. Leiden: BrillCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, Carmen 2013. ‘Kalb’s Leber und Dienstag’s Schnitzeltag: Zur funktionalen Ausdifferenzierung des Apostrophs im Deutschen’, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32 (1): 75–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schieffelin, Bambi and Doucet, Rachelle C. 1994. ‘The “real” Haitian Creole: ideology, metalinguistics, and orthographic choice’, American Ethnologist 21 (1): 176–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schieffelin, Bambi, Woolard, Kathryn and Kroskrity, Paul (eds.) 1998. Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York/Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiegg, Markus 2015. ‘The invisible language of patients from psychiatric hospital’, in Havinga, Anna and Langer, Nils (eds.), Invisible Languages in the 19th Century. Oxford: Peter Lang, 71–94Google Scholar
Schiegg, Markus 2016. ‘Code-switching in lower-class writing: autobiographies by patients from Southern German psychiatric hospitals (1852–1931)’, Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 2 (1): 47–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiegg, Markus 2018. ‘Factors of intra-speaker variation in nineteenth-century lower-class writing’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 119: 101–20Google Scholar
Schleicher, August 1853. ‘Die ersten Spaltungen des Indogermanischen Urvolkes’, Allgemeine Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft und Literatur 3, pp. 786–87Google Scholar
Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte 1994. ‘Geschichte der Reflexion über Schrift and Schriftlichkeit’, in Günther, Hartmut and Ludwig, Otto (eds.), Schrift und Schriftlichkeit/Writing and Its Use. Ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung/An Interdisciplinary Handbook of International Research, vol. 1. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 102–21Google Scholar
Schlögl, Rudolf 2013. Alter Glaube und moderne Welt. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer VerlagGoogle Scholar
Schmandt-Besserat, Denise 1986. ‘The origins of writing: an archaeologist’s perspective’, Written Communication 3 (1): 31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans U. 1989. Die mittelalterlichen deutschen Inschriften in Regensburg. Frankfurt am Main: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Johannes 1872. Die werwandtschaftsverhältnisse de indogermanischen sprachen. Weimar: Hermann BöhlauGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Karsten 2018. Phonographie und Morphographie im Deutschen. Grundzüge einer wortbasierten Graphematik. Tübingen: StauffenburgGoogle Scholar
Schmied, Josef, Claridge, Claudia and Siemund, Rainer (compilers) 1994. The Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts. Chemnitz: Chemnitz University of TechnologyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2002. ‘Investigating variation and change in written documents’, in Chambers, Jack K., Trudgill, Peter J. and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden: Blackwell, pp. 67–96Google Scholar
Schneider, Gerold, Pettersson, Eva and Percillier, Michael 2017. ‘Comparing rule-based and SMT-based spelling normalisation for English historical texts’, in Bouma, Gerlof and Adesam, Yvonne (eds.), Proceedings of the NoDaLiDa 2017 Workshop on Processing Historical Language. Linköping: Linköping University Electronic Press, pp. 40–46Google Scholar
Schoemaker, Bob and Rutten, Gijsbert 2019. ‘One nation, one spelling, one school: writing education and the nationalisation of orthography in the Netherlands (1750–1850)’, Paedagogica Historica 55: 754–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoep, Ilse 2002. The Administration of Neopalatial Crete. A Critical Assessment of the Linear A Tablets and Their Role in the Administrative Process. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de SalamancaGoogle Scholar
Scholfield, Phil 2016. ‘Modernization and standardization since the seventeenth century’, in Cook, Vivian and Ryan, Des (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 143–61Google Scholar
Schouteet, Albert 1964. ‘Inventaris van het archief van het voormalige gilde van de Librariërs en van de vereniging van de schoolmeesters te Brugge’, Handelingen van het Genootschap voor geschiedenis (formerly Annales de la Société d’Emulation de Bruges) 100: 228–69Google Scholar
Schubart, Wilhelm 1925. Griechische Palaeographie. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche VerlagsbuchhandlungGoogle Scholar
Schulte, Michael 2011. ʻThe rise of the younger fuþark: the invisible hand of changeʼ, NOWELE. North-Western European Language Evolution 60/61: 45–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulte, Michael 2015. ‘Runology and historical sociolinguistics: on runic writing and its social history in the first millennium’, Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 1 (1): 87–110, https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsl-2015-0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulte, Michael 2020. ʻOn the history of the dotted runes and the connexion to the British Islesʼ, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 142 (1): 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, Herbert C. 1943. ‘The teaching of handwriting in Tudor and Stuart times’, Huntington Library Quarterly 6 (4): 381–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Saul 2018. ‘Writing Chiwere: orthography, literacy, and language revitalization’, Language & Communication 61: 75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarzwald, Ora R. 1998. ‘Word foreignness in Modern Hebrew’, Hebrew Studies 39: 115–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scragg, Donald G. 1974. A History of English Spelling (Mont Follick Series 3). Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press/Barnes and Noble BooksGoogle Scholar
Sébastianoff, François 1991. ‘Graphèmes et phonogrammes’, La Linguistique 27 (1): 15–28Google Scholar
Sebba, Mark 2006. ‘Ideology and alphabets in the former USSR’, Language Problems and Language Planning 30 (2): 99–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebba, Mark 2007. Spelling and Society: The Culture and Politics of Orthography around the World. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebba, Mark 2009. ‘Sociolinguistic approaches to writing systems research’, Writing Systems Research 1 (1): 35–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sebba, Mark 2011. ‘Researching and theorising multilingual texts’, in Sebba, Mark, Mahootian, Shahrzad and Jonsson, Carla (eds.), Language Mixing and Code-Switching in Writing: Approaches to Mixed-Language Written Discourse. New York/London: Routledge, pp. 1–26Google Scholar
Sebba, Mark 2012. ‘Orthography as social action: scripts, spelling, identity and power’, in Jaffe, Alexandra M., Androutsopoulos, Jannis K., Sebba, Mark and Johnson, Sally A. (eds.), Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power (Language and Social Processes 3). Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1–19Google Scholar
Sebba, Mark 2015. ‘Iconisation, attribution and branding in orthography’, in Villa, Laura and Vosters, Rik (eds.), The Historical Sociolinguistics of Spelling, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 18 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 208–27Google Scholar
Sebba, Mark 2016. ‘The orthography of English-lexicon pidgins and creoles’, in Cook, Vivian and Ryan, Des (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 347–64Google Scholar
Seelbach, Ulrich 2016. ʻSchreibsprachen in Kärnten: Vorstudie zu einer formularunterstützen Schreibsprachenbstimmung für mittelalterliche Handschriftenʼ, Sprachwissenschaft 41 (3–4): 311–33Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank 2008. ‘Orthography development’, in Gippert, Jost, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and Mosel, Ulrike (eds.), Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 275–99Google Scholar
Seiler, Annina 2010. ‘Latinis regulis barbara nomina stringi non possunt, or: how to write the vernacular’, in Robinson, Pamela R. (ed.), Teaching Writing, Learning to Write: Proceedings of the XVIth Colloquium of the Comité International de Paléographie Latine. London: King’s College London, Centre for Late Antique and Medieval Studies, pp. 91–101Google Scholar
Seiler, Annina 2011. ‘Litteras Superfluas – Zum Gebrauch “Überflüssiger” Buchstaben Im Althochdeutschen, Altsächsischen Und Altenglischen’, in Glaser, Elvira, Seiler, Annina and Waldispühl, Michelle (eds.), Lautschriftsprache. Beiträge Zur Vergleichenden Historischen Graphematik. Zurich: Chronos, pp. 167–83Google Scholar
Seiler, Annina 2014. The Scripting of the Germanic Languages: A Comparative Study of ‘Spelling Difficulties’ in Old English, Old High German and Old Saxon. Zurich: ChronosGoogle Scholar
Seiler, Annina 2015. ‘Writing the Germanic languages: the early history of the digraphs <th>, <ch> and <uu>’, in Conti, Aidan, Rold, Orietta Da and Shaw, Philip (eds.), Writing Europe, 500–1450: Texts and Contexts. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, pp. 101–21Google Scholar
Seiler, Annina 2021. ‘Germanic names, vernacular sounds, and Latin spellings in early Anglo-Saxon and Alemannic charters’, in Gallagher, Robert, Roberts, Edward and Tinti, Francesca (eds.), The Languages of Early Medieval Charters: Latin, Germanic Vernaculars, and the Written Word (Brill’s Series on the Early Middle Ages 27). Leiden: Brill, pp. 117–53Google Scholar
Selvelli, Giustina 2015. ‘Caratteri arabi per la lingua bosniaca’, in Baglioni, Daniele and Tribulato, Olga (eds.), Contatti di lingue – Contatti di scritture: Multilinguismo e multigrafismo dal Vicino Oriente Antico alla Cina contemporanea. Venice: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari – Digital Publishing, pp. 197–217Google Scholar
Senz, Silvia and Alberte, Montserrat (eds.) 2011. El dardo en la Academia. Esencia y vigencia de las academias de la lengua española, 2 vols. Barcelona: MelusinaGoogle Scholar
Sevenstern, Gaspar 1669/70. Gegengespräch Uber die Frage: Warum wilt du nicht Römisch Catholisch werden/wie dein [!] Vorfahren gewesen? Hanover: Schwendimann (VD17 3: 301691S)Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr 1987. ‘Towards a theory of phonemic orthography’, in Luelsdorff, Philip A. (ed.), Orthography and Phonology. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–30Google Scholar
Shakespeare, William 1598. A pleasant conceited comedie called, Loues labors lost […]. London: William White for Cutbert Burby (EEBO, ProQuest)Google Scholar
Shakespeare, William 1622a. The tragœdy of Othello, the Moore of Venice As it hath beene diuerse times acted at the Globe, and at the Black-Friers, by his Maiesties Seruants. Written by VVilliam Shakespeare […]. London: Nicholas Okes for Thomas Walkley (EEBO, ProQuest)Google Scholar
Shakespeare, William 1622b. The most excellent and lamentable tragedie, of Romeo and Iuliet […]. London: William Stansby for Iohn Smethwicke (EEBO, ProQuest)Google Scholar
Shakespeare, William 1640. ‘A Lover’s Complaint’, in Poems: vvritten by Wil. Shake-speare. Gent. London: Tho. Cotes (EEBO, ProQuest)Google Scholar
Shakespeare First Folio, Oxford Text Archive, https://ota.ox.ac.uk/desc/0119Google Scholar
Shammas, Carole 2019. ‘Acquiring written communication skills as the vernacular standardizes: a case study of an English family’s letters 1560–1700’, Huntington Library Quarterly 82 (3): 429–82, https://doi.org/10.1353/hlq.2019.0022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Share, David L. 2014 ‘Alphabetism in reading science’, Frontiers in Psychology 5 (752): 1–4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Share, David L. and Daniels, Peter T. 2016. ‘Aksharas, alphasyllabaries, abugidas, alphabets and orthographic depth: reflections on Rimzhim, Katz and Fowler (2014)’, Writing Systems Research 8 (1): 17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaughnessy, Edward L. 2010 ‘The beginnings of writing in China’, in Woods, Christopher, Teeter, Emily and Emberling, Geoff (eds.), Visible Language: Inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and Beyond. Chicago: Oriental Institute, pp. 215–21Google Scholar
Sheridan, Thomas 1762. A Course on Elocution: Together with Two Dissertations on Language; and Some Other Tracts Relative to those Subjects. London: W. StrahanGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, Thomas 1780. A general dictionary of the English language. LondonGoogle Scholar
Sherman, William H. 2011. ‘The social life of books’, in Raymond, Joad (ed.), The Oxford History of Popular Print Culture, vol. 1: Cheap Print in Britain and in Ireland to 1660. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 164–71Google Scholar
Shute, Rosie 2017. ‘Pressed for space: the effects of justification and the printing process on fifteenth-century orthography’, English Studies 98 (3): 262–82, https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2017.1250197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sica, Alan 2012. ‘Max Weber’. Oxford Bibliographies Online in Sociology, www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756384/obo-9780199756384-0064.xmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sievers, Eduard 1882. Angelsächsische Grammatik (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte 3). Halle: NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
SIL International 2022. ‘Orthography’, www.sil.org/orthographyGoogle Scholar
Silverman, David P. 1979. Reviewed works: Ancient Egyptian Epigraphy and Paleography: ʻThe Recording of Inscriptions and Scenes in Tombs and Temples,ʼ by Ricardo Caminos; ‘Archeological Aspects of Epigraphy and Paleography,’ by Henry G. Fischer. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 16: 183–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael 2003. ‘Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life’, Language and Communication 23: 193–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simplified Spelling Board 1906. Simplified Spelling. For the Use of Government Departments. Washington, DC: Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
Simpson, John A. and Proffitt, Michael (eds.) 2000–. Oxford English Dictionary Online (John A. Simpson ed. –2013, Michael Proffitt ed. 2013–). Oxford University Press, http://oed.com/Google Scholar
Šinkūnas, Mindaugas 2010. ‘XVI–XVII amžiaus Mažosios Lietuvos raštų akcentografija’. Doctoral dissertation, Lietuvių kalbos institutas and Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, LithuaniaGoogle Scholar
Šinkūnas, Mindaugas 2014. ‘Mažosios Lietuvos raštų ortografijos reforma XVII amžiuje. I. Pučiamųjų priebalsių ir afrikatų žymėjimas’, Archivum Lithuanicum 16: 9–58Google Scholar
Šinkūnas, Mindaugas 2016. ‘Kristus, Krystus, Christus, Chrystus ar Cristus? Vardo rašybos raida XVI–XIX amžiaus raštuose’, Archivum Lithuanicum 18: 185–220Google Scholar
Skazka o rybaki͡e i rybki͡e. Pasaka ape žuvinika ir žuvele 1902. Suwałki: Tipografīi͡a B. BrinmanaGoogle Scholar
Sketch Engine, www.sketchengine.euGoogle Scholar
Skre, Arnhild 2011. Hulda Garborg. Nasjonal strateg. Oslo: SamlagetGoogle Scholar
Smalley, William A. 1959. ‘How shall I write this language?’ The Bible Translator 10 (2): 49–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smalley, William A., Koua Vang, Chia and Yee Yang, Gnia 1990 Mother of Writing: The Origin and Development of a Hmong Messianic Script. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Smilga, Kazimieras 1901. Book Ownership Inscription. Kaunas County Public Library, Collection of Old and Rare PrintsGoogle Scholar
Smith, Andrew 2014. A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hands. Leiden: BrillCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Charles W. 1866. Mind your H’s and take care of your R’s: exercises for acquiring the use & correcting the abuse of the letter H, with observations and additional exercises on the letter R. London: LockwoodGoogle Scholar
Smith, Daisy 2018. ‘The predictability of {-S} abbreviation in Older Scots manuscripts according to stem-final littera’, in Alcorn, Rhona, Kopaczyk, Joanna, Los, Bettelou and Molineaux, Benjamin (eds.), Historical Dialectology in the Digital Age. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 187–211Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy J. 1996. An Historical Study of English: Function, Form and Change. London/New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jeremy J. 2008. ‘Issues of linguistic categorisation in the evolution of written Middle English’, in Caie, Graham D. and Renevey, Denis (eds.), Medieval Texts in Context. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 211–24Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy J. 2012. ‘From Middle to Early Modern English’, in Mugglestone, Lynda (ed.), The Oxford History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–79 (updated ed.)Google Scholar
Smith, Jeremy J. 2020a. ‘On scriptae : correlating spelling and script in Late Middle English’, Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, https://riull.ull.es/xmlui/handle/915/19292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Jeremy J. 2020b. ‘The pragmatics of punctuation in Middle English documentary texts’, in Stenroos, Merja and Thengs, Kjetil V. (eds.), Records of Real People. Linguistic Variation in Middle English Local Documents (Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics 11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 205–18Google Scholar
Smith, Margaret M. 1994. ‘The design relationship between the manuscript and the incunable’, in Myers, Robin and Harris, Michael (eds.), A Millenium of the Book: Production, Design, and Illustration in Manuscript and Print, 900–1900. Winchester: Oak Knoll Press, pp. 23–43Google Scholar
Smith, Philip T. and Baker, Robert G. 1976. ‘The influence of English spelling patterns on pronunciation’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15: 267–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Thomas 1568. De recta & emendata linguae Anglicae scriptione, dialogus. Paris: Robert StephanGoogle Scholar
Smith, Thomas 1963 [1568]. De Recta et Emendata Linguæ Anglicanæ Scriptione Dialogus (Stockholm Studies in English 56), in Danielsson, Bror (ed. and trans.), Sir Thomas Smith’s Literary and Linguistic Works, vol. 3. Stockholm: Almqvist and WiksellGoogle Scholar
Smith-Stark, Thomas 2005. ‘Phonological description in New Spain’, in Zwartjes, Otto and Altman, Cristina (eds.), Missionary Linguistics II/Lingüística misionera II: Orthography and Phonology. Selected papers from the Second International Conference on Missionary Linguistics, São Paulo, 10–13 March 2004. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonderegger, Stefan 2000a. ‘Ansätze zu einer deutschen Sprachgeschichtsschreibung bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts’, in Besch, Werner, Betten, Anne, Reichmann, Oskar and Sonderegger, Stefan (eds.), Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 2.1). Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 417–42Google Scholar
Sonderegger, Stefan 2000b. ‘Sprachgeschichtsforschung in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts’, in Besch, Werner, Betten, Anne, Reichmann, Oskar and Sonderegger, Stefan (eds.), Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 2.1). Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 443–73Google Scholar
Sönmez, Margaret 1993. ‘English spelling in the seventeenth century: a study of the nature of standardisation as seen in the MS and printed versions of the Duke of Newcastle’s “A New Method…”’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Durham, UKGoogle Scholar
Sönmez, Margaret 2000. ‘Perceived and real differences between men’s and women’s spellings of the early to mid-seventeenth century’, in Kastovsky, Dieter and Mettinger, Arthur (eds.), The History of English in a Social Context: A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics (Trends in Linguistics 129). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 405–36Google Scholar
Sørlie, Mikjel 1957. Bergens Fundas. Bergen: J. D. BeyerGoogle Scholar
Sources from Laws of the Past (IURA), https://iura.uj.edu.pl/dlibraGoogle Scholar
Sousa-Silva, Rui, Laboreiro, Gustavo, Sarmento, Luís, Grant, Tim, Oliveira, Eugénio and Maia, Belinda 2011. ‘‘twazn me!!! ;(’ Automatic authorship analysis of micro-blogging messages’, in Muñoz, Rafael, Montoyo, Andrés and Métais, Elisabeth (eds.), Natural Language Processing and Information Systems: 16th International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, NLDB 2011, Alicante, Spain, June 28–30, 2011, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6716). Berlin/New York: Springer, pp. 161–68Google Scholar
Speakman Sutch, Susie 2010. ‘Politics and print at the time of Philip the Fair’, in Wijsman, Hanno (ed.), Books in Transition at the Time of Philip the Fair. Manuscripts and Printed Books in the Late Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Century Low Countries. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, pp. 231–55Google Scholar
Spence, Thomas 1775. The grand repository of the English language. Newcastle: T. SaintGoogle Scholar
Spitzmüller, Jürgen 2012. ‘Floating ideologies: metamorphoses of graphic “Germanness”’, in Jaffe, Alexandra M., Androutsopoulos, Jannis K., Sebba, Mark and Johnson, Sally A. (eds.), Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power (Language and Social Processes 3). Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 255–88Google Scholar
Spitzmüller, Jürgen 2015. ‘Graphic variation and graphic ideologies: a metapragmatic approach’, Social Semiotics 25 (2): 126–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spolsky, Bernard 2009a. ‘Language management for endangered languages: the case of Navajo’, in Austin, Peter K. (ed.), Language Documentation and Description, vol. 6. London: SOAS, pp. 117–31Google Scholar
Spolsky, Bernard 2009b. ‘Religious language policy’, in Spolsky, Bernard (ed.), Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spolsky, Bernard (ed.) 2012. The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sproat, Richard 2000. A Computational Theory of Writing Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Sproat, Richard 2010. Language, Technology, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Sproat, Richard and Gutkin, Alexander 2021. ‘The taxonomy of writing systems: how to measure how logographic a system is’, Computational Linguistics, 47 (3): 477–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spurkland, Terje 2005. Norwegian Runes and Runic Inscriptions. Woodbridge: Boydell PressGoogle Scholar
Spurkland, Terje 2017. ʻThe (dis-)ambiguation of the grapheme in the high medieval runic scriptʼ, in Waxenberger, Gaby, Sauer, Hans and Kazzazi, Kerstin (eds.), Von den Hieroglyphen zur Internetsprache. Das Verhältnis von Schrift, Laut und Sprache. Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 149–56Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren 2012. ‘Whos punctuating what? Sociolinguistic variation in instant messaging’, in Jaffe, Alexandra M., Androutsopoulos, Jannis K., Sebba, Mark and Johnson, Sally A. (eds.), Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power (Language and Social Processes 3). Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 288–324Google Scholar
Stachowski, Stanisław 2010. ‘Polonizacja języka ormiańsko-kipczackiego’, LingVaria 2 (10): 213–27Google Scholar
Stadnik-Holzer, Elena 2014. ‘Diachrone Phonologie’, in Gutschmidt, Karl, Berger, Tilman, Kempgen, Sebastian and Kosta, Peter (eds.), Die slavischen Sprachen. Ein internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforschung. Bd. 2./The Slavic Languages: An International Handbook of Their Structure, Their History and Their Investigation, vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1525–64Google Scholar
Stamatatos, Efstathios 2009. ‘A survey of modern authorship attribution methods’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60 (3): 538–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, James N. and Kenny, Laurence A. 2013. ‘Revisiting transmission and diffusion: an agent-based model of vowel chain shifts across large communities’, Language Variation and Change 25: 119–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stankevich, I͡An 1933. ‘Belaruskii͡a musul’mane i belaruskai͡a litaratura arabskim pis’mom’, Hadavik Belaruskaha navukovaha Tavarystva (Adbitka z Hadavika Belaruskaha Navukovaha Tavarystva Kn. I). Vilnius: Drukarni͡a I͡A. Levina)Google Scholar
Stanley, Eric G. 1988. ‘Karl Luick’s “Man schrieb wie man sprach” and English historical philology’, in Kastovsky, Dieter and Bauer, Gero (eds.), Luick Revisited: Papers read at the Luick-Symposium at Schloß Liechtenstein, 15.–18.9.1985 (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 288). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, pp. 311–34Google Scholar
Stapleton, Thomas 1839. Plumpton Correspondence, a Series of Letters, Written in the Reigns of Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII and Henry VIII, from Sir Edward Plumpton’s Book of Letters. London: Camden SocietyGoogle Scholar
Stauder, Andréas 2010. ‘The earliest Egyptian writing’, in Woods, Christopher, Teeter, Emily and Emberling, Geoff (eds.), Visible Language: Inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and Beyond. Chicago: Oriental Institute, pp. 137–47Google Scholar
Stebbins, Tonya 2001. ‘Emergent spelling patterns in Sm’algyax (Tsimshian, British Columbia)’, Written Language and Literacy 4 (2): 163–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, Philippa M. 2013a. Syllabic Writing on Cyprus and Its Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, Philippa M. 2013b. A Linguistic History of Ancient Cyprus: The Non-Greek Languages, and Their Relations with Greek, c. 1600–300 BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, Philippa M. 2019. Writing and Society in Ancient Cyprus. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Steele, Philippa M. and Meissner, Torsten 2017. ‘From Linear B to Linear A: the problem of the backward projection of sound values’, in Steele, Philippa M. (ed.), Understanding Relations between Scripts: The Aegean Writing Systems. Oxford/Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, pp. 93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steer, Francis W. (ed.) 1968. Scriveners’ Company Common Paper 1357–1628: With a Continuation to 1678. London: London Record SocietyGoogle Scholar
Stegeman, Jelle 2014. Handbuch Niederländisch. Sprache und Sprachkultur von den Anfängen bis 1800. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche BuchgesellschaftGoogle Scholar
Stein, Dieter 1994. ‘Sorting out the variants: standardization and social factors in the English language 1600–1800’, in Stein, Dieter and Tieken‒Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (eds.), Towards a Standard English 1600‒1800. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 1–14Google Scholar
Steinberg, Danny D. and Krohn, Robert K. 1975. ‘The psychological validity of Chomsky and Halle’s Vowel Shift Rule’, in Odmark, John and Shaw, J. Howard (eds.), The Transformational–Generative Paradigm and Modern Linguistic Theory (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory [CILT] 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 233–59Google Scholar
Stenroos, Merja 2004. ‘Regional dialects and spelling conventions in late Middle English. Searches for (th) in LALME data’, in Dossena, Marina and Lass, Roger (eds.), Methods and Data in English Historical Dialectology. Bern: Peter Lang, 257–85Google Scholar
Stenroos, Merja 2006. ‘A Middle English mess of fricative spellings: reflections on thorn, yogh and their rivals’, in Krygier, Marcin and Sikorska, Liliana (eds.), To Make his Englissh Sweete upon his Tonge. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 9–35Google Scholar
Stenroos, Merja 2013. ‘Identity and intelligibility in late Middle English scribal transmission: local dialect as an active choice in fifteenth-century texts’, in Wagner, Esther-Miriam, Beinhoff, Bettina and Outhwaite, Ben (eds.), Scribes as Agents of Language Change. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 159–81Google Scholar
Stenroos, Merja 2020a. ‘The “vernacularisation” and “standardisation” of local administrative writing in late and post-medieval administrative writing’, in Wright, Laura (ed.), The Multilingual Origins of Standard English, Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 39–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenroos, Merja 2020b. ‘Regional variation and supralocalization in late medieval English: comparing administrative and literary texts’, in Stenroos, Merja and Thengs, Kjetil V. (eds.), Records of Real People: Linguistic Variation in Middle English Local Documents (Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics 11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stęplewski, Artur 2018. Semioza Pisma: Cyrylica i Łacinka w Serbskim i Chorwackim Dyskursie Narodowym na Tle Słowiańskim. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAMGoogle Scholar
Stetson, Raymond H. 1937. ‘The phoneme and the grapheme’, in Wils, J., Meesters, R. and Slijpen, W., Mélanges de linguistique et de philologie offerts à Jacq. van Ginneken. Paris: C. Klincksieck, pp. 353–56Google Scholar
Steyn, Jacob C. 2017. ‘Die laaste projek van die “Hollandse taalbeweging in Suid-Afrika”: Die Vereenvoudigde Hollandse Spelling’, Tydskrif Vir Geesteswetenskappe 57 (2–1): 233–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. and Barritt, C. Westbrook 1951. Some Old English Graphemic-Phonemic Correspondences: æ, ea, and a (Studies in Linguistics, Occasional Papers 4). Washington, DC: Georgetown UniversityGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P. and Barritt, C. Westbrook 1955. ‘The Old English short digraphs: some considerations’, Language 31: 372–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Michaele, Kouymjian, Dickran and Lehmann, Henning 2002. Album of Armenian Paleography. Aarhus: Aarhus University PressGoogle Scholar
Stopka, Krzysztof 2000. Ormianie w Polsce dawnej i dzisiejszej. Kraków: Księgarnia AkademickaGoogle Scholar
Stotz, Peter 1996. Handbuch zur lateinischen Sprache des Mittelalters, vol. 3: Lautlehre. Munich: BeckGoogle Scholar
Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A History of English. London: MethuenGoogle Scholar
Strelcyn, Stefan 1952. ‘Obecny stan badań nad pochodzeniem alfabetu fenickiego’, Przegląd Orientalistyczny 4: 3–33Google Scholar
Strockis, Mindaugas 2007. ‘Klasikinių kalbų kirčio žymėjimo įtaka lietuvių kirčio žymėjimui’. Doctoral dissertation, Vilniaus universitetas, LithuaniaGoogle Scholar
Strycharska-Brzezina, Maria 2006. Polskojęzyczne podręczniki dla klasy I szkoły elementarnej w Królestwie Polskim drukowane grażdanką. Wydanie warszawskie ze zbiorów Biblioteki Jagiellońskiej w Krakowie: Rozprawa filologiczno-historyczna i edycja. Kraków: Polska Akademia UmiejętnościGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, Michael 1980. Language and Literacy: The Sociolinguistics of Reading and Writing. Boston: Routledge and Kegan PaulGoogle Scholar
Suárez Cortina, Manuel (ed.) 2006. La redención del pueblo. La cultura progresista en la España liberal. Santander: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de CantabriaGoogle Scholar
Subačius, Giedrius 1996. ‘Jurgio Ambraziejaus Pabrėžos žemaičių kalba’, Lietuvių Atgimimo istorijos studijos 8: Asmuo: tarp tautos ir valstybės. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, pp. 10–113Google Scholar
Subačius, Giedrius 2002. ‘Two types of standard language history in Europe’, Res Balticae 8: 131–50Google Scholar
Subačius, Giedrius 2004a. ‘Lietuviška ir rusiška lietuviškų spaudinių kirilika 1864–1866 metais’, in Staliūnas, Darius (ed.), Raidžių draudimo metai. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, pp. 139–73Google Scholar
Subačius, Giedrius 2004b. ‘Double orthography in American Lithuanian newspapers at the turn of the twentieth century’, in Baldi, Philip and Dini, Pietro U. (eds.), Studies in Baltic and Indo-European Linguistics: In Honor of William R. Schmalstieg. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subačius, Giedrius 2004c. ‘Grafemos netektis Lietuvos ſpaudiniuose’, Archivum Lithuanicum 6: 239–64Google Scholar
Subačius, Giedrius 2005a. ‘Development of the Cyrillic orthography for Lithuanian in 1864–1904’, Lituanus 51 (2): 29–55Google Scholar
Subačius, Giedrius 2005b. ‘The choice of a symbolic codifying work in the history of standard European languages’, in Gelumbeckaitė, Jolanta and Gippert, Jost (eds.), Das Baltikum im sprachgeschichtlichen Kontext der europäischen Reformation. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos instituto leidykla, pp. 124–33Google Scholar
Subačius, Giedrius 2011a. Lietuvių kalbos ekspertai Rusijos imperijos tarnyboje: Dmitrijus Kaširinas, Zacharijus Liackis, Andrius Poidėnas. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutasGoogle Scholar
Subačius, Giedrius 2011b. ‘The forgotten model of a separate Standard Lowland Lithuanian: Jurgis Pabrėža (1771–1849)’, in Fishman, Joshua A. and Garcia, Ofelia (eds.), Language and Ethnic Identity 2: The Success-Failure Continuum in Language and Ethnic Identity Efforts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 444–56Google Scholar
Subačius, Giedrius 2012. ‘The Influence of clandestine standard Lithuanian in the Latin alphabet on the official Lithuanian in Cyrillic letters (1864–1904)’, in Maier, Konrad (ed.), Nation und Sprache in Nordosteuropa im 19. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 231–40Google Scholar
Subačius, Giedrius 2018. Simono Daukanto Rygos ortografija (1827–1834). Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutasGoogle Scholar
Subačius, Giedrius 2020. ‘Orthographic variation and materiality of a manuscript: pre-standard Lithuanian spellings in Simonas Daukantas’s History of the Lithuanian Lowlands (1831–1834)’, in Condorelli, Marco (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124–40Google Scholar
Subačius, Giedrius 2021. Simono Daukanto Sankt Peterburgo Ortografija (1834–1846). Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutasGoogle Scholar
Swales, John 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Sweet, Henry 1871. King Alfred’s West-Saxon Version of Gregory’s Pastoral Care (Early English Text Society, original series, 45, 50). London: TrübnerGoogle Scholar
Sweet, Henry 1888. A History of English Sounds from the Earliest Period, with Full Word–Lists. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Sweet, Henry 1892. A New English Grammar: Logical and Historical. Part I: Introduction, phonology, and accidence. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Swiggers, Pierre 1996. ‘Transmission of the Phoenician script to the West’, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 261–70Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma 2000. ‘Scientific language and spelling standardisation 1375–1550’, in Wright, Laura (ed.), The Development of Standard English 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131–54Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma 2001. ‘Changing conventions of writing: the dynamics of genres, text types, and text traditions’, European Journal of English Studies 5 (2): 139–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma 2004. ‘Scriptorial “house-styles” and discourse communities’, in Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Medical and Scientific Writing in Late Medieval English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 209–40Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma 2012. ‘New perspectives, theories and methods. Historical pragmatics’, in Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics. An International Handbook, vol. 2. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 1457–74Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Fitzmaurice, Susan M. 2007. ‘Historical pragmatics: what it is and how to do it’, in Fitzmaurice, Susan M. and Taavitsainen, Irma (eds.), Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 11–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma, Pahta, Päivi, Hiltunen, Turo, Mäkinen, Martti, Marttila, Ville, Ratia, Maura, Suhr, Carla and Tyrkkö, Jukka (compilers) 2010. Early Modern English Medical Texts, CD-ROM. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma and Tyrkkö, Jukka 2010. ‘The field of medical writing with fuzzy edges’, in Taavitsainen, Irma and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Early Modern English Medical Texts. Corpus Description and Studies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 57–61Google Scholar
Tacke, Felix 2020. ‘Spanish’, in Lebsanft, Franz and Tacke, Felix (eds.), Manual of Standardization in the Romance Languages. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 559–79Google Scholar
Tagg, Caroline, Baron, Alistair and Rayson, Paul 2012. ‘“I didn’t spel that wrong did i. Oops”: analysis and normalisation of SMS spelling variation’, Lingvisticæ Investigationes 35 (2): 367–88, https://doi.org/10.1075/li.35.2.12tagGoogle Scholar
Tagg, Caroline and Evans, Mel 2020. ‘Spelling in context: a transhistorical pragmatic perspective on orthographic practices in English’, in Tagg, Caroline and Evans, Mel (eds.), Message and Medium: English Language Practices across Old and New Media (Topics in English Linguistics 105). Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 55–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Denis, Derek 2014. ‘Expanding the transmission/diffusion dichotomy: evidence from Canada’, Language 90: 90–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taha, Haitham Y. 2016. ‘Deep and shallow in Arabic orthography: new evidence from reading performance of elementary school native Arab readers’, Writing Systems Research 8 (2): 133–42, https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2015.1114910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamminga, Meredith 2019. ‘Interspeaker covariation in Philadelphia vowel changes’, Language Variation and Change 31 (2): 119–33, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394519000139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamošiūnaitė, Aurelija 2010. ‘Viena kalba – dvi abėcėlės: kirilika ir lotyniška abėcėle rašyti Petro Survilo laiškai’, Archivum Lithuanicum 12: 157–82Google Scholar
Tamošiūnaitė, Aurelija 2011. ‘Ukiškasis kalendori͡us 1902 metams ir Pasaka ape žuvinika ir žuvele: rengėjo problema’, Archivum Lithuanicum 13: 85–112Google Scholar
Tamošiūnaitė, Aurelija 2013. ‘Ankstyvas lietuviškos kirilikos egodokumentuose liudytojas – Stanislovo Prakulevičiaus 1879 metų laiškas Godliauskių šeimai’, Archivum Lithuanicum 15: 431–51Google Scholar
Tamošiūnaitė, Aurelija 2015. ‘Defining ‘Lithuanian’: orthographic debates at the end of the nineteenth century’, in Villa, Laura and Vosters, Rik (eds.), The Historical Sociolinguistics of Spelling, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 18 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 309–26Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, Samuel A. 1930. The Handwriting of the Renaissance. New York: Columbia University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarėlka, Mikhail U. 2015. ‘Adaptat͡syi͡a arabskaha pis’ma dli͡a peredachy slavi͡anskikh (belaruskikh i pol’skikh) tėkstaŭ’, in Tomelleri, Vittorio S. and Kempgen, Sebastian (eds.), Slavic Alphabets in Contact. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press, pp. 263–89Google Scholar
Tarėlka, Mikhail U. and Synkova, Irina A. 2006. ‘Tėkst sufiĭskaha pakhodz͡hanni͡a z belaruska-tatarskaha khamaila’, in Vaz͡hnik, Si͡arheĭ and Koz͡hynava, Ala (eds.), Aktual’nyi͡a prablemy palanistyki. Minsk: Prava i ėkanomika, pp. 29–54Google Scholar
Tarėlka, Mikhail U. and Synkova, Irina A. 2008. ‘»Ad trast͡sy ŭ nowym harshku z͡habu vysushyt͡s’ i z vodkaĭ pit͡s’…«. Na skryz͡havanni kul’tur: znakharski tėkst z belaruskatatarskaha khamaila’, in Mezhdunarodnai͡a ėlektronnai͡a konferent͡sii͡a »Belorusskiĭ tekst: ot rukopisi k ėlektronnoĭ knige« (K Dni͡u belorusskoĭ pis’mennosti, senti͡abr’’ 2008). [Minsk], www.belrus-seminar2008.narod.ru/Tarelka-Synkova.pdfGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Insup 1988. ‘Psychology of literacy: east and west’, in Kerckhove, Derrick de and Lumsden, Charles J. (eds.), The Alphabet and the Brain: The Lateralization of Writing. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 202–33Google Scholar
Taylor, Insup and Taylor, M. Martin 2014. Writing and Literacy in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins (revised ed.)Google Scholar
Taylor, Isaac 1883. The Alphabet: An Account of the Origin and Development of Letters. London: Kegan Paul, TrenchGoogle Scholar
Teeuwen, Mariken 2014. ‘Voices from the edge. Tironian notes in the margin’, https://voicesfromtheedge.huygens.knaw.nl/?p=36Google Scholar
Tefsir from Francis Skaryna Belarusian Library and Museum in London (TL), MS from 1725, copyist Bohdan ibn Ševban Asanovič; photocopy in Meredith-Owens, Georg M. and Nadson, Alexander 1970, ‘The Byelorussian Tartars and their writings’, The Journal of Belarusian Studies 2 (2): 141–76 (p. 171)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teleman, Ulf 2003. ‘Swedish’, in Deumert, Ana and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 405–29Google Scholar
Tenger, Zeynep and Trolander, Paul 2010 ‘From print versus manuscript to sociable authorship and mixed media: a review of trends in the scholarship of early modern publication’, Literature Compass 7 (11): 1035–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ter Horst, Tom and Stam, Nike 2018. ‘Visual diamorphs: the importance of language neutrality in code-switching from medieval Ireland’, in Pahta, Päivi, Skaffari, Janne and Wright, Laura (eds.), Multilingual Practices in Language History: English and Beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 199–222Google Scholar
Te Winkel, Lambert A. 1863. De grondbeginselen der Nederlandsche spelling: ontwerp der spelling voor het aanstaande Nederlandsch Woordenboek. Leiden: Noothoven van GoorGoogle Scholar
Thackston, Wheeler M. 1993. An Introduction to Persian. Bethesda: Iranbooks (3rd ed.)Google Scholar
Thaisen, Jacob 2005. ‘Orthography, codicology, and textual studies: the Cambridge University Library, Gg.4.27 Canterbury Tales’, Boletín Millares Carlo 24–25: 379–94Google Scholar
Thaisen, Jacob 2011. ‘Adam Pinkhurst’s short and long forms’, in Thaisen, Jacob and Rutkowska, Hanna (eds.), Scribes, Printers and the Accidentals of Their Texts. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 73–90Google Scholar
Thaisen, Jacob 2017. ‘Secretary letter-shapes in County Durham’, Folia Linguistica Historica 51 (s38): 263–80Google Scholar
The Accomplish’d Housewife; or, the Gentlewoman’s Companion 1745. London: For J. Newbery, at the Bible and Sun near the Chapter-House in St Paul’s Church-yardGoogle Scholar
The Jules Ferry Laws, France 1881–82, http://dcalin.fr/textoff/loi_1882_vo.htmlGoogle Scholar
The Library of Congress, ALA-LC Romanization Tables, www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/roman.htmlGoogle Scholar
Themistocleous, Christiana 2010. ‘Online orthographies’, in Taiwo, Rotimi (ed.), Handbook of Research on Discourse Behaviour and Digital Communication: Language Structures and Social Interaction. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 318–34Google Scholar
The National Archives, ‘Prerogative Court of Canterbury: Wills of Selected Famous Persons’ PROB 1/4AGoogle Scholar
The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2023. ‘Målformer in grunnskolen’, www.udir.no/regelverkstolkninger/opplaring/Malform/malformer-i-grunnskolen12?depth=0&print=1Google Scholar
Thomas, Megan C. 2007. ‘K is for de-kolonization: anti-colonial nationalism and orthographic reform’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 49 (4): 938–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Edward M. 1893. An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Thurneysen, Rudolf 1946. A Grammar of Old Irish (trans. by D. A. Binchy and Osborn Bergin). Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced StudiesGoogle Scholar
Thurlow, Crispin 2006. ‘From statistical panic to moral panic: the metadiscursive construction and popular exaggeration of new media language in the print media’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (3): 667–701, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00031.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid 1998. ‘Standardization of English spelling: the eighteenth-century printers’ contribution’, in Fisiak, Jacek and Krygier, Marcin (eds.), Advances in English Historical Linguistics (1996) (Trends in Linguistics 112). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 457–70Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid 2006a. ‘Eighteenth-century English letters: in search of the vernacular’, Linguistica e Filologia 21: 113–46Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid 2006b. ‘“Disrespectful and too familiar”? Abbreviations as an index of politeness in 18th-century letters’, in Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus and Schendl, Herbert (eds.), Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000 (Linguistic Insights 39). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 229–47Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid 2008. Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar-Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin/New York: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid 2010. The Bishop’s Grammar: Robert Lowth and the Rise of Prescriptivism. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tikkanen, Karin W. 2020. ‘Lost – and found – in transmission: the creation of the Oscan alphabet’, in Clackson, James, James, Patrick, McDonald, Katherine, Tagliapietra, Livia and Zair, Nicholas (eds.), Migration, Mobility and Language Contact in and around the Ancient Mediterranean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 98–121Google Scholar
Tolkien, John R. R. 1929. ‘Ancrene Wisse and Hali Meiðhad’, Essays and Studies by Members of the English Association 14: 104–26Google Scholar
Tomelleri, Vittorio S. and Kempgen, Sebastian (eds.) 2015. Slavic Alphabets in Contact. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press, https://fis.uni-bamberg.de/handle/uniba/21440Google Scholar
Took, Patricia 1977. ‘Government and the printing trade, 1540–1560’. Doctoral dissertation, University of London, UKGoogle Scholar
Toon, Thomas E. 1983. The Politics of Early Old English Sound Change. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Torp, Arne 2004. ‘Skandinavisk nabospråksforståelse – ideal eller virkelighet?’, in Språknytt 3–4:45–48Google Scholar
Tournier, Jean 1998. Les mots anglais du français. Paris: BelinGoogle Scholar
Tov, Emanuel 1986. ‘The orthography and language of the Hebrew scrolls found at Qumran and the origin of these scrolls’, Textus 13: 31–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranter, Nicolas 2013. ‘Logography and layering: a functional cross-linguistic analysis’, Written Language and Literacy 16 (1): 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tratado de paz y amistad, celebrado entre España y la República Chilena en 25 de abril de 1844. 1846. Madrid: Imprenta NacionalGoogle Scholar
Traube, Ludwig 1907. Nomina Sacra. Versuch einer Geschichte der christlichen Kürzung. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche VerlagsbuchhandlungGoogle Scholar
Traxel, Oliver M. 2004. Language Change, Writing and Textual Interference in Post-Conquest Old English Manuscripts: The Evidence of Cambridge University Library, Ii. l. 33. Frankfurt am Main: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Tribulato, Olga 2012. Language and Linguistic Contact in Ancient Sicily. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trice Martin, Charles 1892. The Record Interpreter: A Collection of Abbreviations, Latin Words and Names Used in English Historical Manuscripts and Records. London: Reeves and TurnerGoogle Scholar
Trigger, Bruce G. 2004. ‘Writing systems: a case study in cultural evolution’, in Houston, Stephen D. (ed.), The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 39–68Google Scholar
Tronskiĭ, Iosif M. 1962, ‘Slogovai͡a struktura drevnegrecheskogo i͡azyka i grecheskoe slogovoe pisʹmo’, Drevniĭ mir: akademiku Vasilii͡u Vasilʹevichu Struve. Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo vostochnoĭ literatury, pp. 620–26Google Scholar
Trovato, Paolo 2014. Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Lachmann’s Method: A Non-Standard Handbook of Genealogical Textual Criticism in the Age of Post-Structuralism, Cladistics, and Copy-Text (Storie e linguaggi 7). Limena: Libreriauniversitaria.it edizioniGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter J. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter J. 1983. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter J. 1986. Dialects in Contact. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter J. 1997. ‘Norwegian as a normal language’, in Røyneland, Unn (ed.), Language Contact and Language Conflict. Proceedings of The International Ivar Aasen Conference 14–16 November 1996. Volda: Volda College, pp. 151–58Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter J. 2001. Sociolinguistic Variation and Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter J. 2004. New-Dialect Formation: The Inevitability of Colonial Englishes. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter J. 2006. ‘Standard and dialect vocabulary’, in Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, 119–21 (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Trunte, Nikolaos 2004. ‘Das Šafařík-Triodion und das Ende der Digraphie’, Palaeoslavica 12 (2): 306–17Google Scholar
Tryjarski, Edward 1960. ‘Ze studiów nad rękopisami i dialektem kipczackim Ormian polskich’, Rocznik Orientalistyczny 23 (2): 7–55Google Scholar
Tryjarski, Edward 1976. ‘A fragment of an unknown Armeno-Kipchak text from Polish collections’, Rocznik Orientalistyczny 38: 291–302Google Scholar
Turner, James 2014. Philology: The Forgotten Origins of the Modern Humanities. Princeton: Princeton University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuten, Donald 2003. Koinéization in Medieval Spanish. Berlin: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuten, Donald and Tejedo-Herrero, Fernando 2015. ‘The relationship between historical linguistics and sociolinguistics’, in Díaz-Campos, Manuel (ed.), The Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics. Malden/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 283–302Google Scholar
Tyrkkö, Jukka 2013. ‘Printing houses as communities of practice: orthography in early modern medical books’, in Kopaczyk, Joanna and Jucker, Andreas H. (eds.), Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 151–75Google Scholar
Tyrkkö, Jukka 2020. ‘Early modern medicine in manuscript and print: a triangulation approach to analysing spelling standardisation’, International Journal of English Studies 20 (2): 69–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ukiškasis kalendori͡us 1902 metams, turintėms 365 dėnas 1902. Suwałki: Tipografīi͡a M. L. Sheĭnmana, byvshai͡a A. MarksonaGoogle Scholar
Uldall, Hans J. 1944. ‘Speech and writing’, Acta Linguistica 4: 11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger, J. Marshall 2015. ʻInterpreting diffuse orthographies and orthographic changeʼ, in Honeybone, Patrick and Salmons, Joseph (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 86–99Google Scholar
Unger, J. Marshall and DeFrancis, John 1995. ‘Logographic and semasiographic writing systems: a critique of Sampson’s classification’, in Taylor, Insup and Olson, David R. (eds.), Scripts and Literacy: Reading and Learning to Read Alphabets, Syllabaries and Characters. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 45–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unicode Consortium (ed.) 2019. The Unicode Standard, Version 12.1.0. Mountain View: Unicode Consortium, https://home.unicode.orgGoogle Scholar
United States Board on Geographic Names 1892. First Report of the United States Board on Geographic Names. 1890–1891. Washington, DC: Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
Unseth, Peter (ed.) 2008. The Sociolinguistics of Script Choice, special issue of International Journal of the Sociology of Language 192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Untermann, Jürgen 2000. Wörterbuch des Oskisch-Umbrischen. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Upward, Christopher and Davidson, George 2011. The History of English Spelling. Malden: Wiley-BlackwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbańczyk, Stanisław 1986. ‘Polszczyzna Ormian lwowskich’, in Olesch, Reinhold and Rothe, Hans (eds.), Festschrift für Herbert Bräuer zum 65. Geburtstag am 14. April 1986. Cologne/Vienna: Böhlau, pp. 667–73Google Scholar
Urla, Jacqueline 1995. ‘Outlaw language: creating alternative public spheres in Basque free radio’, Pragmatics 5 (2): 245–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uspenskiĭ, Boris A. 2004. ‘Nikolaĭ I i pol’skiĭ i͡azyk (I͡Azykovai͡a politika Rossiĭskoĭ imperii v otnoshenii T͡Sarstva Pol’skogo: voprosy grafiki i orfografii)’, Die Welt der Slaven 49 (1): 1–38Google Scholar
Vachek, Josef 1939. ‘Zum Problem der geschriebenen Sprache’, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 8: 94–104Google Scholar
Vachek, Josef 1945–49. ‘Some remarks on writing and phonetic transcription’, Acta Linguistica 5: 86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vachek, Josef 1964. ‘On peripheral phonemes of Modern English’, Brno Studies in English 4: 7–109Google Scholar
Vachek, Josef 1973. Written Language. The Hague: MoutonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vachek, Josef 1976 [1939]. ‘Zum Problem der geschriebenen Sprache’, in Vachek, Josef (ed.), Selected Writings in English and General Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 112–33 (reprinted from Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague 8: 94–104)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vachek, Josef 1976 [1945–49]. ‘Some remarks on writing and phonetic transcription’, in Vachek, Josef (ed.), Selected Writings in English and General Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 127–33 (reprinted from Acta Linguistica 5: 86–93)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vachek, Josef 1976 [1972]. ‘The present state of research in written language’, in Vachek, Josef (ed.), Selected Writings in English and General Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 134–45 (reprinted from Folia Linguistica 6: 47–61)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vachek, Josef 1993. ‘Present-day (w), its form and function in present-day English’, Brno Studies in English 20: 11–15Google Scholar
Van Aken, Mark J. 1959. Pan-Hispanism. Its Origin and Development to 1866. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Van Beek, Gosewijn 1996. ‘On materiality’, Etnofoor 9 (1): 5–24Google Scholar
Van den Bosch, Antal, Content, Alain, Daelemans, Walter and Beatrice, De Gelder 1994. ‘Measuring the complexity of writing systems’, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 1 (3): 178–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandenbussche, Wim 2002. ‘The standardization of Dutch orthography in lower, middle and upper class documents in 19th century Flanders’, in Linn, Andrew and McLelland, Nicola (eds.), Standardization. Studies from the Germanic Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandenbussche, Wim 2007a. ‘“Lower-class language” in 19th century Flanders’, Multilingua 26: 277–88Google Scholar
Vandenbussche, Wim 2007b. ‘Shared standardization factors in the history of sixteen Germanic languages’, in Fandrych, Christian and Salverda, Reinier (eds.), Standard, Variation und Sprachwandel in germanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, pp. 25–36Google Scholar
Van den Werve, Jan II 1553. Het tresoor der Duytsscher talen. Brussels: Hans de Laet. Diplomatic transcription from Ghent University Library, accession number BHSL.RES.0535, www.dbnl.org/tekst/werv004scha01_01/Google Scholar
Van der Feest Viðarsson, Heimir 2017. ‘The syntax of others: “un-Icelandic” verb placement in 19th- and early 20th-century Icelandic’, in Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid and Percy, Carol (eds.), Prescription and Tradition in Language: Establishing Standards across Time and Space. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 152–67Google Scholar
Van der Kuijp, Leonard W. J. 1996. ‘The Tibetan script and derivatives’, in Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 431–558Google Scholar
Van der Sijs, Nicoline and Beelen, Hans (compilers) 2008–12. Bijbels Digitaal. Nederlands Bijbelgenootschap, www.bijbelsdigitaal.nl/Google Scholar
Marijke, Van der Wal and Rutten, Gijsbert (eds.) 2013. Touching the Past: Studies in the Historical Sociolinguistics of Ego-Documents. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Van der Wal, Marijke, Rutten, Gijsbert, Nobels, Judith and Simons, Tanja (compilers) 2015. The Letters as Loot/ Brieven als Buit Corpus. Compiled by Marijke van der Wal (Programme leader), Gijsbert Rutten, Judith Nobels and Tanja Simons, with the assistance of volunteers of the Leiden-based Wikiscripta Neerlandica transcription project, and lemmatised, tagged and provided with search facilities by the Institute for Dutch Lexicology (INL) (2nd release). Leiden University, https://brievenalsbuit.ivdnt.org/Google Scholar
Van der Wal, Marijke and Van Bree, Cor 2008. Geschiedenis van Het Nederlands. Utrecht: SpectrumGoogle Scholar
Vannebo, Kjell I. 1984. En nasjon av skriveføre. Om utviklinga fram mot allmenn skriveferdighet på 1800-tallet. Oslo: NovusGoogle Scholar
Van Peer, Willie 1997. ‘Mutilated signs: notes toward a literary paleography’, Poetics Today 18 (1): 33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Reenen, Pieter and Huijs, Nanette 2000. ‘De harde en de zachte g, de spelling gh versus g voor voorklinker in het veertiende-eeuwse Middelnederlands’, Taal en Tongval 52: 159–81Google Scholar
Van Reenen, Pieter and Mulder, Maaike (compilers) s.d. Corpus Van Reenen – Mulder, s.l. 1993. ‘Een gegevensbank van 14de-eeuwse Middelnederlandse dialecten op computer’, Lexikos 3: 259–79, www.diachronie.nl/corpora/crm14Google Scholar
Varila, Mari-Liisa, Salmi, Hanna, Mäkilähde, Aleksi, Skaffari, Janne and Peikola, Matti 2017. ‘Disciplinary decoding: towards understanding the language of visual and material features’, in Peikola, Matti, Mäkilähde, Aleksi, Salmi, Hanna, Varila, Mari-Liisa and Skaffari, Janne (eds.), Verbal and Visual Communication in Early English Text. Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 1–20Google Scholar
Varnhagen, Connie K., McFall, Peggy G., Routledge, Lisa, Suminda-MacDonald, Heather and Kwong, Trudy E. 2010. ‘Lol: new language and spelling in instant messaging’, Reading and Writing 23 (6): 719–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vázquez, Nila and Marqués-Aguado, Teresa 2012. ‘Editing the medieval manuscript in its social context’, in Hernández-Campoy, Juan Manuel and Conde-Silvestre, Juan Camilo (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 123–39Google Scholar
Vázquez Gastelu, Antonio 1689. Arte de lengua mexicana. Puebla: Diego Fernández de LeónGoogle Scholar
Védénina, Ludmilla G. 1989. Pertinence linguistique de la présentation typographique. Paris: Peeters-SelafGoogle Scholar
Venckienė, Jurgita 2004. ‘Dvejopa XIX a. pabaigos lietuviškų laikraščių rašyba’, in Staliūnas, Darius (ed.), Raidžių draudimo metai. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, pp. 207–12Google Scholar
Venckienė, Jurgita 2006. ‘Kirilika rašyti lietuviški XIX amžiaus pabaigos ir XX amžiaus pradžios rankraštiniai tekstai’, Archivum Lithuanicum 8: 319–32Google Scholar
Venezky, Richard L. 1970. The Structure of English Orthography (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 82). The Hague/Paris: MoutonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venezky, Richard L. 1999. The American Way of Spelling. New York/London: Guildford PressGoogle Scholar
Venezky, Richard L. 2001. ‘Spelling’, in Algeo, John (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. 6: English in North America. Cambridge: University Press, pp. 340–57Google Scholar
Venezky, Richard L. 2004. ‘In search of the perfect orthography’, in Neef, Martin and Primus, Beatrice (eds.), From Letter to Sound: New Perspectives on Writing Systems, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 7 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 139–63Google Scholar
Ventris, Michael 1988. Work Notes on Minoan Language Research and Other Unedited Papers (ed. by Anna Sacconi). Rome: Edizioni dell’AteneoGoogle Scholar
Ventris, Michael and Chadwick, John 1953. ‘Evidence for Greek Dialect in the Mycenaean Archives’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 73: 84–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventris, Michael and Chadwick, John 1956. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Ventris, Michael and Chadwick, John 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Ventris, Michael and Sacconi, Anna (eds.) 1988. Work Notes on Minoan Language Research and Other Unedited Papers. Rome: Edizioni dell’AteneoGoogle Scholar
Vermeylen, Filip R. 2002 ‘Art and economics: the Antwerp art market of the sixteenth century’. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, USAGoogle Scholar
Verrac, Monique 2000. ‘Les premières descriptions grammaticales de l’anglais’, in Auroux, Sylvain, Koerner, Ernst F. K., Niederehe, Hans-Josef and Versteegh, Kees (eds.), History of the Language Sciences/Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften/Histoire des sciences du langage. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 771–77Google Scholar
Verrette, Michel 2002. L’alphabétisation au Québec 1660–1900: en marche vers la modernité culturelle. Sillery: SeptentrionCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vertan, Cristina 2018. ‘A framework for annotating and interpreting vagueness in historical documents’, in Baranov, Victor, Engel, Patricia, Fuchsbauer, Jürgen and Miklas, Heinz (eds.), El’Manuscript 2018. 7th International Conference on Textual Heritage and Information Technologies. Vienna and Krems, Austria, 14–18 September 2018. Sofia: Sofia University Press St. Kliment Ochridski, p. 55Google Scholar
Vetancurt, Agustín de 1673. Arte de lengua mexicana. Mexico City: Francisco Rodríguez LupercioGoogle Scholar
Vickers, Brian 2018. ‘The “Dial Hand” epilogue: by Shakespeare, or Dekker?’, Authorship 7 (2), https://doi.org/10.21825/aj.v7i2.9735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Videsott, Paul 2009. Padania scrittologica: analisi scrittologiche e scrittometriche di testi in italiano settentrionale antico dalle origini al 1525. Tübingen: NiemeyerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikør, Lars 2018. ‘Det moderne Noreg (1945–2015)’, in Nesse, Agnete (ed.), Tidslinjer, vol. 4 of Sandøy, Helge and Nesse, Agnete (eds.), Norsk språkhistorie. Oslo: Novus, pp. 603–95Google Scholar
Vilborg, Ebbe 1960. A Tentative Grammar of Mycenaean Greek. Gothenburg: Almqvist and WiksellGoogle Scholar
Villa, Laura 2012. ‘“Because when governments speak, they are not always right”: national construction and orthographic conflicts in mid-nineteenth century Spain’, in Langer, Nils, Davies, Steffan and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Language and History, Linguistics and Historiography. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 209–27Google Scholar
Villa, Laura 2013. ‘The officialization of Spanish in mid-nineteenth-century Spain: the Academy’s authority’, in Valle, José del (ed.), A Political History of Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villa, Laura 2015. ‘Official orthographies, spelling debates and nation-building projects after the fall of the Spanish Empire’, in Villa, Laura and Vosters, Rik (eds.), The Historical Sociolinguistics of Spelling, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 18 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 228–47Google Scholar
Villa, Laura 2017. ‘Real orden del 25 de abril de 1844 que oficializó las normas ortográficas de la Real Academia Española’, Anuario de Glotopolítica 1: 263–77Google Scholar
Villa, Laura and Vosters, Rik 2015a. ‘Language ideological debates over orthography in European linguistic history’, in Villa, Laura and Vosters, Rik (eds.), The Historical Sociolinguistics of Spelling, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 18 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 201–7Google Scholar
Villa, Laura and Vosters, Rik (eds.) 2015b. The Historical Sociolinguistics of Spelling, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 18 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Vine, Brent 1993. Studies in Archaic Latin Inscriptions. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität InnsbruckGoogle Scholar
Viredaz, Rémy 1983. ‘La graphie des groupes de consonnes en mycénien et cypriote’, Minos 18: 125–207Google Scholar
Vlasto, Alexis P. 1986. A Linguistic History of Russia to the End of the Eighteenth Century. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Voeste, Anja 2007a. ‘Traveling through the Lexicon: “self-organized” spelling changes’, in Nottbusch, Guido and Segers, Eliane (eds.), Constraints on Spelling Changes, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 10 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 89–102Google Scholar
Voeste, Anja 2007b. ‘Variability and professionalism as prerequisites of standardization’, in Elspaß, Stephan, Langer, Nils, Scharloth, Joachim and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Germanic Language Histories ‘from Below’ (1700–2000) (Studia Linguistica Germanica 86). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voeste, Anja 2008. Orthographie und Innovation: Die Segmentierung des Wortes im 16. Jahrhundert. Hildesheim/Zurich/New York: Georg Olms VerlagGoogle Scholar
Voeste, Anja 2010. ‘Die Norm neben der Norm. Zum Zusammenhang von Graphienwahl und Überlieferungsform’, in Fest-Platte für Gerd Fritz, www.festschrift-gerd-fritz.de/files/voeste_2010_norm-neben-der-norm.pdfGoogle Scholar
Voeste, Anja 2012. ‘The emergence of suprasegmental spellings in German’, in Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 167–91Google Scholar
Voeste, Anja 2015. ‘Proficiency and efficiency: why German spelling changed in early modern times’, in Villa, Laura and Vosters, Rik (eds.), The Historical Sociolinguistics of Spelling, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 18 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 248–59Google Scholar
Voeste, Anja 2016. ‘A mensa et thoro : on the tense relationship between literacy and the spoken word in early modern times’, in Russi, Cinzia (ed.), Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 237–61Google Scholar
Voeste, Anja 2018a. ‘The self as a source: a peasant farmer’s letters from prison (1848–1852)ʼ, Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 4 (1): 97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voeste, Anja 2018b. ‘Interpunktion und Textsegmentierung im frühen deutschsprachigen Prosaroman’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 140: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voeste, Anja 2020. ‘Investigating methods: intra-textual, inter-textual and cross-textual variable analyses’, in Condorelli, Marco (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–53Google Scholar
Voeste, Anja 2021. ‘Spelling variation and text alignment: an investigation of German Mirabilia Romae from the year 1500’, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 40 (3): 279–95, https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2021-2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voet, Leon 1969. The Golden Compasses: A History and Evaluation of the Printing and Publishing Activities of the Officina Plantiniana at Antwerp. 1. Christophe Plantin and the Moretuses: Their Lives and Their World. Amsterdam: VangendtGoogle Scholar
Vogt-Spira, Gregor 1991. ‘Vox und littera: Der Buchstabe zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit in der grammatischen Tradition’, Poetica 23 (3/4): 295–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voigts, Linda E. 1984. ‘Medical prose’, in Edwards, Anthony S. G. (ed.), Middle English Prose: A Critical Guide to Major Authors and Genres. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, pp. 315–35Google Scholar
Von Lieven, Alexandra and Lippert, Sandra L. 2016. ‘Egyptian (3000 BCE to ca. 400 CE)’, in Bunčić, Daniel, Lippert, Sandra L. and Rabus, Achim (eds.), Biscriptality: A Sociolinguistic Typology. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 256–76Google Scholar
Von Planta, Robert 1892. Grammatik der Oskisch-Umbrischen Dialekte. Strasbourg: K. J. TrübnerGoogle Scholar
Von Polenz, Peter 2020 [1978]. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter (11th ed.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Raumer, Rudolf 2019 [1870]. Geschichte der germanischen Philologie. Munich: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag (reprint by De Gruyter)Google Scholar
Von Wartburg, Walther (ed.) 1928–2003. Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch: eine Darstellung des galloromanischen Sprachschatzes, 25 vols. Bonn: KloppGoogle Scholar
Vosters, Rik 2011. ‘Taalgebruik, taalnormen en taalbeschouwing in Vlaanderen tijdens het Verenigd Koninkrijk der Nederlanden Een historisch-sociolinguïstische verkenning van vroeg-negentiende-eeuws Zuidelijk Nederlands’. Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Vosters, Rik, Belsack, Els, Puttaert, Jill and Vandenbussche, Wim 2014. ‘Norms and usage in nineteenth-century Southern Dutch’, in Rutten, Gijsbert, Vosters, Rik and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1900: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 73–100Google Scholar
Vosters, Rik and Rutten, Gijsbert 2015. ‘Three Southern shibboleths: spelling features as conflicting identity markers in the Low Countries’, in Villa, Laura and Vosters, Rik (eds.), The Historical Sociolinguistics of Spelling, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 18 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 260–74Google Scholar
Vosters, Rik, Rutten, Gijsbert and Vandenbussche, Wim 2012. ‘The sociolinguistics of spelling: a corpus-based case study of orthographical variation in nineteenth-century Dutch in Flanders’, in Ans, van Kemenade and Nynke, de Haas (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2009. Selected Papers from the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 253–73Google Scholar
Vosters, Rik, Rutten, Gijsbert, van der Wal, Marijke and Vandenbussche, Wim 2012. ‘Spelling and identity in the Southern Netherlands (1750–1830)’, in Jaffe, Alexandra M., Androutsopoulos, Jannis K., Sebba, Mark and Johnson, Sally A. (eds.), Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power (Language and Social Processes 3). Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 135–59Google Scholar
Waal, Willemijn 2012. ‘Writing in Anatolia: the origins of the Anatolian hieroglyphs and the introduction of the cuneiform script’, Altorientalische Forschungen 39 (2): 287–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wachter, Rudolf 1986. ‘Die etruskische und venetische Silbenpunktierung’, Museum Helveticum 43: 111–26Google Scholar
Wagner, Esther-Miriam, Beinhoff, Bettina and Outhwaite, Ben (eds.) 2013. Scribes as Agents of Language Change. Berlin: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Esther-Miriam, Outhwaite, Ben and Beinhoff, Bettina 2013. ‘Scribes and language change’, in Wagner, Esther-Miriam, Beinhoff, Bettina and Outhwaite, Ben (eds.), Scribes as Agents of Language Change. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakelin, Daniel 2011. ‘Writing the words’, in Gillespie, Alexandra and Wakelin, Daniel (eds.), The Production of Books in England 1350–1500 (Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology 14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 34–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walder, Adrienne 2020. ‘Das versale Eszett. Ein neuer Buchstabe im deutschen Alphabet’, Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 48 (2): 211–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldispühl, Michelle 2018. “Deutsch” oder “nordgermanisch”? Sprachliche Bestimmung von Namen im Reichenauer Verbrüderungsbuch vor dem Hintergrund von Sprachkontakt und Mehrsprachigkeitʼ, in Hoffarth, Christoph and Scheller, Benjamin (eds.), Ambiguität und die Ordnungen des Sozialen im Mittelalter. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 129–50Google Scholar
Waldispühl, Michelle 2020a. ʻHistorische Rufnamen im Kontakt. Integration der altisländischen Pilgernamen auf der Reichenau in die mittelhochdeutsche Schreibspracheʼ, in Kempf, Luise, Nübling, Damaris and Schmuck, Mirjam (eds.), Linguistik der Eigennamen. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 17–37Google Scholar
Waldispühl, Michelle 2020b. ʻRoman and runic in the Anglo-Saxon inscriptions at Monte Sant’Angelo: a sociolinguistic approachʼ, Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 9–10 (2018–2019): 135–58Google Scholar
Walker, James A. 2010. Variation in Linguistic Systems. London/New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Walker, James A. 2014. ‘Variation analysis’, in Podesva, Robert J. and Sharma, Devyani (eds.), Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 440–59Google Scholar
Walker, John 1791. A Critical Pronouncing Dictionary and Expositor of the English Language. LondonGoogle Scholar
Wall, Wendy 2000. ‘Authorship and the material conditions of writing’, in Kinney, Arthur F. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to English Literature, 1500–1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–89Google Scholar
Wallis, Christine 2013. ‘The Old English Bede: transmission and textual history in Anglo-Saxon manuscripts’. Doctoral dissertation, University of Sheffield, UK, http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/5459Google Scholar
Wallis, John 1670. ‘A Letter of Doctor John Wallis to Robert Boyle Esq. concerning the said Doctors Essay of Teaching a person Dumb and Deaf to speak, and to understand Language, together with the success thereof, made apparent to his Majesty, the Royal Society, and the University of Oxford’, Philosophical Transactions 61: 1087–99Google Scholar
Walton, Stephen J. 1987. Farewell the Spirit Craven. Ivar Aasen and National Romanticism. Oslo: Det norske SamlagetGoogle Scholar
Warner, Lawrence 2015. ‘Scribes, misattributed: Hoccleve and Pinkhurst’, Studies in the Age of Chaucer 37: 55–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waters, Cathleen and Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2017. ‘Is one innovation enough? Leaders, covariation, and language change’, American Speech 92 (1): 23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, Calvert 1976. ‘Observations on the “Nestor’s Cup” inscription’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 80: 25–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, Diane 2013. ‘The earliest women’s writing? Anglo-Saxon literary cultures and communities’, Women’s Writing 20 (4): 537–54, https://doi.org/10.1080/09699082.2013.773761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, Diane 2019. Women, Writing and Religion in England and beyond, 650–1100 (Studies in Early Medieval History). New York: Bloomsbury AcademicGoogle Scholar
Watt, Tessa 1991. Cheap Print and Popular Piety, 1550–1640. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Watt, William C. 1998. ‘The old-fashioned way’, Semiotica 122 (1–2): 99–138Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2011. Language Myths and the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard J. 2015. ‘Setting the scene: letters, standards and historical sociolinguistics’, in Auer, Anita, Schreier, Daniel and Watts, Richard J. (eds.), Letter Writing and Language Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–13Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J. and Trudgill, Peter J. (eds.) 2002. Alternative Histories of English. Milton Park/New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Waxenberger, Gaby 2017. ʻThe development of the Old English fuþorcʼ, in Waxenberger, Gaby, Sauer, Hans and Kazzazi, Kerstin (eds.), Von den Hieroglyphen zur Internetsprache. Das Verhältnis von Schrift, Laut und Sprache. Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 209–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waxenberger, Gaby forthcoming. A Phonology of Old English Runic Inscriptions with a Concise Edition and Analysis of the Graphemes. Berlin/Boston: De GruyterGoogle Scholar
Webb, Thomas W. (ed.) 1873. Military Memoir of Colonel John Birch, Sometime Governor of Hereford in the Civil War between Charles I and the Parliament, Written by Roe, His Secretary. London: Camden SocietyGoogle Scholar
Weber, Eugen 1976. Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914. Stanford: Stanford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max 2004 [1919]. ‘Politik als Beruf’, in Owen, David S. and Strong, Tracy B. (eds.), The Vocation Lectures (trans. Rodney Livingston). Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 32–94Google Scholar
Weber, Walter R. 1958. Das Aufkommen der Substantivgroßschreibung im Deutschen: ein historisch-kritischer Versuch. Munich: Uni-DruckGoogle Scholar
Webster, Noah 1783–85. A Grammatical Institute, of the English Language […]. Hartford: Parts 1 and 2: Hudson and Goodwin for the author, 1783, 1784; Part 3: Barlow and Babcock for the author, 1785Google Scholar
Webster, Noah 1806. A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language […]. Hartford: SidneyGoogle Scholar
Webster, Noah 1828. An American Dictionary of the English Language […], 2 vols. New York: S. ConverseGoogle Scholar
Wehr, Hans 1976. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Edited by John Milton Cowan. Ithaca/New York: Spoken Language Services (3rd ed.)Google Scholar
Weingarten, Rüdiger 2011. ‘Comparative graphematics’, in Borgwaldt, Susanne R. and Joyce, Terry (eds.), Typology of Writing Systems, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 14 (1). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 12–38Google Scholar
Weingarten, Rüdiger, Nottbusch, Guido and Will, Udo 2004. ‘Morphemes, syllables and graphemes in written word production’, in Pechmann, Thomas and Habel, Christopher (eds.), Multidisciplinary Approaches to Language Production. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, pp. 1–28Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel 1965. Ashkenazic Hebrew and the Hebrew Component in Yiddish, Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew LanguageGoogle Scholar
Wells, Christopher 1972. ‘An orthographic approach to early Frankish personal names’, Transactions of the Philological Society 71 (1): 101–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, Herbert G. 1897. The Invisible Man. New York/London: Harper and Brothers PublishersGoogle Scholar
Wenger, Étienne 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, Sarah 2014. ‘Finding women in the printing shop’, Collation.Folger, https://collation.folger.edu/2014/10/finding-women-in-the-printing-shopGoogle Scholar
Wertheim, Suzanne 2012. ‘Reclamation, revalorization, and re-tatarization via changing Tatar orthographies’, in Jaffe, Alexandra M., Androutsopoulos, Jannis K., Sebba, Mark and Johnson, Sally A. (eds.), Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 65–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Paul 1988. ‘Christian, Jewish and Muslim translations of the Bible and Koran in Byelorussia: 16th–19th centuries’, The Journal of Belarusian Studies 6 (1): 12–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalen, Richard F. 2015. ‘Was “Shakspere” also a spelling of “Shakespeare”? Strat Stats fail to prove it’, Interdisciplinary Journal of Authorship Studies 6: 33–50Google Scholar
Wharton, Jeremiah 1654. The English-Grammar […]. London: William Du-GardGoogle Scholar
Wheale, Nigel 1999. Writing and Society: Literacy, Print, and Politics in Britain, 1590–1660. London/New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
White, David L. 2000. ‘Irish influence and the interpretation of Old English spelling’. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, USAGoogle Scholar
Whitney, William D. 1889. A Sanskrit Grammar: Including Both the Classical Language, and the Older Dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Whittaker, Gordon 2009. ‘The principles of Nahuatl writing’, Göttinger Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 16: 47–81Google Scholar
Wiberg, Christian K. 1907. Jomfru Pegelau. Kristiania: AschehougGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Richard 2004. ‘How to optimize orthography’, in Neef, Martin and Primus, Beatrice (eds.), From Letter to Sound: New Perspectives on Writing Systems, special issue of Written Language and Literacy 7 (2). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 305–31Google Scholar
Wiggins, Alison 2016. Bess of Hardwick’s Letters: Language, Materiality, and Early Modern Epistolary Culture. London: RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildenthal, Bryan H. 2018. ‘Reflections on spelling and the Shakespeare authorship question: “What’s in (the spelling of) a name?”’, Thomas Jefferson School of Law Research Paper No. 3185805, 1–4Google Scholar
Wilkens, Friedrich 1891. Zum hochalemannischen Konsonantismus der althochdeutschen Zeit: Beiträge zur Lautlehre und Orthographie des ältesten Hochalemannischen, auf Grundlage der deutschen Eigennamen in den St. Galler Urkunden (bis zum Jahre 825). Leipzig: Gustav FockGoogle Scholar
Willemyns, Roland 2003. ‘Dutch’, in Deumert, Ana and Vandenbussche, Wim (eds.), Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 93–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willemyns, Roland 2013. Dutch: Biography of a Language. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Williams, Graham T. 2014. Women’s Epistolary Utterance: A Study of the Letters of Joan and Maria Thynne, 1575–1611 (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 233). Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Keith 2013–. A Linguistic Atlas of Older Scots, Phase 1: 1380–1500. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/laos1/laos1.htmlGoogle Scholar
Willis, James (ed.) 1983. Martianus Capella. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig: TeubnerGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Kenneth G. 1993. ‘Spelling pronunciations’, in The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1926. Wörterbuch für Volks- und Bürgerschulen. Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky AGGoogle Scholar
Witzstat, Hans 1526 (A). Der geyſtlich Buchsbaum/ Von dem ſtreyte des fleyſches wider den geyſt. Nuremberg: Jobst Gutknecht (VD16 W 4082)Google Scholar
Witzstat, Hans 1528 (B1). Der geiſtlich buchßbaum. Von dem ſtreyt des fleyſchs wider den geyſt. Nuremberg: Kunigunde Hergot (VD16 ZV 26909)Google Scholar
Witzstat, Hans 1528 (B2). Der geiſtlich buchßbaum. Von dem ſtreyt des fleyſchs wider den geiſt. Nuremberg: Kunigunde Hergot (VD16 W 4083)Google Scholar
Wolańska, Ewa 2019. System grafematyczny współczesnej polszczyzny na tle innych systemów pisma. Warsaw: Dom Wydawniczy ElipsaGoogle Scholar
Wolf, Johanna and Blauth-Henke, Christine 2011. ‘Methode als Grenze? Zur Spaltung von Philologie und Sprachwissenschaft im 19. Jahrhundert’, in Hassler, Gerda (ed.), History of Linguistics 2008. Selected Papers from the Eleventh International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHoLS XI), 28 August–2 September 2008, Potsdam. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 49–68Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt 1969. A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied LinguisticsGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, Walt 1991. ‘The linguistic variable: fact and fantasy’, American Speech 66 (1): 22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, Walt 2006. ‘Variation and language: overview’, in Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 13. Amsterdam/Boston: Elsevier, pp. 333–41 (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Woodard, Roger D. 1994. ‘On the interaction of Greek orthography and phonology: consonant clusters in the syllabic scripts’, in Watt, William C. (ed.), Writing Systems and Cognition. Neuropsychology and Cognition, vol 6. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 311–34Google Scholar
Woodard, Roger D. 1997. Greek Writing from Knossos to Homer. A Linguistic Interpretation of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and the Continuity of Ancient Greek Literacy. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, Christopher 2010a. ‘Visible language: the earliest writing systems’, in Woods, Christopher, Teeter, Emily and Emberling, Geoff (eds.), Visible Language: Inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and Beyond. Chicago: Oriental Institute, pp. 15–25Google Scholar
Woods, Christopher 2010b. ‘The earliest Mesopotamian writing’, in Woods, Christopher, Teeter, Emily and Emberling, Geoff (eds.), Visible Language: Inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and Beyond. Chicago: Oriental Institute, pp. 33–50Google Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn 1998. ‘Language ideology as a field of inquiry’, in Schieffelin, Bambi, Woolard, Kathryn and Kroskrity, Paul (eds.), Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn and Schieffelin, Bambi 1994. ‘Language ideology’, Annual Review of Anthropology 23: 55–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woudhuysen, Henry R. 1996. Sir Philip Sidney and the Circulation of Manuscripts, 1558–1640. Oxford: Clarendon PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrenn, Charles L. 1967 [1943]. ‘The value of spelling as evidence’, in Wrenn, Charles L. (ed.), Word and Symbol: Studies in English Language. London: LongmansGoogle Scholar
Wright, Joseph 1924. An Elementary Historical New English Grammar. London: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Wright, Laura 1994. ‘On the writing of the history of Standard English’, in Moreno Fernández, Francisco, Fuster, Miguel and Calvo, Juan Jose (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 1992 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–15Google Scholar
Wright, Laura 1996. Sources of London English: Medieval Thames Vocabulary. Oxford: Clarendon PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Laura 2000. ‘Introduction’, in Wright, Laura (ed.), The Development of Standard English 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Laura 2002. ‘Code-intermediate phenomena in medieval mixed-language business texts’, Language Sciences 24 (3–4): 471–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Laura 2011. ‘On variation in medieval mixed-language business writing’, in Schendl, Herbert and Wright, Laura (eds.), Code-Switching in Early English. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 191–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Laura 2020a. ‘Introduction’, in Wright, Laura (ed.), The Multilingual Origins of Standard English. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Laura (ed.) 2020b. The Multilingual Origins of Standard English. Berlin: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Roger 2011. ‘Abbo of Fleury in Ramsey (985–987)’, in Tyler, Elizabeth M. (ed.), Conceptualizing Multilingualism in England, c.800–c.1250 (Studies in the Early Middle Ages 27). Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 105–20, https://doi.org/10.1484/M.SEM-EB.4.8006Google Scholar
Wright, Sue 2012. ‘Language policy, the nation and nationalism’, in Spolsky, Bernard (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Writing Systems Research, www.tandfonline.com/toc/pwsr20/currentGoogle Scholar
Written Language and Literacy, https://benjamins.com/catalog/wllGoogle Scholar
Wurm, Stephen 1994. ‘Graphisation and standardisation of languages’, in Lüdi, Georges (ed.), Sprachstandardisierung. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 255–72Google Scholar
Wyld, Henry C. 1956. The Universal Dictionary of the English Language […]. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul (8th ed.)Google Scholar
Wyrod, Christopher 2008. ‘A social orthography of identity: the N’ko literacy movement in West Africa’, in Unseth, Peter (ed.), The Sociolinguistics of Script Choice, special issue of International Journal of the Sociology of Language 192: 27–44Google Scholar
Yager, Susan 2010. ‘New Philology’, in Classen, Albrecht (ed.), Handbook of Medieval Studies: Terms, Methods, Trends, vol. 2. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 999–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakubovich, Ilya 2010. ‘Anatolian hieroglyphic writing’, in Woods, Christopher, Teeter, Emily and Emberling, Geoff (eds.), Visible Language: Inventions of Writing in the Ancient Middle East and Beyond. Chicago: Oriental Institute, pp. 203–7Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2015. ‘“Have you ever written a diary or a journal?” Diurnal prose and register variation’, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 116: 449–74Google Scholar
Yip, Po-Ching and Rimmington, Don 2016. Chinese: A Comprehensive Grammar. London/New York: Routledge (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Young, Christopher and Gloning, Thomas 2004. A History of the German Language through Texts. London/New York: Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203488072Google Scholar
Younging, Gregory 2018. Elements of Indigenous Style: A Guide for Writing by and about Indigenous Peoples. Edmonton: Brush EducationGoogle Scholar
Yule, Valerie and Yasuko, Ishi 2016. ‘Spelling reform’, in Cook, Vivian and Ryan, Des (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 413–27Google Scholar
Zabrocki, Ludwik 1970. ‘Kommunikative Gemeinschaften und Sprachgemeinschaften’, Folia Linguistica 4 (1–2): 2–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zair, Nicholas 2016. Oscan in the Greek Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zalizni͡ak, Andreĭ A. 1986. ‘Novgorodskie berestyanye gramoty s lingvisticheskoĭ tochki zreniya’, in I͡Anin, Valentin L. and Zalizni͡ak, Andreĭ A (eds.), Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1977–1983 gg.), vol. 8. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 89–219Google Scholar
Zalizni͡ak, Andreĭ A. 2000. ‘Paleografii͡a beresti͡anykh gramot’, in I͡Anin, Valentin L. and Zalizni͡ak, Andreĭ A (eds.), Novgorodskie gramoty na bereste (iz raskopok 1990–1996 gg.), vol. 10. Moscow: Russkie slovari, pp. 134–274Google Scholar
Zalizni͡ak, Andreĭ A. 2002a [1979]. ‘O poni͡atii grafemy’, in Zalizni͡ak, Andreĭ A, “Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie” s prilozheniem izbrannykh rabot po sovremennomu russkomu i͡azyku i obshchemu i͡azykoznanii͡u. Moscow: I͡Azyki slavi͡anskoĭ kul’tury, pp. 559–76Google Scholar
Zalizni͡ak, Andreĭ A. 2002b. ‘Drevnerusskai͡a grafika so smesheniem ъ-о i ь-е’, in Zalizni͡ak, Andreĭ A, “Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie” s prilozheniem izbrannykh rabot po sovremennomu russkomu i͡azyku i obshchemu i͡azykoznanii͡u, Moscow: I͡Azyki slavi͡anskoĭ kul’tury, pp. 577–612Google Scholar
Zalizni͡ak, Andreĭ A. 2004. Drevnenovgorodskiĭ dialekt. Moscow: I͡Azyki slavi͡anskoĭ kul’tury (2nd ed.)Google Scholar
Zamora Vicente, Alonso 1999. Historia de la Real Academia Española. Madrid: EspasaGoogle Scholar
Zanobini, Michele 2016. ‘Philology, Renaissance’, in Sgarbi, Marco (ed.), Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy. Cham: Springer, pp. 1–9Google Scholar
Zemenová, Markéta 2011. ‘Nástin překladatelských postupů a metod v období raného novověku v kontaktu německo-českém/A Study on the Techniques and Methods in German-Czech Translations at the Time of the Renaissance and the Reformation’. MA dissertation, Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Czech RepublicGoogle Scholar
Zheltukhin, Alexander 1996. Orthographic Codes and Code-Switching: A Study in 16th-Century Swedish Orthography. Stockholm: Almqvist & WiksellGoogle Scholar
Zheltukhin, Alexander 2012. ‘Variable norms in 16th-century Swedish orthography’, in Baddeley, Susan and Voeste, Anja (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 193–218Google Scholar
Zhukovskai͡a, Lidii͡a P. 1955. ‘Paleografii͡a’, in Borkovskiĭ, Viktor I. (ed.), Paleograficheskiĭ i lingvisticheskiĭ analiz novgorodskikh beresti͡anykh gramot, Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, pp. 13–78Google Scholar
Ziegler, Johannes C. and Goswami, Usha 2005. ‘Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory’, Psychological Bulletin 131: 3–29CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger and Strecker, Bruno 1997. Grammatik der Deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De GruyterGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, Ben 2008. ‘“Ghoti” before Shaw’, Language Log. Posted Apr. 23, https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=81Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Jonathan 2010. ‘Simplified spelling and the cult of efficiency in the ‘Progressiv’ era’, The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 9 (3): 365–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zink, Gaston 1999. Phonétique historique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de FranceGoogle Scholar
Znamenskaya, Tatiana A. 2004. Stylistics of the English Language: Fundamentals of the Course. Moscow: YPCCGoogle Scholar
Zima, Petr 1974. ‘Digraphia: the case of Hausa’, Linguistics 124: 57–69Google Scholar
Žagar, Mateo 2007. Grafolingvistika srednjovjekovnih tekstova. Zagreb: Matica hrvatskaGoogle Scholar
Žagar, Mateo 2013. Uvod u glagoljsku paleografiju I (X. i XI. stoljeće.). Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovljeGoogle Scholar
Žagar, Mateo 2020. ‘Orthographic solutions at the onset of Early Modern Croatian: an application of the grapholinguistic method’, in Condorelli, Marco (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 176–90Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Marco Condorelli, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Hanna Rutkowska, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Orthography
  • Online publication: 28 September 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766463.032
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Marco Condorelli, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Hanna Rutkowska, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Orthography
  • Online publication: 28 September 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766463.032
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Marco Condorelli, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Hanna Rutkowska, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Orthography
  • Online publication: 28 September 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108766463.032
Available formats
×