Agha, A. 2003. ‘The social life of cultural value’. Language and Communication, 23, pp. 231–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Agha, A. 2006. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, J. D., Anderson, D., Becker, J., Cook, R., Davis, M., Edberg, P., Everson, M., Freytag, A., Jenkins, J. H., McGowan, R., Moore, L., Muller, E., Phillips, A., Suignard, M. & Whistler, K. (eds.) 2012. The Unicode Standard. Version 6.2 – Core Specification. Mountain View: Unicode Consortium, https://unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.2.0/ [accessed 2 August 2021].Google Scholar

Ambrosiani, P. 2020. ‘Graphematic features in Glagolitic and Cyrillic orthographies: a contribution to the typological model of biscriptality’. In Condorelli, M. (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 46–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ammon, U., Bickel, H. & Lenz, A. N.. 2016. Variantenwörterbuch des Deutschen. Die Standardsprache in Österreich, der Schweiz, Deutschland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Ostbelgien und Südtirol sowie Rumänien, Namibia und Mennonitensiedlungen. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ayres-Bennett, W. 1994. ‘Elaboration and codification: standardization and attitudes towards the French language in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’. In Parry, M. M., Davis, W. V. & Temple, R. A. M. (eds.), The Changing Voices of Europe: Social and Political Changes and Their Linguistic Repercussions. Temple: University of Wales Press, pp. 53‒73.Google Scholar

Baddeley, S. 1993. L’Orthographe française au temps de la réforme. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar

Baddeley, S. 2012. ‘French orthography in the 16th century’. In Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A. (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A.. 2012a. ‘Introduction. Orthographies in Early Modern Europe: a comparative view’. In Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A. (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A. (eds.). 2012b. Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Baines, J., Bennet, J. & Houston, S. (eds.). 2008. The Disappearance of Writing Systems: Perspectives on Literacy and Communication. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar

Baker, P. 1997. ‘Developing ways of writing vernaculars: problems and solutions in a historical perspective’. In Tabouret-Keller, A., Le Page, R. B., Gardner-Chloros, P. & Varro, G. (eds.), Vernacular Literacy: A Re-evaluation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 93–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination, ed. Holquist, M.; trans. C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Barteld, F., Hartmann, S. & Szczepaniak, R.. 2016. ‘The usage and spread of sentence-internal capitalization in Early New High German: a multifactorial approach’. Folia Linguistica, 50(2), pp. 385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Basbanes, N. A. 2013. On Paper: The Everything of Its Two-Thousand-Year History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar

Basu, A. 2016. ‘“Ill shapen sounds, and false orthography”: a computational approach to Early English orthographic variation’. In Estill, L., Jackaki, D. K. & Ullyot, M. (eds.), Early Modern Studies after the Digital Turn. Tempe: Iter Press and ACMRS (Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies), pp. 167–200.Google Scholar

Bell, A. 2007. ‘Style and the linguistic repertoire’. In Llamas, C., Mullany, L. & Stockwell, P. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 95–100.Google Scholar

Benskin, M. 2004. ‘Chancery standard’. In Kay, C., Hough, C. & Wotherspoon, I. (eds.), New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics, vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar

Berg, K. 2019. Die Graphematik der Morpheme im Deutschen und Englischen. Berlin; Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Berg, K. & Aronoff, M.. 2017. ‘Self-organization in the spelling of English suffixes: the emergence of culture out of anarchy’. Language, 93(1), pp. 37–64.Google Scholar

Berg, K., Primus, B. & Wagner, L.. 2016. ‘Buchstabenmerkmal, Buchstabe, Graphem’. In Primus, B. & Domahs, U. (eds.), Laut – Gebärde – Buchstabe. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 337–55.Google Scholar

Bergmann, R. & Nerius, D.. 1998. Die Entwicklung der Großschreibung im Deutschen von 1500 bis 1710. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Berkenbusch, E. 1997. Übungsbuch der chinesischen Schriftzeichen für praktisches Chinesisch, vol. I. Beijing: Kommerzieller Verlag.Google Scholar

Berlanda, E. 2006. ‘New perspectives on digraphia: a framework for the sociolinguistics of writing systems’. Major research paper, York University, Toronto.Google Scholar

Bickham, G. 1733–41. The Universal Penman. London: H. Overton.Google Scholar

Bishop, H. G. 1895. The Practical Printer: A Book of Instruction for Beginners; a Book of Reference for the More Advanced, 3rd edn. Oneonta: H. G. Bishop.Google Scholar

Bland, M. 2005. ‘Further information: Drummond’s Democritie, A Labyrinth of Delight and his “Certain Informations and Manners of Ben Jonson”’. TEXT, 17, pp. 145–86.Google Scholar

Bland, M. 2010. A Guide to Early Printed Books and Manuscripts. London: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blank, P. 1996. Broken English: Dialects and the Politics of Language in Renaissance Writings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Bodleian Library, Oxford, Rawlinson Poetry MS 31.Google Scholar

de Boer, B. 2011. ‘Self-organization and language evolution’. In Gibson, K. R. & Tallerman, M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 612–20.Google Scholar

Bredel, U. 2005. ‘Zur Geschichte der Interpunktionskonventionen des Deutschen – dargestellt an der Kodifizierung des Punktes’. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 33, pp. 179–211.Google Scholar

Bredel, U. 2008. Die Interpunktion des Deutschen: Ein kompositionelles System zur Online-Steuerung des Lesens. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Bredel, U. 2009. ‘Das Interpunktionssystem des Deutschen’. In Linke, A. & Feilke, H. (eds.), Oberfläche und Performanz: Untersuchungen zur Sprache als dynamischer Gestalt. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 117–35.Google Scholar

Brengelman, F. H. 1980. ‘Orthoepists, printers, and the rationalization of English spelling’. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 79, pp. 332–54.Google Scholar

Brooksbank, J. 1651. An English Monosyllabary […]. London: Printed for Edward Brewster.Google Scholar

Bullokar, W. [1580] 1968. The Amendment of Orthographie for English Speech, repr. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum.Google Scholar

Bunčić, D. 2012. ‘The standardization of Polish orthography in the 16th century’. In Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A. (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 219–54.Google Scholar

Bunčić, D., Lippert, S. L. and Rabus, A.. 2016. Biscriptality: A Sociolinguistic Typology. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

Burkhard, C. 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/fileadmin/sowi/akuf/Text_2010/Weltgesellschaft-Conrad-2002.pdf [accessed 27 February 2021].Google Scholar

Butler, C. 1633. The English Grammar […]. Oxford: William Turner.Google Scholar

Calle-Martín, J. 2009. ‘Line-final word division in late Middle English Fachprosa’. In Díaz Vera, J. & Caballero, R. (eds.), Textual Healing: Studies in Medieval English Medical, Scientific and Technical Texts. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 35–53.Google Scholar

Calle-Martín, J. 2011. ‘Line-final word division in early English handwriting’. In Thaisen, J. & Rutkowska, H. (eds.), Scribes, Printers, and the Accidentals in Their Texts. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 15–29.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. 2021. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction, 4th edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Cappelli, A. 1899. Lexicon Abbreviaturarum Dizionario di Abbreviature Latine ed Italiane. Milan: Ulrico Hoepli.Google Scholar

Carney, E. 1994. A Survey of English Spelling. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Catach, N. 1978. L’orthographe. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Cawdrey, R. 1604. A Table Alphabeticall […]. London: I. R. for Edmund Weaver.Google Scholar

Chassant, A. A. L. 1846. Dictionnaire des abréviations latines et francaises usitées dans les inscriptions lapidaires et métalliques, les manuscrits et les chartes du Moyen Ǎge. Evreux: Cornemillot.Google Scholar

Cheshire, J., Kerswill, P., Fox, S. & Torgersen, E.. 2011. ‘Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of Multicultural London English’. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15, pp. 151–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Christin, A.-M. (ed.). 2002. A History of Writing: From Hieroglyph to Multimedia. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar

Claridge, C. & Kytö, M. (eds.). 2020. Punctuation in Context: Past and Present Perspectives. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Clement, F. 1587. The Petie Schole with an English Orthographie […]. London: Thomas Vautrollier.Google Scholar

Conde-Silvestre, J. C. 2019. ‘Spelling focusing and proto-standardisation in a fifteenth-century English community of practice’. Studia Neophilologica, 91, pp. 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Condorelli, M. 2020a. ‘From the early modern era to an international research area’. In Condorelli, M. (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108674171.001 [accessed 1 March 2021].Google Scholar

Condorelli, M. 2020b. ‘Positional spelling redistribution: word-initial ˂u˃/˂v˃ and ˂i˃/˂j˃ in Early Modern English (1500–1700)’, English Language and Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674320000349 [accessed 1 March 2021].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Condorelli, M. 2020c. ‘The standardisation of i and y in Early Modern English (1500–1700)’. English Studies, printed in 2021 in 102(1), pp. 101–23, https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2020.1785169 [accessed 1 March 2021].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Condorelli, M. (ed.). 2020d. Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Condorelli, M. 2022. Standardising English Spelling: The Role of Printing on Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Graphemic Developments. Studies in English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Condorelli, M. Forthcoming. ‘The standardisation of vowel diacritic spelling in Early Modern English (1500–1700)’. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics.Google Scholar

Condorelli, M. & Rutkowska, H. (eds.). Forthcoming. The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Orthography. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Condorelli, M. & Voeste, A.. 2020. ‘Synergic dialogue in historical orthography: national philologies, comparability and questions for the future’. In Condorelli, M. (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 238–49.Google Scholar

Coote, E. 1596. Englishe Scholemaister […]. London: Widow Orwin for Icksten and Robert Dexter.Google Scholar

Corrie, M. 2006. ‘Middle English – dialects and diversity’. In Mugglestone, L. (ed.), The Oxford History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 86–119.Google Scholar

Coulmas, F. 1996. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Coulmas, F. 2003. Writing Systems: An Introduction to Their Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Coulmas, F. 2012. Writing Systems: An Introduction to Their Linguistic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cresci, G. F. 1560. Essemplare di più Sorti Lettere […]. Rome: per Antonio Blado ad instanza del autore.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. 2012. Spell It Out: The Story of English Spelling. London: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. 2015. Making a Point: The Pernickety Story of English Punctuation. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar

Dale, I. 1980. ‘Digraphia’. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 26, pp. 5–13.Google Scholar

Daniels, P. 2018. An Exploration of Writing. Sheffield; Bristol: Equinox.Google Scholar

Daniels, P. 2001. ‘Writing systems’. In Aronoff, M. & Rees-Miller, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 43–80.Google Scholar

De Vinne, T. L. 1901. The Practice of Typography […]. New York: Century Co.Google Scholar

Denholm-Young, N. 1954. Handwriting in England and Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar

Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W. 2003. ‘Standard languages: taxonomies and histories’. In Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W. (eds.), Germanic Standardizations: Past to Present. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dobson, E. J. 1957. English Pronunciation 1500–1700, vols. I–II. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Dumville, D. 1993. English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism A.D. 950–1030. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.Google Scholar

Dürscheid, C. [2002] 2016. Einführung in die Schriftlinguistik, 5th edn. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar

Early English Books Online (Text Creation Partnership). 2015–. www.textcreationpartnership.org/tcp-eebo/ [accessed 15 May 2021].Google Scholar

Einhard. 811 [1880]. Vita Karoli Magni (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek) Cod. 529.Google Scholar

Elmentaler, M. 2003. Struktur und Wandel vormoderner Schreibsprachen. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Elmentaler, M. 2018. Historische Graphematik des Deutschen. Tübingen: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S. 2005. Sprachgeschichte von unten: Untersuchungen zum geschriebenen Alltagsdeutsch im 19. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elspaß, S. 2012. ‘The use of private letters and diaries in sociolinguistic investigation’. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. & Conde-Silvestre, J. C. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 156–69.Google Scholar

Evans, J. 1621. The Palace of Profitable Pleasure […]. London: W. Stansby.Google Scholar

Evans, M. 2013. The Language of Queen Elizabeth I: A Sociolinguistic Perspective on Royal Style and Identity. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar

Feldherr, A. & Hardy, G. (eds.). 2011. The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Beginnings to AD 600. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Feldman, L. B. & Barac-Cikoja, D.. 1996. ‘Serbo-Croatian: a biscriptal language’. In Daniels, P. & Bright, W. (eds.), The World’s Writing Systems. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 769–72.Google Scholar

Van der Feest Viðarsson, H. 2017. ‘The syntax of others: “un-Icelandic” verb placement in 19th- and early 20th-century Icelandic’. In Tieken-Boon, I. van Ostade & Percy, C. (eds.), Prescription and Tradition in Language: Establishing Standards Across Time and Space. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 152–67.Google Scholar

Firth, J. R. 1935. ‘The technique of semantics’. Transactions of the Philological Society, pp. 36–72.Google Scholar

Fischer, S. R. 2003. A History of Writing. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar

Fisher, J. H. 1996. The Emergence of Standard English. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar

Fleischer, W. 1966. Strukturelle Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Neuhochdeutschen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

Franklin, S. 2019. The Russian Graphoshere, 1450–1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fuhrhop, N., Buchmann, F. & Berg, K.. 2011. ‘The length hierarchy and the graphematic syllable: evidence from German and English’. Written Language & Literacy, 14(2), pp. 275–92.Google Scholar

Gallmann, P. 1985. Graphische Elemente der geschriebenen Sprache. Grundlagen für eine Reform der Orthographie (= Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 60). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Gaskell, P. 1972. A New Introduction to Bibliography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gnanadesikan, A. E. 2009. The Writing Revolution: Cuneiform to the Internet. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Goebl, H. 1970. Die Normandische Urkundensprache: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der nordfranzösischen Urkundensprachen des Mittelalters, Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Band 269.Google Scholar

Goebl, H. 1995. ‘Französische Skriptaformen III. Normandie. Les scriptae françaises III. Normandie’. Lexicon der Romanistischen Linguistik, 2(2), pp. 314–37.Google Scholar

Goody, J. 1986. The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Görlach, M. 1990. ‘The development of standard Englishes’. In Görlach, M. (ed.), Studies in the History of the English Language. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 9‒64. English version of M. Görlach. 1988. ‘Sprachliche Standardisierungsprozesse im englischprachigen Bereich’. In U. Ammon, K. J. Mattheier & P. H. Nelde (eds.), Sociolinguistica: Internationales Jahrbuch für Europӓische Soziolinguistik 2. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar

Grimm, C. 1991. Zum Mythos Individualstil: mikrostilistische Untersuchungen zu Thomas Mann. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar

Haas, W. 1970. Phono-Graphic Translation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Harpel, O. (1870) Harpel’s Typograph, or Book of Specimens Containing Useful Information, Suggestions and a Collection of Examples of Letterpress Job Printing Arranged for the Assistance of Master Printers, Amateurs, Apprentices, and Others. Cincinnati: Oscar H. Harpel.Google Scholar

Hart, J. [1569] 1955. An Orthographie. In Danielsson, B., John Hart’s Works on English Orthography and Pronunciation [1551. 1569. 1576], 2 vols. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, pp. 165–228.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. 1966. ‘Dialect, language, nation’. American Anthropologist, 68, pp. 922–35.Google Scholar

Haugen, E. 1987. ‘Language planning’. In Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. J. & Trudgill, P. (eds.), Sociolinguistics, vol. I. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, pp. 626–37.Google Scholar

Hector, L. C. 1958. The Handwriting of English Documents. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Heikkonen, K. 1996. ‘Regional variation in standardization: a case study of Henry V’s Signet Office’. In Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language History: Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 111–27.Google Scholar

Hellinga, L. 2014. Texts in Transit: Manuscript to Proof and Print in the Fifteenth Century. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Hernández-Campoy, J. M. 2015. Sociolinguistic Styles (Language in Society). Maiden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hernández-Campoy, J. M. & Conde-Silvestre, J. C. (eds.). 2012. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Malden; Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hladký, J. 1985. ‘Notes on the history of word division in English’. Brno Studies in English, 16, pp. 73–83.Google Scholar

Hodges, R. 1644. A Special Help to Orthographie […]. London: Richard Cotes.Google Scholar

Hodges, R. 1649. The Plainest Directions for the True-Writing of English […]. London: William Dugard for Thomas Euster.Google Scholar

Hodges, R. 1653. Most Plain Directions for True-Writing […]. London: William Dugard.Google Scholar

Hope, J. 2000. ‘Rats, bats, sparrows and dogs: biology, linguistics and the nature of Standard English’. In Wright, L. (ed.), The Development of Standard English 1300–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–56.Google Scholar

Horobin, S. 2013. Does Spelling Matter? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Householder, F. W. 1969. ‘Language and its Structure: Some Fundamental Linguistic Concepts by Ronald W. Langacker’. Language, 45(4), pp. 886–97.Google Scholar

Howard-Hill, T. 2006. ‘Early modern printers and the standardization of English spelling’. The Modern Language Review, 101, pp. 16–29.Google Scholar

Huloet, R. 1552. Abcedarium anglico latinum […]. London: William Riddel.Google Scholar

Huloet, R. & Higgins, J.. 1572. Huloets Dictionarie […]. London: Thomas Marsh.Google Scholar

Hume, A. 1617. Of the Orthographie and Congruitie of the Britan Tongue […]. London: Truebner & Co.Google Scholar

Jacobi, C. T. 1890. Printing. London: C. Whittingham.Google Scholar

Jacobi, C. T. 1892. Some Notes on Books and Printing; a Guide for Authors, Publishers, & Others. London: C. Whittingham.Google Scholar

Jacobs, A. & Jucker, A.. 1995. ‘The historical perspective in pragmatics’. In Jucker, A. (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar

Jaffe, A., Androutsopoulos, J., Sebba, M. & Johnson, S. (eds.). 2012. Orthography as Social Action: Scripts, Spelling, Identity and Power. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Janečková, M. 2009. K jazyku českého baroka. Hláskosloví, pravopis a tisk, označování kvantity. Prague: Arsci.Google Scholar

Jones, R. F. 1953. The Triumph of the English Language: A Survey of Opinions Concerning the Vernacular from the Introduction of Printing to the Restoration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Joshi, R. M. & Aaron, P. G. (eds.). 2014. Handbook of Orthography and Literacy. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kaverina, V.V. 2010. Stanovlenie russko orfografii XVII–XIX vv.: pravopisny uzus i kodifikacii͡ a. Dissertation summary, Moscow State University.Google Scholar

Keszler, B. 2003. ‘A magyar írásjelhasználat és Európa’. Magyar Nyelvőr, 127, pp. 24–36.Google Scholar

Keszler, B. 2004. Írásjeltan: az írásjelhasználat szabályai, problémái és történet. Budapest: National Textbook Publisher.Google Scholar

Kirchhoff, F. &. Primus, B.. 2016. ‘Punctuation’. In Cook, V. & Ryan, D. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 114–31.Google Scholar

Klinkenberg, J-M. & Polis, S.. 2018. ‘On scripturology’. Signata. Annals of Semiotics 9/ Signatures. Sémiotique de l’écriture, 9, pp. 57–102.Google Scholar

Krogull, A. 2018. Policy versus practice: language variation and change in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Dutch. Dissertation, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics (LOT), Utrecht.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. I: Internal Factors. Oxford; Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 2007. ‘Transmission and diffusion’. Language, 83, pp. 344–87.Google Scholar

Lass, R. 1976. English Phonology and Phonological Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lass, R. 2004. ‘Ut custodiant litteras: editions, corpora and witnesshood’. In Dossena, M. & Lass, R. (eds.), Methods and Data in English Historical Dialectology. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 21–48.Google Scholar

Leith, D. 1983. A Social History of English. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Lepschy, A. L. & Lepschy, G. 2008. ‘Punteggiatura e linguaggio’. In Garavelli, B. Mortara (ed.), Storia della punteggiatura in Europa. Rome-Bari: Laterza, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar

Liuzza, R. M. 1996. ‘Orthography and historical linguistics’. Journal of English Linguistics, 24(1), pp. 25–44.Google Scholar

Pombo, Llamas. 2020. ‘Punctuation in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century French and Spanish: a model of diachronic and comparative graphematics’. In Condorelli, M. (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 93–123.Google Scholar

Locher, M. A. & Strässler, J.. 2008. ‘Introduction: standards and norms’. In Locher, M. A. & Strässler, J. (eds.), Standards and Norms in the English Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

Lutz, A. 1986. ‘The syllabic basis of word division in Old English manuscripts’. English Studies, 67(3), pp. 193–210.Google Scholar

Maas, U. 2007. ‘Die Grammatikalisierung der satzinternen Großschreibung: Zur schriftkulturellen Dimension der Orthographieentwicklung’. In Redder, A. (ed.), Diskurse und Texte: Festschrift für Konrad Ehlich. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 385–99.Google Scholar

MacKellar, T. 1866. The American Printer: A Manual of Typography, Containing Complete Instructions for Beginners, as Well as Practical Directions for Managing Every Department of a Printing Office. Philadelphia: MacKellar Smiths & Jordan.Google Scholar

Malone, E. A. 2006. ‘Learned correctors as technical editors: specialization and collaboration in early modern European printing houses’. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20(4), pp. 389–424.Google Scholar

Martin, G. (trans.). New Testament: 1582. The Nevv Testament […]. Reims: John Fogny; Old Testament: 1609‒1610. The Holie Bible […]. Douai: Laurence Kellam.Google Scholar

Martineau, F. 2013. ‘Written documents: what they tell us about linguistic usage’. In van der Wal, M. J. & Rutten, G. (eds.), Touching the Past: Studies in the Historical Sociolinguistics of Ego-documents. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 129–47.Google Scholar

McEnery, T. & Hardie, A.. 2012. Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McKenzie, D. F. 2002. ‘Printing and publishing 1557–1700: constraints on the London book trades’. In Barnard, J. & McKenzie, D. F. (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Book in Britain, vol. IV: 1557–1695. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 553–67.Google Scholar

McKitterick, D. 1992. A History of Cambridge University Press, vol. I: Printing and the Book Trade in Cambridge 1534–1698. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McLelland, N. 2014. ‘Language description, prescription and usage in seventeenth-century German’. In Rutten, G., Vosters, R. & Vandenbussche, W. (eds.), Norms and Usage in Language History, 1600–1700: A Sociolinguistic and Comparative Perspective. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 251–76.Google Scholar

Meisenburg, T. 1990. ‘Die großen Buchstaben und was sie bewirken können: Zur Geschichte der Majuskel im Französischen und Deutschen’. In Raible, W. (ed.), Erscheinungsformen kultureller Prozesse: Jahrbuch 1988 des Sonderforschungsbereichs ‘Übergänge und Spannungsfelder zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit’. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 281–315.Google Scholar

Meletis, D. 2019. ‘The grapheme as a universal basic unit of writing’. Writing Systems Research, 11(1), pp. 26–49.Google Scholar

Meletis, D. 2020. The Nature of Writing: A Theory of Grapholinguistics. Brest: Fluxus Editions.Google Scholar

Mihm, A. 2007. Sprachwandel im Spiegel der Schriftlichkeit: Studien zum Zeugniswert der historischen Schreibsprachen des 11. bis 17. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. 1992a. Linguistic Variation and Change. Oxford; Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. 1992b. ‘Middle English dialectology’. In Blake, N. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. II: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 156–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Milroy, J. 1994. ‘The notion of “standard language” and its applicability to the study of Early Modern English pronunciation’. In Stein, D. & Tieken‒Boon, I. van Ostade (eds.), Towards a Standard English 1600‒1800. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 19‒29.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. 2000. ‘Historical description and the ideology of the standard language’. In Wright, L. (ed.), The Development of Standard English, 1300–1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts (Studies in English Language). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–28.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. 2001. ‘Language ideologies and the consequences of standardization’. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5(4), pp. 530–55.Google Scholar

Milroy, L. 2007. ‘Off the shelf or under the counter? On the social dynamics of sound changes’. In Cain, C. M. & Russom, G. (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language III. Managing Chaos: Strategies for Identifying Change in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 149–72.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. & Milroy, J.. 1985a. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. & Milroy, L.. 1985b. ‘Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation’. Journal of Linguistics, 21, pp. 339–84.Google Scholar

Milroy, J. & Milroy, L.. 1999. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation, 3rd edn. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Mortara Garavelli, B. 2008. Storia della Punteggiatura in Europa. Rome; Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar

Mountford, J. 1989. ‘Language and writing-systems’. In Collinge, N. E. (ed.), An Encyclopedia of Language. London: Routledge, pp. 701–39.Google Scholar

Moxon, J. 1683. Mechanick Exercises: or the Doctrine of Handy-Works […], vol. I. London: J. Moxon at the sign of the Atlas on Ludgate Hill.Google Scholar

Mulcaster, R. 1582. The First Part of the Elementarie […]. London: Tomas Vautroullier.Google Scholar

Neef, M., Sahel, S. & Weingarten, R. (eds.). 2012 . ‘Schriftlinguistik/Grapholinguistic’. In Wörterbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science 5. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, www.degruyter.com/view/db/wsk [accessed 28 June 2021].Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. 2012. ‘Variable focusing in English spelling between 1400 and 1600’. In Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A. (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 127–65.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. 2015. ‘What are historical sociolinguistics?’. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics, 1(2), 243–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H.. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England (Longman Linguistics Library). London: Longman.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H.. 2005. ‘Sociolinguistics and the history of English: a survey’. International Journal of English Studies, 5(1), pp. 33–58.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H.. 2012. ‘Historical sociolinguistics: origins, motivations, and paradigm’. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. & Conde Silvestre, J. C. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H.. 2016. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. & van Ostade, I. Tieken-Boon. 2006. ‘Standardisation’. In Hogg, R. & Denison, D. (eds.), A History of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–311.Google Scholar

Nichols, S. G. 1990. ‘Introduction: philology in a manuscript culture’. Speculum, 65(1), pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

Nowak, J. 2019. ‘Satzinterne Großschreibung diachron-kontrastiv: Englisch – Niederländisch – Deutsch’. In Szczepaniak, R., Hartmann, S. & Dücker, L. (eds.), Historische Korpuslinguistik (Jahrbuch für Germanistische Sprachgeschichte 10). Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 96–118.Google Scholar

Osipov, B. I. 1992. История русской орфографии и пунктуации. Novosibirsk: University Publishing House.Google Scholar

Oxford English Dictionary. 2021. Oxford University Press, http://dictionary.oed.com/ [accessed 3 May 2021].Google Scholar

Parkes, M. B. 1976. ‘The influence of the concepts of ordinatio and compilatio on the development of the book’. In Alexander, J. J. G. & Gibson, M. T. (eds.), Medieval Learning and Literature: Essays Presented to Richard William Hunt. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 115–41, and IX–XVI.Google Scholar

Peikola, M., Mäkilähde, A., Varila, M.-L., Salmi, H. & Skaffari, J. (eds.). 2017. Verbal and Visual Communication in Early English Texts. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar

Percy, C. 2012. ‘Standardization: codifiers’. In Bergs, A. & Brinton, L. J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1006–20.Google Scholar

Peter, R. (in collaboration with C. Fischer and N. Nagel). 2017. Atlas spätmittelalterlicher Schreibsprachen des niederdeutschen Altlandes und angrenzender Gebiete (ASnA). Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Petti, A. G. 1977. English Literary Hands from Chaucer to Dryden. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Powell, B. B. 2009. Writing: Theory and History of the Technology of Civilization. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Puttenham, G. [1589] 1968. The Arte of English Poesie. Menston: Scholar Press.Google Scholar

Richardson, M. 1980. ‘Henry V, the English Chancery, and Chancery English’. Speculum, 55(4), pp. 726–50.Google Scholar

Rissanen, M., Kytö, M., Kahlas-Tarkka, L., Kilpiö, M., Nevanlinna, S., Taavitsainen, I., Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H.. 1991. Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Helsinki: Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar

Robinson, A. 1999. The Story of Writing, 2nd edn. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar

Robinson, A. 2009. Writing and Script: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rocha, L. M. 1998. ‘Selected self-organization and the semiotics of evolutionary systems’. In Van de Vijver, G., Salthe, S. N. & Delpos, M. (eds.), Evolutionary Systems: Biological and Epistemological Perspectives on Selection and Self-Organization. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 341–58.Google Scholar

Roe, G. E. 1996. Writing Instruments: A Technical History and How They Work. Stockport: G. E. Roe.Google Scholar

Rogers, H. 2005. Writing Systems: A Linguistic Approach. Malden; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Rogos, J. 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, J. & Jucker, A. H. (eds.), Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–21.Google Scholar

Romaine, S. 1998. ‘Introduction’. In Romaine, S. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. IV: 1776–1997. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar

Rössler, P. 2005. Schreibvariation, Sprachregion, Konfession: Graphematik und Morphologie in österreichischen und bayerischen Drucken vom 16. bis ins 18. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Rössler, P., Besl, P. & Saller, A. (eds.). 2021. Vergleichende Interpunktion – Comparative Punctuation (Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen). Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Ruszkiewicz, P. 1976. Modern Approaches to Graphophonemic Investigations in English. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.Google Scholar

Rutkowska, H. 2012. ‘Linguistic levels: orthography’. In Bergs, A. & Brinton, L. J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics: An International Handbook, vol. I. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 224–37.Google Scholar

Rutkowska, H. 2013a. Orthographic Systems in Thirteen Editions of the ‘Kalender of Shepherdes’ (1506–1656) (Polish Studies in English Language and Literature). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Rutkowska, H. 2013b. ‘Typographical and graphomorphemic features of five editions of the Kalender of Shepherdes as elements of the early printers’ community of practice’. In Kopaczyk, J. & Jucker, A. H. (eds.), Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 123–49.Google Scholar

Rutkowska, H. 2016. ‘Orthographic regularization in Early Modern English printed books: grapheme distribution and vowel length indication’. In Russi, C. (ed.), Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Warsaw; Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 165–93.Google Scholar

Rutkowska, H. & Rössler, P.. 2012. ‘Orthographic variables’. In Hernández-Campoy, J. M. & Camilo Conde-Silvestre, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 213–36.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. 2016. ‘Diaglossia, individual variation and the limits of standardization: Evidence from Dutch’. In Russi, C. (ed.), Current Trends in Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 194–218.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. 2019. Language Planning as Nation Building: Ideology, Policy and Implementation in the Netherlands, 1750–1850. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. & Vosters, R.. 2013. ‘Une tradition néerlandaise? Du bon usage aux Pays-Bas (1686–1830)’. In Ayres-Bennett, W. & Seijido, M. (eds.), Bon usage et variation sociolinguistique: perspectives diachroniques et traditions nationales. Lyon: Editions de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS), pp. 233–43.Google Scholar

Rutten, G. & van der Wal, M. J.. 2014. Letters as Loot: A Sociolinguistic Approach to Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Dutch. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ruus, H. 2005. ‘The development of Danish from the mid-16th century to 1800’. In Bandle, O., Braunmüller, K., Jahr, E. H., Karker, A., Naumann, H-P & Teleman, U. (eds.), The Nordic Languages: An International Handbook of the History of the North Germanic Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1282–91.Google Scholar

Ryan, D. 2016. ‘Linguists’ descriptions of the English writing system’. In Cook, V. & Ryan, D. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 41–64.Google Scholar

Saggs, H. 1989. Civilization Before Greece and Rome. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Sairio, A. 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 Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Salesbury, W. 1547. A Dictionary in Englyshe and Welshe. London: John Waley.Google Scholar

Salmon, V. 1999. ‘Orthography and punctuation’. In Lass, R. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. III: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13–55.Google Scholar

Sampson, G. 1985. Writing Systems: A Linguistic Introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Samuels, M. L. 1969 [1963]. ‘Some applications of Middle English dialectology’. In Lass, R. (ed.), Approaches to English Historical Linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 404–18 [Repr. from English Studies, 44, pp. 81–94].Google Scholar

Samuels, M. L. 1972. Linguistic Evolution, with Special Reference to English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Samuels, M. L. 1981. ‘Spelling and dialect in the late and post-Middle English periods’. In Benskin, M. & Samuels, M. 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. 43–54.Google Scholar

Sapir, E. [1921] 1949. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar

Saussure, F. de. [1915] 1993. Troisième cours de linguistique generale (1910–1911): d’après les cahiers d’Emile Constantin, ed. Komatsu, E. & Harris, R.. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Schaeken, J. 2019. Voices on Birchbark: Everyday Communication in Medieval Russia. Leiden; Boston: Brill.Google Scholar

Schlögl, R. 2013. Alter Glaube und moderne Welt. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar

Scholfield, P. 2016. ‘Modernization and standardization since the seventeenth century’. In Cook, V. & Ryan, D. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the English Writing System. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 143–61.Google Scholar

Scragg, D. G. 1974. A History of English Spelling. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Sebba, M. 2007. Spelling and Society: The Culture and Politics of Orthography around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Severus, S. 2nd quarter of the ninth century. Vita Martini. Paris, BnF, lat. 10848.Google Scholar

Sgall, P. 1987. ‘Towards a theory of phonemic orthography’. In Luelsdorff, P. A. (ed.), Orthography and Phonology. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar

Schoemaker, B. & Rutten, G.. 2019. ‘One nation, one spelling, one school: writing education and the nationalisation of orthography in the Netherlands (1750–1850)’. Paedagogica Historica, 55, pp. 754–71.Google Scholar

Shute, R. 2017. ‘Pressed for space: the effects of justification and the printing process on fifteenth-century orthography’. English Studies, 98(3), pp. 262–82.Google Scholar

Simpson, P. 1935. Proof-reading in the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Smith, J. 1996. An Historical Study of English: Function, Form and Change. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Smith, J. J. 2012. ‘From Middle English to Early Modern English’. In Mugglestone, L. (ed.), The Oxford History of English, updated edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–79.Google Scholar

Snijders, T. 2015. Manuscript Communication: Visual and Textual Mechanics of Communication in Hagiographical Texts from the Southern Low Countries, 900–1200. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar

Sperry, K. 1998. Reading Early American Handwriting. Baltimore: Genealogical Pub. Co.Google Scholar

Sproat, R. 2000. A Computational Theory of Writing Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stanford, J. & Kenny, L.. 2013. ‘Revisiting transmission and diffusion: an agent-based model of vowel chain shifts across large communities’. Language Variation and Change, 25, pp. 119–53.Google Scholar

Stenroos, M. 2004. ‘Regional dialects and spelling conventions in late Middle English. Searches for (th) in LALME data’. In Dossena, M. & Lass, R. (eds.), Methods and Data in English Historical Dialectology. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 257–85.Google Scholar

Šinkūnas, M. 2014. ‘Mažosios Lietuvos raštų ortografijos reforma XVII amžiuje: I. Pučiamųjų priebalsių ir afrikatų žymėjimas’. Archivum Lithuanicum, 16, pp. 9–58.Google Scholar

Taavitsainen, I. & Fitzmaurice, S.. 2007. ‘Historical pragmatics: what it is and how to do it’. In Fitzmaurice, Susan & Taavitsainen, I. (eds.), Methods in Historical Pragmatics. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 11–36.Google Scholar

Taavitsainen, I., Pahta, P., Hiltunen, T., Mäkinen, M., Marttila, V., Ratia, M., Suhr, C. & Tyrkkö, J. (compilers). 2010. Early Modern English Medical Texts. CD-ROM. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, S. & Denis, D.. 2014. ‘Expanding the transmission/diffusion dichotomy. Evidence from Canada’. Language, 90, pp. 90–136.Google Scholar

Tamošiūnaitė, A. 2015. ‘Defining “Lithuanian”: orthographic debates at the end of the nineteenth century’. Written Language & Literacy, 18(2), pp. 309–26.Google Scholar

Tesnière, M-H. 2020. ‘The mise-en-page in Western manuscripts’. In Coulson, F. & Babcock, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Latin Palaeography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 619–32.Google Scholar

The Holy Bible […]. 1611. London: Robert Barker.Google Scholar

Traxel, O. 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 Lang.Google Scholar

Trice Martin, C. 1892. The Record Interpreter: A Collection of Abbreviations, Latin Words and Names Used in English Historical Manuscripts and Records. London: Reeves and Turner.Google Scholar

Trudgill, P. 1986. Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Trudgill, P. 2001. Sociolinguistic Variation and Change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar

Twain, M. 1874. Life on the Mississippi. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Tyrkkö, J. 2013. ‘Printing houses as communities of practice: orthography in early modern medical books’. In Kopaczyk, J. & Jucker, A. H. (eds.), Communities of Practice in the History of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 151–75.Google Scholar

Upward, C. & Davidson, G.. 2011. The History of English Spelling. Chichester; Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Vandenbussche, W. 2002. ‘The standardization of Dutch orthography in lower, middle and upper class documents in 19th century Flanders’. In Linn, A. & McLelland, N. (eds.), Standardization: Studies from the Germanic Languages (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 235). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar

Videsott, P. 2009. Padania scrittologica. Analisi scrittologiche e scrittometriche di testi in italiano settentrionale antico dalle origini al 1525. Tübingen: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Villa, L. & Vosters, R. (eds.). 2015. The Historical Sociolinguistics of Spelling (Special issue of Written Language & Literacy 18(2)). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Voeste, A. 2007. ‘Traveling through the Lexicon: “self-organized” spelling changes’. Written Language & Literacy, 10(2), pp. 89–102.Google Scholar

Voeste, A. 2008. Orthographie und Innovation: Die Segmentierung des Wortes im 16. Jahrhundert. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar

Voeste, A. 2012. ‘The emergence of suprasegmental spellings in German’. In Baddeley, S. & Voeste, A. (eds.), Orthographies in Early Modern Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 167–91.Google Scholar

Voeste, A. 2015. ‘Proficiency and efficiency: why German spelling changed in early modern times’. Written Language & Literacy, 18(2), 248–59. (Special issue ed. L. Villa & R. Vosters.)Google Scholar

Voeste, A. 2020. ‘Investigating methods: intra-textual, inter-textual and cross-textual variable analyses’. In Condorelli, M. (ed.), Advances in Historical Orthography, c. 1500–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–53.Google Scholar

Vosters, R 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.Google Scholar

Vosters, R. & Rutten, G.. 2015. ‘Three Southern shibboleths: spelling features as conflicting identity markers in the Low Countries’. Written Language & Literacy, 18, pp. 160–74.Google Scholar

Vosters, R., Rutten, G. & Vandenbussche, W.. 2012. ‘The sociolinguistics of spelling: a corpus-based case study of orthographical variation in nineteenth-century Dutch in Flanders’. In van Kemenade, A. & de Haas, N. (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2009: Selected Papers from the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 253–74.Google Scholar

Völker, H. 2003. Skripta und Variation: Untersuchungen zur Negation und zur Substantivflexion in altfranzösischen Urkunden der Grafschaft Luxemburg (1237–1281). Tübingen: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Watts, R. J. 2015. ‘Setting the scene: letters, standards and historical sociolinguistics’. In Auer, A., Schreier, D. & Watts, R. J. (eds.), Letter Writing and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

Wharton, J. 1654. The English-Grammar […]. London: William Du-Gard.Google Scholar

Wright, L. 1994. ‘On the writing of the history of Standard English’. In Fernandez, F., Fuster Márquez, M. & Calvo, J. J. (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 1992 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–15.Google Scholar

Wright, L. (ed.) 2020. The Multilingual Origins of Standard English. Berlin; Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Žagar, M. 2019. Introduction to Glagolitic Paleography. Heidelberg: Verlag.Google Scholar