Bibliography

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 (xiii^e–xvii^e 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 (IX^e–XV^e 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 (XII^e–XVII^e 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