Methodological and practical aspects of historical network analysis: A case study of the...

Methodological and practical aspects of historical network analysisA case study of the Bluestocking letters

Anni Sairio

!is paper presents the reconstruction and analysis of Elizabeth Montagu’s Bluestocking network, and proposes a network strength scale (NSS) for quantifying the strength of network ties in this eighteenth-century English social circle. !e NSS scores are compared with the use of pied piping and preposition stranding in the network’s correspondence in order to see whether strong network ties correlate positively with the use of a familiar and stigmatised linguistic feature. Preposition stranding was more common in Elizabeth Montagu’s letters when the recipients were linked to her with strong ties and were socially below her. Preposition stranding was avoided and pied piping favoured when the recipients were her social superiors. !e NSS analysis thus benefits from the inclusion of sociolinguistic variables.

Introduction

I begin this paper with a quote from Hannah More’s poem Bas Bleu; or Con-versation (1786).1 More wrote Bas Bleu as a tribute to an eighteenth-century social circle known as the Bluestockings, and, like her earlier poem Sensibility (1782) which served a similar purpose, it was dedicated to a prominent hostess of the circle.

!e research for this paper was funded by the graduate studies network Meaning, Language and Cultural Change of Centres of Excellence in the Humanities, University of Helsinki, and the Socio-cultural Reality and Language Practices in Late Modern England (SoReaL) project, University of Helsinki. !e author would also like to thank Ingrid Tiek-en-Boon van Ostade for her comments on the NSS and preposition stranding.

Anni Sairio

Long did Quadrille despotic sit,!at Vandal of colloquial wit;And Conversation’s setting lightLay half-obscur’d in Gothic night;Till L ’s triple crown, to you,B sage, bright M ,Divided, fell; — your cares in hasteRescued the ravag’d realms of Taste;And L ’s accomplish’d name,And witty P shar’d the fame;!e Men not bound by pedant rulesNor Ladies’ precieuses ridicules;For polish’d W show’d the way,How Wits may be both learn’d and gay;And C taught the female train,!e deeply wise are never vain;And she, who S ’s wrongs redrest,Prov’d that the brightest are the best.(Bas Bleu 1786: 70–71)

!e poems celebrate the art of conversation and the various accomplishments of the group, and Clarke (2005: 23, 180) characterizes them as promotional litera-ture through which More expressed her gratitude of being accepted in the circle. Originally written in 1782, Bas Bleu circulated in manuscript form until it was finally published four years later. Bas Bleu was dedicated to Elizabeth Vesey and Sensibility to Frances Boscawen (Clarke 2005: 23, 236, n. 21). Name-dropping is very prominent in both poems: Bas Bleu begins with the exclamation “Vesey! of Verse the judge and friend!” (1786: 70) and continues with a litany of praises of other prominent Blues. “With Carter trace the wit to Athens known, Or find in Montagu that wit our own”, writes More in Sensibility (1782: 271), urging then the reader to “attend Chapone’s instructive page” (1782: 272). !ese are references to central members in the Bluestocking circle and their accomplishments.

!ese poems speak of a clearly defined social network, or a dynamic web of people who are connected to each other in various capacities. Social network analysis (SNA) studies those connections and their influence on individual behaviour. !e value of social network analysis in linguistics derives from its focus on the structures of relationships that have potential to shed light on language change and linguistic influences. !is paper discusses the process of analysing the Bluestocking network and proposes a tool for quantifying the strength of network ties in eighteenth-century English polite society. Elizabeth Montagu (c. 1718–1800, née Robinson) was chosen as the focus or ego of the study because of her long-term prominence in the circle and the significant number of her manuscript letters that have been preserved.

Historical network analysis

Social network analysis has been applied in sociolinguistics since the Milroys conducted their studies on Belfast working class community in the 1960s, and has recently been extended to historical linguistics for example in Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Nevalainen and Caon (Eds) (2000); Fitzmaurice (2002), (2004), (2007a) and (2007b); Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2003) and (2006); Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Bax (2002); Bax (2000) and (2005); Bergs (2005) and Henstra (2008). !e strength of network ties has been shown to have an e"ect on the di"usion of change. In a tight-knit network that consists mainly of strong ties, innovators are usually connected to the network through weak links, and innova-tions are generally more easily di"used in loose-knit networks (Milroy 2000: 218). However, strong ties may be more persuasive in the actual adoption of innovations during a later phase of linguistic change. Raumolin-Brunberg (2006) has shown that linguistic innovations originated in lower social classes during the late fif-teenth century and the sixteenth century, while the second phase of leaders of linguistic change mostly represented the upper classes of London and the court. According to Milroy and Milroy (1985), tight-knit and multiplex networks do not promote and lead language change the way loose-knit, weak-linked networks do; this is in contrast with Labov (2001), who believes that leaders of change are cen-tral network members with high-frequency and multiplex connections both inside and outside their neighbourhood. Raumolin-Brunberg (2006) suggests that Milroy and Milroy (1985), who argue that weak ties in loose-knit networks promote the di"usion of linguistic changes, may be concentrating on the incipient phase (or the early stages of change), whereas Labov (2001: 325–263, 385), who argues that linguistic leaders are central figures in their tight-knit network, deals with the new and vigorous phase, during which the change is further on its way.

Sections 2 and 3 present the network and the Bluestocking Corpus which has been compiled of their correspondence. !e network strength scale (NSS) pre-sented in Section 4 builds on previous network strength scale models by Milroy (1987), devised for a twentieth-century working-class community in Belfast, Bax (2000), designed on the basis of Milroy (1987) for eighteenth-century research, and Fitzmaurice (2007a). In Section 5, the NSS scores are tested against the frequencies of pied piping and preposition stranding in Elizabeth Montagu’s correspondence with her closest network members in order to see how strong network connections correlate with the use of recommended and stigmatised linguistic constructions.

!e Bluestockings and their letters

!e Bluestocking circle consisted of mid-eighteenth-century learned men and women of gentry and professional background, who gathered in pursuit of

Anni Sairio

polite and scholarly entertainment (see Myers 1990; Pohl & Schellenberg (Eds) 2003). !e first salons were established in the 1750s, and in the course of the years their assemblies grew both in size and social significance. “[E]arly in the ’seventies all literary London was clamouring to be invited […], as well as the more seri-ous-minded of the beau-monde, who delighted in the opportunity of hearing the giants talk”, says Aspinall-Oglander (1942: 16). !e names given in the extract of Bas Bleu (1786: 70) refer to prominent Bluestocking hostesses Elizabeth Vesey, Frances Boscawen, and Elizabeth Montagu; patrons of arts and former statesmen George, Lord Lyttelton and William Pulteney, Lord Bath; writer, patron and social-ite Horace Walpole; and Elizabeth Carter, one of the most distinguished female scholars of the time. Hester Mulso Chapone, mentioned in Sensibility, was the author of the immensely popular Letters of the Improvement of the Mind (1773). !e central and most visible figures of the Bluestocking network were women. !e hostesses decided who would participate in the assemblies, and Elizabeth Carter was well-connected and widely respected for her learning; “[s]he read everything and knew everybody”, notes Clarke (2005: 26). !e reference to Walpole in Bas Bleu indicates the changing and widening nature of the circle in the 1780s; he was not a particularly close friend of the most prominent Blues, but nevertheless a central figure in the upper echelons of London (literary) society and therefore qualified for a mention in More’s tribute.

!e London salons of Montagu, Vesey, and Boscawen were the most visible Bluestocking venues, but their geographical mobility required the friendships to be maintained also in extensive correspondence and via visits in the countryside and spa towns. !e primary content of the network was friendship, which can be under-stood in an emotional as well as instrumental sense. Many of the Bluestockings were published writers, and so they discussed literature and scholarly works, exchanged books, poems and letters, and assisted each other in literary and scholarly ventures. As a considerable amount of their correspondence still remains, this network o"ers great potential for studying language change.

I have transcribed a selection of autograph letters of Elizabeth Montagu’s corre-spondence with her Bluestocking friends and family members and compiled them into an electronic corpus. !e Bluestocking Corpus spans from the late 1730s to late 1770s in four time periods (1738–1743, 1757–1762, 1766–1771, and 1775–1778), and it represents the language of educated middle and upper class people of the eighteenth century. Family correspondence provides comparison material against the Bluestocking letters. Altogether 203 letters have been transcribed from original manuscripts in the Montagu Collection (MO) at the Huntington Library and Add. 40663 in the British Library, and 24 letters have been included from the excellent Eger (1999) edition. !e current size of the corpus is approximately 154,000 words. Tables 1 and 2 show its current contents.


Table 1. !e writers and word counts per time period in the Bluestocking Corpus.

W 1738–1743 1757–1762 1766–1771 1775–1778 T

Elizabeth Montagu 23,285 34,917 37,440 22,282 117,924Edward Montagu 2,894 813 3,707Sarah Scott 728 4,729 3,471 4,173 13,101Eliz. D. Robinson 481 481Margaret Bentinck 3,862 3,862Frances Boscawen 2,587 2,587George Lyttelton 2,300 4,979 7,279William Pulteney 2,153 2,153Ben. Stillingfleet 701 701Elizabeth Vesey 2,642 2,642T 31,250 47,387 46,703 29,097 154,437

Table 2. !e recipients and word counts per time period of Elizabeth Montagu’s letters.

R 1738–1743 1757–1762 1766–1771 1775–1778 T

Edward Montagu 3,442 2,206 3,525 9,173Sarah Scott 2,618 6,690 5,067 3,360 17,735Matthew Robinson (Sr.) 2,777 893 4,419 8,089Eliz. Drake Robinson 3,077 3,077Dss of Portland 5,980 474 614 1,488 8,556Anne Donnellan 5,391 5,391Frances Boscawen 251 1,265 1,516Lord Lyttelton 5,932 3,864 9,796Lord Bath 3,651 3,651Elizabeth Vesey 1,058 4,979 4,734 10,771Elizabeth Carter 10,102 7,401 4,000 21,503Benjamin Stillingfleet 3,660 850 4,510Mary Robinson 5,456 6,942 12,398Morris Robinson 461 461Matthew Robinson (Jr.) 1,297 1,297T 23,285 34,917 37,440 22,282 117,924

!e first time period, 1738–1743, is set in Elizabeth Robinson Montagu’s youth. !is is the only period in the study during which she did not have particular social influence. Of lower gentry background, Elizabeth Robinson was well educated within the family. She spent a great deal of time in the household of her friend Lady Margaret, the Duchess of Portland, whose friendships with accom-plished women provided her with an example of a learned social hostess. In 1742 she married Edward Montagu, a wealthy MP and landowner and a grandson of the Earl of Sandwich. During the second time period, 1757–1762, connections

Anni Sairio

between Montagu and other central Bluestockings were made, mostly originating from acquaintances made in spa towns (Myers 1990: 177). !e salons were estab-lished in the 1750s, and in 1760 Montagu published for the first time with the assistance of her nearest Bluestocking contacts. In 1775 she was widowed and therea#er controlled alone the huge Montagu fortune, and her significance as a patron and hostess was more significant than before.

Montagu’s perceived social influence is seen in Edmund Burke’s request in 1759 that she recommend him to Minister William Pitt regarding the consulship of Madrid (although via Pitt’s sister, who was her friend).2 Various publications were dedicated to her by Bluestockings and people who were or hoped to be patronised by her. Chapone dedicated her the Letters of the Improvement of the Mind (1773), and More the Essays on Various Subjects (1777) and !e Works of Miss Hannah More on Prose and Verse (1777). Other dedications include Frances Reynolds’ (painter Joshua Reynolds’ sister) An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Taste […] (1785) and the humbly worded dedication by Mrs Cartwright in 1777; who was encouraged by Montagu’s “extreme condescension […] to lay this little volume at her feet”.

To briefly comment on the backgrounds and domicile patterns of the Blue-stockings, they were o#en spread across England, but had a common nominator in London, in Tunbridge Wells, and other popular spa resorts. Montagu was born in Yorkshire but raised in Kent, whereas Carter and Boscawen were born in Kent. Carter spent her winters in London and returned to Kent in the spring (Hampshire 2005: 19), while Montagu and Boscawen shared their time respectively between London, Sandleford, and Northumberland, and London and Hatchlands, Surrey. Elizabeth Vesey spent a lot of time in Dublin and the Vesey estate at Lucan when she was not in London. Lyttelton divided his time between London and his country estate of Hagley Hall, Worcestershire. Lord Bath was born in London, and lived at Bath House in Piccadilly.

Network analysis of the Bluestocking circle in 1760

In order to demonstrate the process of social network analysis and to provide background for the NSS, I will now describe the network reconstruction for the

Montagu declined to intervene on Burke’s behalf and appears to have explained to him that she did not have such influence (Climenson 1906: ii, 169–171, 173).


year 1760. !e network has been analysed for its density and multiplexity, and the frequency and content of interaction. Sociolinguistic variables (age, gender, education, geographical background, social status and mobility) have also been taken into account. !e circle consisted of a large number of people, so only the easily recognizable group of network members in Montagu’s immediate vicinity has been included. If not otherwise stated, the analysis of 1760 is assumed to apply to the whole time period of 1757–1762. In this paper I focus on the density and multiplexity of the Bluestocking network.

Montagu’s life and social contacts through time have been established with the help of contemporary documents and modern research (see also Sairio 2008a, 2008b and forthcoming). I have compiled a database of her most frequent contacts and geographical mobility on the basis of two early twentieth-century editions of Montagu’s correspondence (Climenson 1906 & Blunt 1923), Mary Delany’s edited correspondence (1861), Elizabeth Carter’s and Catherine Talbot’s edited correspondence (Pennington (Ed.) 1809), recent studies on Elizabeth Montagu and the Bluestockings (particularly Myers 1990; Eger (Ed.) 1999; Pohl & Schellenberg (Eds) 2003 and Clarke 2005), and the letters in the Bluestocking Corpus. Letters provide a good source for network reconstruction and analysis. Hannah More writes to her family in 1775: “I have been at Mrs. Boscawen’s. Mrs. Montagu, Mrs. Carter, Mrs. Chapone and myself only were admitted. We spent the time, not as wits, but as reasonable creatures; better characters, I trow” (Aspinall-Oglander 1942: 72). More’s wording indicates that this was a select group of women whose relationship with each other was familiar. In addition to being a good source for information on the contents and frequency of social contacts, letters also provide metatextual comments on relationships in the use of nicknames and friendship references.3

As a result of this investigation, I have created a database of what seem to have been Montagu’s most frequent contacts and her geographical mobility from 1738 to 1778; categorized into four time periods that correspond with the time scale of the Bluestocking Corpus. Also other information has been marked down, such as the books that people read and discussed and some main events of the time. !is database enables me to keep track of time lines and contacts. Table 3 is an extract of the database, which presents an overview of one year in her life. !e infor-mation is organized into five categories: “Date”, “Place”, “Documented Letters”, “Contacts”, and “Other Events”.

See also Nevala (2004) for address forms in Early Modern English letters.

Anni Sairio

!e Date and Place columns in Table 3 indicate that in 1760 Montagu resided mostly in London and spent her summer at least partly in the spa town of Tunbridge Wells and at the Montagu country house in Sandleford, Berkshire. She travelled to Newcastle on business for about two months in the autumn, and returned to London for the end of the year. !e column of Documented Letters presents a rough overview of Montagu’s correspondence during that year; Bluestocking correspondents are underlined. As most women of her rank and social position, she was always engaged in massive correspondence, and this list of correspondence is merely a general overview of letters exchanged with family, friends, and acquaintances. A systematic record could be achieved by going through all possible manuscript catalogues in addition to the sources mentioned above, but as much of the correspondence can be considered to be lost, the e"ort would not yield an exhaustive result. However, even this patchy record suggests that the Bluestockings were strongly represented in Montagu’s correspondence. !e columns Contacts and Other Events present a summary of how Montagu’s year generally progressed, the people she met, details of her visits and travels, and some main events of the year, such as the appearence of the Dialogues of the Dead in the spring of 1760 which made Montagu a published author. !is was certainly among the most significant events in 1760 and probably in Montagu’s life so far.

When we consider the overall frequency of interaction, Montagu dedicated a notable amount of time to her Bluestocking contacts. She met her friends regularly in London, and when she was in the north they exchanged letters. It also appears that Montagu and her husband were o#en separated from each other by great geo-graphical distance. Dr John Gregory, a Scottish physician and philosopher, was a frequent contact of the Montagus while they were in the north, and he would later introduce Mrs Montagu to such important figures of the Scottish Enlightenment as Lord Kames, Hugh Blair, and William Robertson.

!e most important event of the year was the appearance of Lord Lyttelton’s Dialogues of the Dead in the spring, to which Montagu anonymously contributed three essays. Only a handful of people knew of her authorship. Edmund Burke had copied the texts so that her handwriting would not give her away in the print-ing process (Myers 1990: 192), but her old friend Anne Donnellan immediately asked whether it had been Mrs Montagu or Mrs Carter who had written them. Carter praised Montagu’s dialogues, and Montagu answered to her letter that “[w]ith [Dear Mrs Carter’s] encouragement I do not know but at last I may become an author in form” (MO 3034). Contemporaries o#en described Elizabeth Mon-tagu as a vain woman who loved to hear herself talk and liked to show o" her wit and wisdom (e.g., Rizzo 2003: 195–196), but Montagu looked up to Elizabeth Carter as a scholar, and she highly respected Lord Lyttelton, Dr Stillingfleet, and Lord Bath who all provided her with literary advice.


Tabl

e 3.

Eliz

abet

h M

onta

gu’s

soci

al co

ntac

ts an

d m

obili

ty in

176

0.

Dat

ePl

ace

Doc

umen

ted

lette

rsC

onta

cts

Oth

er ev

ents

Janu

ary–

Mar

ch

1760

Lond

on

to L

ord

Lytte

lton,

to L

ord

Bath

Mon

tagu

visi

ts L

ady

Her

vey,

sees

Mrs

Ves

ey.

Frie

ndsh

ip w

ith B

ath

begi

ns th

is ye

ar.

Mrs

Mon

tagu

send

s Did

erot

’s “ne

w

com

edy”

to L

ord

Bath

.M

ay 1

760

Lond

on

to M

rs C

arte

rLa

dy F

ranc

es W

illia

ms a

nd M

rs P

itt v

isit

Mrs

Mon

tagu

.Ly

ttelto

n pu

blish

es D

ialo

gues

of t

he

Dea

d. A

nne D

onne

llan

chal

leng

es

Mon

tagu

and

Car

ter a

s pos

sible

co

-aut

hors

.su

mm

er 1

760

Lond

on;

Tunb

ridge

Wel

ls;

at S

andl

efor

d,

Berk

s. fo

r a ti

me.

to M

rs C

arte

r, to

Sar

ah S

cott,

to

Mr M

onta

gu, t

o D

r Stil

lingfl

eet;

from

Dr S

tillin

gflee

t, fro

m L

ady

Fran

ces W

illia

ms,

from

Lor

d Ly

ttelto

n

A#e

r her

bro

ther

’s w

eddi

ng M

rs M

onta

gu

goes

to T

unbr

idge

. Lor

d Ba

th an

d th

e To

rria

nos a

re al

so th

ere,

and

Ann

e an

d Sa

rah

Stan

ley

join

her

. Mee

ts L

ady

Sand

wic

h. M

r Mon

tagu

is at

San

dlef

ord.

In Ju

ne, M

onta

gu’s

brot

her W

illia

m

Robi

nson

mar

ries M

ary

Rich

ards

on in

Lo

ndon

. Int

imat

e frie

ndsh

ip w

ith B

ath

has b

egun

.

Sept

embe

r 176

0Tu

nbrid

ge W

ells;

fro

m L

ondo

n to

New

cast

le o

n Se

pt 1

9. A

hou

se

on P

ilgrim

Stre

et,

New

cast

le, N

orth

.

from

Mr M

onta

gu, f

rom

the

Bish

op o

f Lon

don;

to L

ord

Lytte

lton;

from

Alla

n Ra

msa

y;

to D

ss o

f Por

tland

(inc

l. Bish

op

of L

ondo

n’s le

tter)

; to

Mr

Mon

tagu

; fro

m L

ord

Lytte

lton;

to

Mr R

obin

son

from

New

cast

le

Mr M

onta

gu jo

ins M

rs M

onta

gu b

riefly

at

Tunb

ridge

bef

ore g

oing

bac

k to

Lon

don.

D

r Mon

sey

visit

s her

at T

unbr

idge

. She

re

turn

s to

Lond

on o

n Se

pt 15

. She

then

trav

els

to N

orth

umbe

rland

(with

Mr M

onta

gu?)

; vi

sits D

r Edw

ard Y

oung

at W

ellin

g on

the

way.

Mee

ts !

omas

Clav

erin

g, w

ho se

nds h

is re

gard

s to

her f

athe

r Mr R

obin

son.

Disc

ussio

ns o

f Jam

es M

acph

erso

n’s

Frag

men

ts of

Anc

ient P

oetr

y and

thei

r po

ssib

le u

naut

hent

icity

. Mrs

Mon

tagu

ha

s inv

ited

Alla

n Ra

msa

y an

d hi

s wife

to

visi

t her

at T

unbr

idge

.

Oct

ober

176

0N

ewca

stle,

Nor

th.

to M

rs C

arte

r; fro

m L

ytte

lton

at H

agle

y, fro

m D

r Mon

sey,

from

Dea

n of

Exe

ter;

to D

ean

of E

xete

r; to

Lyt

telto

n; fr

om

Lytte

lton

in L

ondo

n, fr

om

Mrs

Pitt

Dr J

ohn

Gre

gory

is st

ayin

g w

ith th

e M

onta

gus.

New

cast

le so

ciet

y. M

rs M

onta

gu

mee

ts D

avid

Hum

e. A

nne P

itt is

stay

ing

at

the M

onta

gus’

hous

e in

Lond

on.

Mrs

Mon

tagu

and

Lytte

lton

disc

uss

Eurip

ides

’ and

Sop

hocle

s’ pl

ays,

Shak

espe

are,

and

Hig

hlan

d po

ems.

D

r and

Mrs

Dela

ny vi

sit H

agley

. Lyt

telto

n le

aves

Hag

ley

for L

ondo

n on

the K

ing’s

de

ath.

!e c

oron

atio

n of

Geo

rge I

II.

Nov

embe

r to

Dec

embe

r 176

0N

ewca

stle

; trip

ba

ck to

Lon

don

begi

ns o

n N

ov 1

0.

from

Lyt

telto

n in

Lon

don;

to

Lytte

lton,

to M

r Mon

tagu

; fro

m

Lady

Fra

nces

Will

iam

s; to

Mr

Mon

tagu

, to

Lord

Bat

h; fr

om

Lord

Bat

h, fr

om D

r Mon

sey

Mr M

onta

gu re

mai

ns in

New

cast

le, w

hile

M

rs M

onta

gu re

turn

s to

Lond

on. L

ondo

n so

ciet

y. M

rs M

onta

gu d

ines

with

Lor

d Ba

th.

Mrs

Mon

tagu

din

es at

Mrs

Ves

ey’s;

Lyt

telto

n an

d D

r Mon

sey

pres

ent.

Mee

ts M

rs C

arte

r.

Mrs

Mon

tagu

inte

nds t

o be

pre

sent

ed

at co

urt w

hen

Mr M

onta

gu ar

rives

to

Lon

don.

Mr L

odom

ie ex

amin

es

her t

eeth

.

Anni Sairio

!e structure and contents of the Bluestocking network in 1760

Social network analysis considers the structure and contents of a network, partic-ularly by investigating the density and multiplexity of network ties. Density refers to the extent to which all the possible connections between network members are realized. A high degree of density generally leads to greater communication and the development of and exposure to group norms; this implies how quickly or slowly information can be expected to di"use in the network. !e Bluestocking network was a web of overlapping social contacts that connected eminent statesmen, poets and scholars, and gentry women of scholarly ambitions. It was a closed network in that new members were invited to join by the established members, but simultaneously widely connected to other social worlds. !e network was based on providing its members a friendly environment for polite and scholarly entertainment, so new members were quickly introduced to old ones, and the people mostly knew each other and were also easily reached. !is suggests that the Bluestocking network was very dense.

Since the connections overlapped, the venues and activities varied and the number of members was large, the Bluestocking circle did not have one central member as its focus. !is is not uncommon in a dense and clustered network in which practically everyone is connected to everyone else. !is is demonstrated by Figure 1. Figure 1 presents the network ties between a group of people selected

EV

DG

MM

BS

EC

EB

FB

SJ

ADEM GL

WP

CT

SSEdM

JG

Figure 1. Elizabeth Montagu’s social network in 1760.


on the basis of how they feature in the sources of my database of 1757–1762. Some connections have not been verified, so the network is probably even denser than appears here.

Elizabeth Montagu (EM) is among the most widely connected network mem-bers. Montagu, Lyttelton (GL), Carter (EC), Stillingfleet (BS), Bath (WP), Boscawen (FB), Burke (EB), Vesey (EV), Messenger Monsey (MM), and David Garrick (DG) all knew each other personally and were also connected to who might be charac-terized as fringe members of the network. !ese people include Montagu’s sister Sarah Scott (SS), her husband Edward Montagu (EdM), Montagu’s friend Anne Donnellan (AD), John Gregory (JG), Carter’s friend Catherine Talbot (CT), and Samuel Johnson (SJ).

!e capacities and roles through which network members are connected to each other can be various, in which case the network ties are multiplex, or singular, which result in uniplex ties. !ese are not easy to define conclusively, and few relationships are purely uniplex. Montagu’s ties to the Bluestocking circle and the overall ties connecting Bluestockings to each other consisted primarily of friendship in emotional sense, but there were also elements of collaboration and patronage in their interaction. Some people would come to be part of the network initially in the sphere of patronage, like James Beattie in the 1770s, and would sometimes be accepted also into the private space of intimacy, which happened to Beattie. More’s Sensibility refers to friendship several times, and it comes up frequently in their correspondence and also in some dedications, which are con-siderably more public texts than letters are. By friendship I mean an essentially warm and a"ectionate but perhaps also an instrumental relationship; see also Nevala’s paper in this volume on the use of friendship terms and an eighteenth-century network of friends. ‘One joined to another in mutual benevolence and intimacy’ is the foremost definition of friend in Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755), and ‘an attendant, a companion’ follows as the fourth meaning (1755). Johnson’s Dictionary defines friendship as

1. !e state of minds united by mutual benevolence.2. Highest degree of intimacy.3. Favour; personal kindness.4. Assistance; help.5. Conformity; a$nity; correspondence; aptness to unite. (Johnson 1755 s.v. friendship)

Friendship as assistance can be considered as an instrumental relationship. Help and support, particularly in scholarly ventures, but also in other contexts (financial support, introductions in society), were prominent in the Bluestocking network.

Anni Sairio

It has already been noted that there was a particular element of professional collaboration in the network. Montagu had kept her authorship of the dialogues secret from most of her friends except for Lyttelton, Bath, Burke, Stillingfleet and Carter; of her family members, Edward Montagu and Sarah Scott may have known about it. Burke re-wrote the manuscript. On the other hand Montagu had not confided in Anne Donnellan about the dialogues, but Donnellan clearly knew her and her connections well enough to have thought of her as their potential author. Carter, Lyttelton, and Bath all read Montagu’s writings and commented on them, and Carter and Stillingfleet would provide even more scholarly support later during the 1760s when Montagu worked on her Essay on the Writings and Genius of Shakespear, the cornerstone of her literary accomplishments. Clarke (2005: 63) points out that Carter had not published poetry since her prodigious youth, and that it was Montagu who urged her to bring out a new volume of her poetry in 1762. Montagu thus encouraged Carter to publish Poems on Several Occasions (Hawley 1999: xxx), and perhaps read Lyttelton’s works before they were published. !is is another element of friendship in the network, and various forms of influence were very likely to have come through these connections.

A network strength scale (NSS)

It is, thus, possible to reconstruct an eighteenth-century gentry woman’s social contacts to a great extent (see also Vickery 1998) and to draw conclusions of their respective significance. !e network ties of the Bluestockings can overall be defined as strong because of the frequent interaction and di"erent types of tie content, but network strength can also be quantified. It is commonly measured in terms of density and multiplexity, which indicate the likelihood of norm enforcement in a social network. !is NSS has been designed for measuring the tie strengths of an eighteenth-century social network of the upper levels of society, in which literary and other joint projects were an essential factor. !e specific component for the analysis of this network in particular is that of network collaboration; otherwise the parameters represent a selection of relatively basic criteria.

Milroy (1987) was the first study to consider density and multiplexity of a social network for linguistic research. A network member’s NSS was calculated by assigning one point for each of five conditions, of which one indicates density and the other four indicate multiplexity (1987: 141–142). Milroy’s NSS is not intended for universal applicability, but it has been used as the basis of constructing new models. Bax (2000) presents a NSS for the study of eighteenth-century English on the basis of Milroy (1987), which has been devised for analysis of the Streatham circle centered around the !rales (see Sairio 2005 for an analysis of Bax’s NSS


scores and their correlation with Samuel Johnson’s language use). Bax’s proposed NSS combines functional components with emotional components and takes into account specific social elements of the period (2000: 279–282). Following Milroy (1987) quite closely, the functional components considered are

A. being family (kinship/marriage)B. living in the same householdC. having a professional relationshipD. interacting as members of the same formal clubE. living in the same place and knowing each otherF. spending voluntary leisure time together inside the context defining group

membershipG. spending voluntary leisure time together outside the context defining group

membership.

Two network contacts are assigned one point for each of these conditions that they fulfill with regard to each other. Bax avoids the problem of projecting the concept of twentieth-century worklife to eighteenth-century society by using the concept of professional relationship, which is a looser term allowing e.g., joint literary proj-ects. !e “group defining membership” is the notion of the Streatham circle formed around the salon of Hester !rale: components F and G consider the Streathamites’ involvement with each other inside and outside the immediate group context. Some consideration of the frequency of interaction might have been a useful addition to this part of the NSS. !e emotional components consider a network actor’s attitude towards a network contact, and points are assigned to the network contact accord-ing to relationship types ranging through five stages from close friends (3 pts) to enemies (–2 pts) (Bax 2000: 279–283). Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary has been used in defining these concepts in the eighteenth-century context. !e emotional com-ponent is no doubt a useful complement to the functional analysis, but somewhat problematic from a practical point of view. Bax (2000) has devised a means to deter-mine the reliability of di"erent sources, but defining emotions requires extensive knowledge of relationships which may be impossible to retrieve, particularly as the boundaries between di"erent types and levels of friendship are vague.4 Few kinds of data will allow for reliable quantitative classification of emotional components. Also, the emotional component does not take into consideration the fact that emotional distance does not rule out structural network influence: a contact classified as an “enemy” may be a powerful opinion leader or norm enforcer, whose general influ-ence in a network is enough to pressure an individual to adapt. Nevertheless, the

See Tadmor (2001) for a study on the concept of friendship in eighteenth-century England.

Anni Sairio

NSS in Bax (2000) is a carefully devised model, and it has been shown to apply, to some extent, to actual language use in the Streatham circle (Sairio 2005).

!e NSS studies have also faced criticism. Milroy (1987: 214) concedes that a network strength score does not reflect personal a$nities and attitudes in a consistent or reliable way, and Labov’s (2001: 332–333) reanalysis of Milroy’s (1987) figures shows that gender appears in fact to be more important than the network e"ect. Marshall’s (2004) and Milroy’s (1987) results seem to suggest that network analysis has not been able to “uncover all the complex factors involved in [present-day] dialect maintenance” (Marshall 2004: 232). Henstra (2008) applies Bax’s (2000) model to Horace Walpole’s family network with some adaptations, but the NSS scores do not readily explain the language use within the Walpole network. Henstra (2008: 66–67) therefore suggests the inclusion of hierarchical elements such as generation and gender in further studies.5 Also Bergs (2005) concludes that the proposed strength of network ties and network position in the fi#eenth-century Paston family circle do not seem to correlate with the linguistic choices of the network members. However, Bergs’ network strength scale is not based on entirely valid historical arguments, and only one set of scores is compared with the results of several decades’ worth of letter material. It would appear that either the methods of measuring network tie strength have been somewhat inad-equate, or that patterns of linguistic variation are so complex that they do not readily correspond with network structure or position. Hanneman and Riddle (2005, Chapter 2) point out that the description of even small social networks requires a great number of information, which is obviously a challenge when the network approach is adopted as one method of investigation along other theoretical frame-works, and particularly when the data is historical. Hansen and Macdonald (1995) describe the methodological challenges they have faced in quantifying nineteenth-century activities (particularly visiting) on the basis of diaries, and conclude that people simply did not fit into neat categories (1995: 232, 233, 235). !is could be one of the problems faced also in previous research.

My proposed network strength scale consists of functional components and a broadly defined emotional component between two network contacts, and the scores apply only in a particular moment in time. Fitzmaurice (2007a) proposes that the strength of ties be measured in terms of four parameters that combine subjective and objective criteria: the longevity of relationship, geographical proximity, formal social relationship in terms of comparative rank (social equal/superior/inferior), and the type of relationship (intimates/equals/acquaintance; friendship/competition).

In my Ph.D. thesis (Sairio forthcoming) I have included age and gender as additional parameters.


Most of these have been used in previous studies, but their combination appears to be elegantly simple and generally applicable. !e parameters that I have selected rep-resent geographical proximity, type of relationship in terms of intimacy–distance, network connectedness, network collaboration, social rank, and the longevity of rela-tionship (Table 4). !ese categories mainly convey multiplexity. As Figure 1 indicates, all the central Bluestockings knew each other, so it would be redundant to discuss density separately. !e frequency of interaction is implied in some categories, but there is not enough reliable data to justify a separate category of frequency. Kinship is a common category in determining network strength, but not particularly relevant with the Bluestockings. None of them were related to Montagu, and assigning points for kinship inevitably emphasizes the significance of family ties. Membership in other networks could be a useful addition to the data in order to find sources for possible outside influences, but this would be di$cult to track conclusively and is certainly beyond the scope of the present study. An ideal addition would be to study the inten-sity of a network connection by the amount and frequency of correspondence, but this would require a very thorough record of letters sent and received, and existing letters do not provide a reliable source for this kind of study.

Table 4. !e NSS parameters.

1. Same domicileyes 2 points

o#en (e.g., during the season) 1 pointrarely (e.g., abroad) 0.5 points

no 0 points2. Type of relationship

intimates 2 pointsacquaintances 1 point

not acquainted 0 points3. Same social circle

yes: primary 2 pointsyes: secondary 1 point

no 0 points4. Professional collaboration

yes: balanced/“giver” 2 pointsyes: “receiver” 1 point

no 0 points5. Social status

equals 2 points superior 1 pointinferior 0 points

6. Previous network connectionyes 1 pointsno 0 points

Anni Sairio

!e components in Table 4 are considered between Elizabeth Montagu and her network contacts so that both actors are assigned points. !e scores can be interpreted as the degree of integration and variation in contacts. !e total scores are considered for Montagu and her network contacts separately, and as two-way totals combining those scores. !e two-way totals facilitate the comparison between Elizabeth Montagu’s total scores and strength of ties in relation to all her network contacts.

Same domicile is divided into four categories. Domicile refers to residing in an owned or rented property for a lengthy period of time: the season brought basically all who could a"ord it to London for several months in the winter, while the summers were usually spent at country houses or spa towns. Two points are assigned to people who owned or rented a residence in the same place (usually London) also when they had a house in the counties, which was the case with Elizabeth Montagu and Lord Lyttelton. One point is assigned to people who mainly lived outside London and who perhaps rented an apartment there during the season, but had a primary residence somewhere else (not just a figurehead family estate). Elizabeth Carter, who lived permanently in Kent and visited London frequently, would be assigned one point with regard to Elizabeth Montagu, as would Elizabeth Vesey, who was o#en in Ireland.

Type of relationship is considered in terms of intimacy and distance. Two points are assigned for a close and familiar relationship, and one point for a more distant and formal relationship. If the actors should not know each other personally, no points would be given. Same social circle is divided into two positive categories and one negative, which refers to lack of mutual acquaintances. If the shared circle is the primary social network into which the largest amount of time and e"ort were invested, two points are assigned. If not and the actors meet more in the activities of other circles, one point is assigned. !e primary social circle is here considered to be the Bluestocking network.

Professional collaboration considers the kind of support that was particularly prominent in the Bluestocking network: reading and commenting on each other’s writings, and assisting in the printing processes and other types of publishing (producing a play, for example). !is kind of network collaboration resembles what Fitzmaurice (2000: 266, 273–274) terms a coalition in the early eighteenth-century network around Joseph Addison’s Spectator project, or an instrumental alliance purposefully formed for a particular goal (see also Fitzmaurice 2002). !e coalition approach has particular advantages in that the complex questions of friendship and intimacy are avoided. Bluestocking collaboration nevertheless derived from existing ties that were at some point used for literary pursuits. In other words, it was not a conscious device to form alliances in the way coalition ties are generally created. If the collaboration was in balance and both parties contributed more or less equally,


two points are assigned to both. If the collaboration was less symmetrical or recip-rocal, two points are assigned to the so-called “mentor”, who read and commented on the “beneficiary’s” works, and the “beneficiary” receives one point. Traditional patronage can also be considered as part of professional collaboration.

!e Bluestocking assemblies were frequented by people on various levels of the social ladder, but regardless of the easy interaction between upper and lower gentry, wealth, status and power continued to determine social significance in eighteenth-century England (Black 2001: 93, 100). In the category of Social status, social superiors are awarded one point due to the greater social distance in a relationship in their benefit, whereas equals are awarded two points each. Social inferiors do not receive any points. Following Black (2001), social status is determined by rank, wealth, and power.

Previous network connection relates to the significance of the longevity of relationships and the concept of scale-free networks. Scale-free networks have a small amount of highly connected nodes (or, in the terminology of social networks, network members) and a high amount of nodes with only a few network ties. Social networks belong to this category. Scale-free networks grow in time, and the appear-ance of new ties favours older network nodes that already have a high number of connections. !ese highly connected nodes continue to attract more ties following the “rich get richer” principle, which results in a network that includes some highly connected nodes among a majority of low degree network ties (Barabási, Réka & Hawoong 1999). Previous, well-connected ties are thus in a significant position as the network grows, and it is logical to note those network connections that derive from an earlier period. One point is assigned for such a connection.

!e NSS applied to the Bluestocking network in 1760

!e NSS scores of Elizabeth Montagu and a group of her closest network con-tacts in 1760 are discussed next. !e full results are given in the Appendix in Table 5; Figure 2 illustrates the overall scores. !e scores in Table 5 show, firstly, that Elizabeth Montagu and Lord Bath, Frances Boscawen, Edmund Burke, David Garrick, Lord Lyttelton, and Benjamin Stillingfleet receive two points in the category of domicile for their residences in London. Elizabeth and Edward Montagu did not live constantly in the same place, and Carter and Scott had their permanent homes outside London. John Gregory was a Scotsman, and Elizabeth Vesey spent long periods of time in her native Ireland. Carter, Vesey, Scott, and Edward Montagu receive one point for the frequently shared place of residence. Gregory did not frequent London, so he is le# without a score. !e type of relationship is considered to be intimate between Montagu and all the other con-tacts except for David Garrick and John Gregory. In terms of social circle, Bath,

Anni Sairio

Boscawen, Burke, Carter, Lyttelton, Stillingfleet, and Vesey can be characterized as core Bluestockings who were involved with Montagu mostly in terms of this network. Gregory and Elizabeth Montagu knew each other outside the immediate circle of the Bluestocking activities: Montagu went to the north on business, and Gregory had his own close friends in Edinburgh. Montagu’s family members were not considerably involved in the Bluestocking activities.

As has been shown, in terms of professional collaboration Montagu was involved with Lord Bath, Edmund Burke, Elizabeth Carter, John Gregory, Lord Lyttelton, and Benjamin Stillingfleet. Since they knew each other and spent time in same contexts, they can be considered to have formed a cluster within the network. Vesey is the only person of the core Bluestocking circle who seems not to have been involved in the collaboration in 1760, while Gregory participated from outside the immediate core. Gregory was most likely involved only with Montagu in this respect.

When we consider the category of social status, noblemen Bath and Lyttelton were socially superior to Montagu, while Montagu’s status was equal to that of Boscawen and Vesey. Montagu had married into an aristocratic family, and she was already socially influential and considerably wealthy by this time. !e others were socially inferior to her due to factors of rank, wealth, and influence. Clarke (2005: 28) describes Montagu as “of considerably higher social class” compared to Elizabeth Carter, an unmarried daughter of a Kentish clergyman. Previous net-work connection is not particularly relevant in this time period as it points to the years 1738–1743, the starting point of the study. !e Bluestocking friendships were established from the 1750s onward, so only Montagu’s family members are assigned points in this category.

When these scores are added together, we can consider the multiplexity of the ties. Figure 2 provides an overview of the total scores between Elizabeth Montagu and her network contacts.

9 8 8 74 4

9 8 75

7

7 8 87

64

7 87

6

7

02468101214161820

EM/WPEM

/FBEM

/EBEM

/EC

EM/DG

EM/JG

EM/GL

EM/BS

EM/EV

EM/SS

EM/ED

ElizabethMontaguNetworkcontact

Figure 2. Total NSS scores in Elizabeth Montagu’s network in 1760.


Figure 2 shows that Bath (WP), Boscawen (FB), Burke (EB), Lyttelton (GL) and Stillingfleet (BS) have the highest NSS scores with Montagu (EM), and can be interpreted to have the most varied and multiplex network ties with Montagu. !ey are also the most central network members in Figure 1 above. Based on the NSS, these members and perhaps Carter (EC) and Vesey (EV) may have been in a position to act as norm-enforcers or sources of influence in the Bluestocking network. Bath and Lyttelton score higher points than Montagu, which results from their rank and the direction of collaboration. Montagu’s score with Elizabeth Carter, one of the key figures in the circle, is lower because of Carter’s residence in Kent and their unequal positions in society despite Carter’s role in the professional cluster. Also Vesey’s score is lower due to her frequent residence in Ireland and the fact that she was not involved in the Bluestocking collaboration at this time. Vesey would be more integrated in the following years, when Montagu was preparing her work on Shakespeare. !e lowest scores are between Montagu and Gregory (JG) and Montagu and Garrick (DG). Compared with Montagu, these network members seem the least integrated into the Bluestocking circle.

A case study: Preposition placement in the Bluestocking letters

To test the overall accuracy of the NSS scores in actual language use, pied piping and preposition stranding in the 1757–1762 subsection of the Bluestocking Corpus are now considered with regard to possible network influence.6 Preposition stranding refers to a construction in which the preposition is separated from its complement, as in this zero relative clause:

(1) I dare say my Lord Pulteney has not intimated to your Lordship the share he has had in the conquest Ø we are so proud of; (Elizabeth Montagu to Lord Bath, c. 1761; MO 4508)

In example (2) the construction is used in a that relative clause, and in (3) in a zero relative clause.

(2) […] or would she have said he did well to apply to her in the way that he wanted her Help in, however ignoble? (Lord Lyttelton to Elizabeth Montagu, 1760; MO 1288)

See Sairio (2008a) on Bluestockings as an audience for grammars and the overall frequencies of preposition stranding in the corpus.

Anni Sairio

(3) […] but your letters. Which have more Witt and Spirit in them, than is on all the Shelves Ø I so ostentatiously boast of. (Lord Bath to Elizabeth Montagu, c. 1760; MO 4221)

In Present-day English, preposition stranding is obligatory in zero relative clauses, that clauses, passive clauses and certain other cases of less frequency, whereas wh-relative clauses in theory allow the possibility for pied piping, or the preposition preceding its complement (Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 627). Example (4) shows a case of pied piping in a wh-relative clause, and (5) a somewhat rarer case of preposed pied piping.

(4) I have bad accounts of Lady Frances health, & much fear the weight of this a%iction, & the rapidity with which it came, will overwhelm her. (Elizabeth Montagu to Elizabeth Carter, c. 1759; MO 3028)

(5) […]; upon this he seemd a little rebuked, but a#er a little pause, he asked me whether I found Lady Bute at home. (Lord Bath to Elizabeth Montagu, c. 1760; MO 4221)

Preposition stranding had been under increasing censure since the late seven-teenth century, when John Dryden condemned it as “inadmissible” and corrected it in Shakespeare’s and Ben Jonson’s texts (Yáñez-Bouza 2006). Yáñez-Bouza (2007) has tracked the origins of the censureship to an even earlier phase of the seventeenth century. Regardless of the fact that preposition stranding is the only possibly choice in several contexts, many eighteenth-century grammarians attacked it as vulgar language use and a violation of logic. !e latter argument may have resulted from the etymology of the term preposition and the influence of Latin syntax (Beal 2004: 110). Robert Lowth (1762: 128) and his followers preferred pied piping as a more “graceful [and] perspicuous” alternative which “agrees much better with the solemn and elevated Style”. Lowth (1762: 127–128) nevertheless notes that preposition stranding “prevails in common conversation” and is suitable with “the familiar style in writing”. Yáñez-Bouza (2008) shows that while some grammarians acknowledged preposition stranding as part of English syntax and some even preferred it for the sake of style, some did not accept the construction at all. !ese self-appointed language authorities voiced their opinion of preposition stranding in no unclear terms, and it would appear that the adverse criticism had an e"ect on contemporary language use. In written standard usage, preposition stranding dropped from 12% in the Early Modern English period to 2% in Late Modern English, which may be a result of a “change in notions of stylistic appro-priateness” (Bergh & Seppänen 2000: 312). Furthermore, Yáñez-Bouza (2006) shows that preposition stranding in the Century of Prose Corpus decreases from 23.3 (168) in 1680–1740 to 11.7 (56) in 1740–1780 (per 10,000 words).


Yáñez-Bouza’s (2007) more extensive research on the Helsinki Corpus and ARCHER has shown a continuing increase of preposition stranding from 1500 onward up until the early eighteenth century, at which point the increase comes to a halt and is followed in the second half of the eighteenth century by a sharp decline (2007: 176–177). Auer (2006: 36) notes that for prescriptivism to have an e"ect, there must be a time gap between prescription and actual usage, and Yáñez-Bouza (2007: 236) observes that the e"ect of normative grammarians should be seen in late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century usage. However, as preposition stranding had decreased already in the early part of the eighteenth century, which is considered by Yáñez-Bouza (2007: 207) to be “a period of ‘latent awareness’ of stigmatisation”, eighteenth-century prescriptivism cannot be fully responsible for the change (2007: 236). !e early seventeenth-century criticism appears to be likely origins for the development.

Eleven high-frequency prepositions (for, to, of, in, on, into, at, upon, from, by and with) were retrieved from the Bluestocking Corpus both in stranded and in fronted positions. Preposition stranding and pied piping in the Bluestocking Corpus for the whole time span have been discussed in Sairio (2008a) and (forthcoming).7 !e results in Sairio (forthcoming) show that pied piping was increasingly favoured in these letters, whereas preposition stranding was clearly decreasing. Overall, 62% (220) of the prepositions in the Bluestocking Corpus were pied piped and 38% (135) were stranded. Preposition stranding decreased steadily from 53% (12.8 per 10,000 words) in the first time period to 31% (6.5) in 1775–1778, while pied piping increased from 47% (11.2) to 69% (14.8) in that same time span. Altogether 83% of preposition stranding appeared in syntacti-cally required environments, of which zero relative clauses, passive clauses, and prepositional verbs were the most common.

Table 6 presents the frequencies of preposition placement in the Bluestocking Corpus for 1757–1762. !ese are relatively infrequent constructions, so only those informants are included whose letters consist of at least 1,000 words; Stillingfleet with his zero instances of either pied piping or preposition stranding is excluded. Montagu’s own letters were written to a number of people (see Table 2), whereas she is the only recipient of the other letters.

Sairio (forthcoming) includes the same set of prepositions, but also additional cases by way of searching through the wh-relative pronouns. !erefore the figures in this study do not entirely correspond with those in Sairio (2008a), although the di"erences are minor.

Anni Sairio

Table 6. Preposition placement in the 1757–1762 letters of the Bluestocking Corpus.

I Pied piping Preposition stranding

N /10,000 % N /10,000 %

Elizabeth Montagu 55 15.8 69% 25 7.2 31%Sarah Scott 6 12.7 46% 7 14.8 54%Lord Lyttelton 0 0 0% 1 - 100%Lord Bath 1 - 50% 1 - 50%Frances Boscawen 5 19.3 62.5% 3 11.6 37.5%T 67 14.1 64% 37 7.8 36%

By 64%, pied piping is a significantly more common construction than preposition stranding (p<0.01). Both are low-frequency items, and preposi-tion stranding particularly so; it can be fairly reliably concluded that Montagu used pied piping more than preposition stranding, but of the other individual informants not a lot can be said. However, it should be noted that these are not interchangeable constructions, as only wh-relative clauses provide the possibility to choose between the two.

Both constructions are particularly infrequent in the letters of the nobility: in a total number of 4,453 words, there are only two tokens for preposition stranding (4.5 per 10,000 words), shown in examples (2) and (3), and one token for pied piping. !e frequency of preposition stranding in the letters of the lower gentry writers amounts to 7.9 per 10,000 words (35 in absolute figures) and pied piping to 15.4 (66). !e variable of social status correlates with the gender of the infor-mants in that all the aristocrats were men, and the lower gentry writers (except for Stillingfleet) were women. However, these constructions are overall so rare that the influence of either rank or gender cannot be hypothesised further. It appears that pied piping and preposition stranding simply require more data in order to surface in larger numbers.

Table 7 presents the frequencies of preposition placement in Montagu’s 1757–1762 letters, distributed according to the recipient. Letters with low word counts obviously contain very few or zero items. !e highest number and the statistically most relevant frequencies of these constructions appear in Montagu’s letters to Lord Lyttelton and Elizabeth Carter. In the letters to Carter, 54% of the prepositions are in the stranded position. !ese letters would thus seem to be more casual and informal than in average. !e construction was more frequent than pied piping also in her letters to Stillingfleet, and as common as pied piping in her letters to Edward Montagu, but these figures are very low, and, furthermore, the letters to Stillingfleet contain only types of grammatically required preposition stranding (three zero relative clauses and one passive clause).


Table 7. Pied piping and preposition stranding in Elizabeth Montagu’s letters.

R Pied piping Preposition stranding

N /10,000 % N /10,000 %

Sarah Scott 8 12.0 80% 2 - 20%Dss of Portland 1 - 100% 0 0 0%Edward Montagu 3 13.6 50% 3 13.6 50%Ben. Stillingfleet 5 13.7 55.5% 4 10.9 45.5%Lord Lyttelton 16 27.0 89% 2 - 11%Elizabeth Carter 11 10.9 46% 13 12.9 54%Lord Bath 9 24.7 90% 1 - 1%Elizabeth Vesey 1 - 100% 0 0 0%Matthew Robinson (Sr.) 1 - 100% 0 0 0%Frances Boscawen 0 0 0% 0 0 0%T 55 15.8 69% 25 7.2 31%

Examples (6) and (7) illustrate preposition stranding in letters to Stillingfleet and Carter. Carter’s Bluestocking letters have not been preserved in manuscript form and I have had access to only one letter from Stillingfleet to Montagu, so for now only Montagu’s letters are available for the analysis of this correspondence. Both cases are in zero relative clauses, the most common environment of this construction in Montagu’s letters.

(6) Now I have utter’d some of my miseries I must tell you I have some amusement in seeing a Country so di"erent from any Ø I have ever been in. (Elizabeth Montagu to Benjamin Stillingfleet, c. 1758; Eger (Ed.) 1999: 146)

(7) You do not say a syllable of your health, as to mine it is now very good, I am weary of ye dissipation Ø I have lived in — (Elizabeth Montagu to Elizabeth Carter, c. 1759; Eger (Ed.) 1999: 155)

Pied piping on the other hand was considerably more frequent in the letters to Lyttelton and to Bath than in average, and the chi-square test shows the di"erence between letters to Lyttelton and Carter to be statistically significant (p<0.025). Furthermore, Montagu seems to have avoided preposition stranding particularly in her letters to Bath and Lyttelton.

To consider wh-relative clauses, which in principle can allow for variation between the two constructions, Montagu’s letters contain 36 tokens of pied piping but only five tokens of preposition stranding in this environment. 88% of the prepositions in wh-relative clauses are pied piped, whereas 12% are in a stranded position, and these figures suggest that preposition stranding was clearly avoided in this context. !ree cases of preposition stranding in wh-relative clauses are found in Montagu’s letters to Elizabeth Carter, and the other two in letters to Sarah Scott

Anni Sairio

and Edward Montagu. Examples (8) and (9) illustrate these occurrences. Note that in example (9), Montagu uses the subject form who in place of the object.

(8) My Brother Morris & his family are going to Sandleford, which I am very glad of, for I think it is a Good air for ye sweet little man. (Elizabeth Montagu to Sarah Scott, c. 1760; MO 5779)

(9) My Father who I was with this morning assures me he has orderd Mr Parker to charge his Tenants to [ask?] for Sir !os Clavering. (Elizabeth Montagu to Edward Montagu, c. 1758; MO 2360)

When the figures in Table 6 and Table 7 are compared, it appears that Lord Lyttelton and Lord Bath do not use preposition stranding in their letters to Montagu, and neither does Montagu in her letters to them. !is indicates that Montagu may have been particularly careful to avoid preposition stranding when she wrote to these older noblemen. However, the considerably high frequency of pied piping in Montagu’s letters to Lyttelton does not correspond with its absence in his letters; this may reflect the rather low word count (2,300) of material by Lyttelton.

When we consider the results in terms of the NSS, some general observations can be made despite the low frequencies of these items. Preposition stranding had already begun to be a stigmatised construction. Lowth described it as a feature of spoken language and familiar style (1762: 127–128), so to use it might suggest a familiar relationship between the writer and a recipient. Tieken-Boon van Ostade (2006) in fact shows that Lowth himself used preposition stranding in his informal letters to friends of lower social status. As Section 3 shows, the NSS points to Lord Bath, Frances Boscawen, Lord Lyttelton and Benjamin Stillingfleet as having the strongest and most variable network ties to Montagu, and Montagu’s and Carter’s NSS score was also high. Preposition stranding appears most frequently in Montagu’s letters to Carter and Stillingfleet, but practically not at all in the letters to Bath and Lyttelton, which on the other hand contain the highest frequencies of pied piping. !e network scores seem to correspond positively with Carter and Stillingfleet and suggest that a strong network connection may lead to more informal language use. However, as I do not have material from Carter and Stillingfleet against which to test these results, the analysis is not conclusive.

High NSS scores alone do not seem to explain the results, but perhaps Bath’s and Lyttelton’s strong positions in the NSS can be reconciled with Montagu’s very infrequent use of preposition stranding when we consider the implications of social rank. Bath, Carter, Lyttelton, and Stillingfleet were all Montagu’s superiors in terms of the direction of professional collaboration, but Bath and Lyttelton were socially above her also in terms of rank (and gender, if you will). Montagu’s letters to Bath and Lyttelton suggest that a strong network tie may result in formal and particularly careful language use, when the recipient is socially superior to the


writer and avoids the particular construction in their own writing. !is hypothesis agrees with Tieken-Boon van Ostade’s (2006) findings and indicates that the higher social status of the recipient may be of particular importance in the use of preposition stranding.

!e Bluestocking ties were overall very strong with little in-group variation in the NSS scores, and yet there was a great deal of linguistic variation detected in their letters. Strength of network ties alone does not seem to su$ce as an expla-nation. !e relevance of social rank in explaining the variation indicates that social variables should be included in the linguistic analysis. In line with Labov (2001: 327), I suggest that social network analysis should be complemented with other frameworks to explain socially embedded language use. When social net-work analysis is accompanied by the sociolinguistic framework, the possibilities in explaining language variation seem very promising.

Conclusion

Social network analysis provides new perspectives in studying and explain-ing language use. !is paper deals with the reconstruction and analysis of Elizabeth Montagu’s Bluestocking network and proposes a network strength scale for quantifying the strength of network ties of this eighteenth-century social circle. Letters provide solid material for documenting the quality and o#en the quantity of social contacts of the past. One of the main challenges in applying the network model to historical linguistics is, in fact, in finding material against which to test the network analysis. However, the Montagu Collection is an excellent source which con-tains approximately 7,000 letters, and my future aim is to extend the Bluestocking Corpus to better represent the other Bluestocking writers.

!e strength of ties was analysed on the basis of parameters that represent geographical proximity, the type of relationship in terms of intimacy or distance, network connectedness, network collaboration, social rank, and the longevity of relationship (see Fitzmaurice 2007a). !e scores were compared with the frequencies of pied piping and preposition stranding in the network correspon-dence in order to see whether strong network ties correlate positively with the use of a familiar and somewhat stigmatised linguistic feature. !e hypothesis applied when the recipients were below Elizabeth Montagu in terms of social rank. !e results also indicate that preposition stranding was avoided and pied piping favoured considerably more when the recipients were her social superiors. As the linguistic variation was best explained by including the social variable of rank in the analysis, I suggest that (historical) network analysis, especially in terms of tie strength, be accompanied with the sociolinguistic framework.

Anni Sairio

Appe

ndix

Tabl

e 5.

Eliz

abet

h M

onta

gu’s

netw

ork

stre

ngth

scal

e in

1760

.*

NSS

com

pone

nts

EM/W

PEM

/FB

EM/E

BEM

/EC

EM/D

GEM

/JG

EM/G

LEM

/BS

EM/E

VEM

/SSF

EM/E

DF

Dom

icile

2/2

2/2

2/2

1/1

2/2

0/0

2/2

2/2

1/1

1/1

1/1

Rela

tions

h. ty

pe2/

22/

22/

22/

21/

11/

12/

22/

22/

22/

22/

2So

cial

circ

le2/

22/

22/

22/

22/

11/

12/

22/

22/

21/

11/

1C

olla

bora

tion

1/2

0/0

1/2

1/2

0/0

1/2

1/2

1/2

0/0

0/0

0/0

Soci

al st

atus

0/1

2/2

1/0

1/0

1/0

1/0

0/1

1/0

2/2

1/0

2/2

Prev

. con

nect

ion

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

0/0

1/1

1/1

Tota

l7/

98/

88/

87/

76/

44/

47/

98/

87/

76/

57/

72-

Way

Tot

al16

1616

1410

816

1614

1114

*EM

=Eliz

abet

h M

onta

gu, W

P=W

illia

m P

ulte

ney,

Lord

Bat

h, F

B=Fr

ance

s Bos

caw

en, E

B=Ed

mun

d Bu

rke,

EC=E

lizab

eth

Car

ter,

DG

=Dav

id G

arric

k, JG

=Joh

n G

rego

ry,

GL=

Geo

rge L

ord

Lytte

lton,

BS=

Benj

amin

Stil

lingfl

eet,

EV=E

lizab

eth

Vese

y, SS

=Sar

ah S

cott,

ED

=Edw

ard

Mon

tagu

. F = fa

mily

mem

bers

.


References

Primary sourcesAspinall-Oglander, Cecil. 1942. Admiral’s Widow. Being the Life and Letters of the Hon.

Mrs. Edward Boscawen from 1761 to 1805. London: Hogarth Press.Blunt, Reginald (Ed.). 1923. Mrs. Montagu, “Queen of the Blues,” Her Letters and Friendships from

1762 to 1800. Edited by Reginald Blunt from Material Le" to Him by Emily J. Climenson. 2 vols. London: Constable & Co.

Climenson, Emily J. (Ed.). 1906. Elizabeth Montagu, the Queen of the Bluestockings: Her Correspondence from 1720 to 1761 by Her Great-great-niece Emily J. Climenson, 2 vols. London: John Murray.

Eger, Elizabeth (Ed.). 1999. Bluestocking Feminism: Writings of the Bluestocking Circle, 1738–1785, vol. 1, Elizabeth Montagu. General ed. Gary Kelly. London: Pickering & Chatto.

Hampshire, Gwen (Ed.). 2005. Elizabeth Carter, 1717–1806: An Edition of Some Unpublished Letters. Newark: University of Delaware Press.

Lady Llanover (Ed.). 1861–1862. !e Autobiography and Correspondence of Mary Granville, Mrs. Delany: With Interesting Reminiscences of King George the !ird and Queen Charlotte, 6 vols. London: Richard Bentley.

Pennington, Matthew (Ed.). 1809. A Series of Letters between Mrs. Elizabeth Carter and Miss Catherine Talbot, from the Year 1741 to 1770: To Which Are Added, Letters from Mrs. Elizabeth Carter to Mrs. Vesey, between the Years 1763 and 1787. Published from the Original Manuscripts in the Possession of the Rev. Montagu Pennington, vol. 1. London: F.C. & J. Rivington.

Secondary sourcesAuer, Anita. 2006. “Precept and practice: The influence of prescriptivism on the English

subjunctive.” In Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500 to 2000, Christiane Dalton-Puffer, Nikolaus Ritt, Herbert Schendl & Dieter Kastovsky (Eds), 33–53. Bern: Peter Lang.

Barabási, A.-L., Réka, Albert & Hawoong, Jeong. 1999. “Mean-field theory for scale-free random networks.” Physica A 272: 173–187.

Bax, Randy C. 2000. “A network strength scale for the study of eighteenth-century English.” European Journal of English Studies 4 (3): 277–289.

Bax, Randy C. 2005. “Traces of Johnson in the language of Fanny Burney.” International Journal of English Studies 5 (1): 159–181.

Beal, Joan C. 2004. English in Modern Times. Oxford: Arnold.Bergh, Gunnar & Seppänen, Aimo. 2000. “Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical

survey.” English Language and Linguistics 4 (2): 295–316.Bergs, Alexander. 2005. Social Networks and Historical Sociolinguistics. Studies in Morphosyntactic

Variation in the Paston Letters (1421–1503). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Black, Jeremy. 2001. Eighteenth-century Britain 1688–1783. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave.Clarke, Norma. 2005. Dr. Johnson’s Women. London: Pimlico.Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2000. “Coalitions and the investigation of social influence in linguistic

history.” European Journal of English Studies 4 (3): 264–276.

Anni Sairio

Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2002. “Politeness and modal meaning in the construction of humiliative discourse in an early eighteenth-century network of patron–client relationships.” English Language and Linguistics 6 (2): 239–265.

Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2004. “!e meanings and uses of the progressive construction in an early eighteenth-century English network.” In Studies in the History of the English Language II, Anne Curzan and Kimberly Emmons (Eds), 131–174. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2007a. “!e world of the periodical essay: Social networks and discourse communities in eighteenth-century London.” Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 6. Available at http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/.

Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2007b. “Questions of standardization and representativeness in the develop-ment of social networks-based corpora: !e story of the Network of Eighteenth-century English Texts.” In Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora, vol. 2, Diachronic Databases, Joan Beal, Karen P. Corrigan & Hermann L. Moisl (Eds), 49–81. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hanneman, Robert A. & Riddle, Mark. 2005. Introduction to Social Network Methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Available at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/.

Hansen, Karen V. & Macdonald, Cameron L. 1995. “Surveying the dead informant: Quantitative analysis and historical interpretation.” Qualitative Sociology 18 (2): 227–236.

Hawley, Judith. 1999. “Introduction.” In Bluestocking Feminism: Writings of the Bluestocking Circle, 1738–1785, vol. 2, Elizabeth Carter, Judith Hawley (Ed.), ix–xix. London: Pickering & Chatto.

Henstra, Froukje. 2008. “Social network analysis and the eighteenth-century family network: A case study of the Walpole family.” Transactions of the Philological Society 108 (1): 29–70.

Huddleston, Rodney D. & Pullum, Geo"rey K. 2002. !e Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, Samuel. 1755–1756. A Dictionary of the English Language. 2nd edition. London. Accessed at Eighteenth Century Collections Online.

Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. II, Social Factors [Language in Society 29]. Oxford (UK)/Cambridge (US): Blackwell.

Lowth, Robert. 1762. A Short Introduction to English Grammar: With Critical Notes. London.Marshall, Jonathan. 2004. Language Change and Sociolinguistics: Rethinking Social Networks.

Basingstoke: Palgrave.Milroy, James & Milroy, Lesley. 1985. “Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation.”

Journal of Linguistics 21: 339–384.Milroy, Lesley. 1987. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Milroy, Lesley. 2000. “Social network analysis and language change: Introduction.” European

Journal of English Studies 4 (3): 217–223.More, Hannah. 1786. Florio: A Tale, for Fine Gentlemen and Fine Ladies: And, the Bas Bleu; or

Conversation: Two Poems. London.Myers, Sylvia Harcstark. 1990. !e Bluestocking Circle: Women, Friendship and the Life of the

Mind in Eighteenth-century England. Oxford: Clarendon.Nevala, Minna. 2004. Address in Early English Correspondence: Its Forms and Socio-pragmatic

Functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Pohl, Nicole & Schellenberg, Betty A. (Eds). 2003. Reconsidering the Bluestockings. San Marino:

Huntington Library.Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2006. “Leaders of linguistic change in Early Modern England.” In

Corpus-based Studies of Diachronic English, Roberta Facchinetti & Matti Rissanen (Eds), 115–134. Frankfurt a/M: Peter Lang.


Rizzo, Betty. 2003. “Two versions of community: Montagu and Scott.” In Pohl & Schellenberg (Eds), 193–214.

Sairio, Anni. 2005. “‘Sam of Streatham Park’: A linguistic study of Dr. Johnson’s membership in the !rale family circle.” In Letters and Letter Writing, Minna Palander-Collin & Minna Nevala (Eds), special issue of European Journal of English Studies 9 (1): 21–35.

Sairio, Anni. 2008a. “Bluestocking letters and the influence of eighteenth-century grammars.” In Studies in Late Modern English Correspondence: Methodology and Data, Marina Dossena & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Eds), 137–162. Bern: Peter Lang.

Sairio, Anni. 2008b. “A social network study of eighteenth-century Bluestockings: !e progres-sive and preposition stranding in their letters.” Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics. Available at http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/.

Sairio, Anni. Forthcoming. !e Language and Letters of the Bluestocking Network. Submitted Ph.D. thesis. University of Helsinki.

Tadmor, Naomi. 2001. Family and Friends in Eighteenth-century England. Household, Kinship, and Patronage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2003. “Lowth’s language.” In Insights into Late Modern English, Marina Dossena & Charles Jones (Eds), 241–264. Bern: Peter Lang.

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2006. “Eighteenth-century prescriptivism and the norm of correctness.” In Blackwell Handbook of the History of English, Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los (Eds), 539–557. Oxford: Blackwell.

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. (Ed). 2008. Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar Writing in Eighteenth-Century England. Berlin: Mouton.

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid & Bax, Randy C. 2002. “Of Dodsley’s projects and linguistic influence: !e language of Johnson and Lowth.” Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 2. Available at http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl.htm.

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, Nevalainen, Terttu & Caon, Luisella. (Eds). 2000. Social Network Analysis and the History of English. Special issue of the European Journal of English Studies (EJES) 4 (3).

Vickery, Amanda. 1998. !e Gentleman’s Daughter. Women’s Lives in Georgian England. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2006. “Prescriptivism and preposition stranding in eighteenth-century prose.” Historical Sociolinguistics and Sociohistorical Linguistics 6. Available at http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/hsl_shl/.

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2007. Preposition Stranding and Prescriptivism in English from 1500 to 1900: A Corpus-Based Approach. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Manchester.

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria 2008. “Preposition stranding in eighteenth-century gram-mars by eighteenth-century grammarians: Something to talk about.” In Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade (Ed.), 251–278.

Methodological and practical aspects of historical network analysis: A case study of the...

Documents

Transcript of Methodological and practical aspects of historical network analysis: A case study of the...