This study is devoted to a corpus of Old Russian letters, written on pieces of birchbark. These unique texts from Novgorod and surroundings give us an exceptional impression of everyday life in medieval Russian society. In this study, the birchbark letters are addressed from a pragmatic angle. Linguistic parameters are identified that shed light on the degree to which literacy had gained ground in communicative processes. It is demonstrated that the birchbark letters occupy an intermediate position between orality and literacy. On the one hand, oral habits of communication persisted, as reflected in how the birchbark letters are phrased; on the other hand, literate modes of expression emerged, as seen in the development of normative conventions and literate formulae.
Simeon Dekker, Ph.D. (Leiden University, 2016) is a researcher in Slavic philology. His main focus of research concerns the pragmatics of medieval texts.
"Dekkerʼs book is a very welcome contribution to the field of historical pragmatics and an important step towards a comprehensive account of the pragmatics of the Old Russian birchbark letters."
-Imke Mendoza, Paris-Lodron-Universität Salzburg in Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics, 2019
PrefaceList of AbbreviationsList of TablesList of FiguresIndex of Birchbark Letters 1 The Field of Study: Berestology â1.1âIntroduction â1.2âExcavations â1.3âDating and Chronology â1.4âUsers and Uses of the Birchbark Letters â1.5âThe Language: Old Novgorodian â1.6âOther Sources: Parchment Documents â1.7âConcluding Remarks 2 The Background: Communicatively Heterogeneous Letters â2.1âIntroduction â2.2âThe Problem â2.3âCommunicative Heterogeneity â2.4âThe Oral Component â2.5âEvaluating Gippius (2004) â2.6âSubsequent Research â2.7âDiscussion 3 Research Question â3.1âIntroduction â3.2âResearch Question â3.3âThe Choice of Case Studies â3.4âConcluding Remarks 4 Theory and Methodology â4.1âIntroduction â4.2âPhilology â4.3âPragmatics â4.4âPragmaphilology â4.5âOrality â4.6âUse of the Corpus â4.7âIllustration of the Pragmaphilological Approach: One Case Study 5 Case Study I: Imperative Subjects â5.1âIntroduction â5.2âImperative Subjects â5.3âThe Imperative Subject as a Cohesive Device â5.4âThe Oral Component â5.5âConcluding Remarks 6 Case Study II: Speech Reporting â6.1âIntroduction â6.2âSpeech Reporting Strategies â6.3âSome Terminological Considerations â6.4âThe Data on Birchbark â6.5âDiachronic Considerations â6.6âSpeech Reporting Strategies on a Scale â6.7âComplexity and Context â6.8âFunctional Considerations â6.9âFree Direct Speech Revisited â6.10âMore Elements of Orality: Dictation and Performatives Type â6.11âConcluding Remarks 7 Case Study III: Epistolary Past Tense â7.1âIntroduction â7.2âBirchbark Data and Discussion â7.3âEpistolary Past Tense in Other Languages â7.4âThe Data on Birchbark Revisited â7.5âDeixis â7.6âPerformatives â7.7âAncient Greek Revisited â7.8âConcluding Remarks 8 Case Study IV: Assertive Declarations â8.1âIntroduction â8.2âTheoretical Considerations â8.3âThe Data on Birchbark â8.4âOther Languages â8.5âDiscussion â8.6âConcluding Remarks 9 Conclusions â9.1âIntroduction â9.2âGeneral Lines Connecting the Case Studies â9.3âA Transitional Period of Verschriftlichung â9.4âFinal RemarksReferencesIndex
The subject will be of interest not only to scholars of Russian, but also to linguists who work in the fields of corpus linguistics and historical pragmatics.