A Garland of Freshly Grown Flowers

Chapter 4 challenges the common view that Philip of Thessalonica was a second-rate editor in comparison to Meleager and illustrates, on the basis of select examples, the intricacy of his design. The alphabetical organization of his Garland, long thought to be purely mechanical, is shown to be a technical constraint that the author imposed upon himself so as to outdo the achievements of his predecessor: Within this external framework, Philip employed subtler modes of arrangement similar to Meleager’s editorial technique: juxtaposition of model and variation; interweaving of epigrams anchored in thematic, structural, verbal, or intertextual links; epigrammatic pairs or series on the same topic distributed across the collection; and clusters on key themes within individual letter groups.

Secretary letter-shapes in County Durham

This paper applies quantitative methods in palaeography. It develops tree-structured regression models of the palaeographical variation found in a synchronic corpus of texts written in orthographically less standardised late Middle English and establishes their accuracy. There are sixteen models, each one relating to a letter-shape known to distinguish the Gothic cursive scripts Anglicana and Secretary. The models predict the presence of the individual letter-shape from one or more of the following variables, in no particular order: (1) localisation of texts’ orthographic variation; (2) text-type; and (3) in-word position. The discussion asks why several Secretary letter-shapes cluster in documents localisable to County Durham and the area further north, given the script’s association with (a) institutions of national administration in the London-Westminster area and (b) orthographic standardisation. It concludes that the linguistics and the palaeography do not co-vary during this period in the history of the English language and suggests that it may illuminate studies of the gradient between Anglicana and Secretary to pay attention to provincial centres, not least Durham.

How to Use This Book

This chapter offers the reader advice on what to expect from and how make the most of this book. Each chapter is designed to straddle an encyclopedic presentation of the textual and material history of individual letter collections, and an interpretive argument about the way(s) that each collection presents its author.

Mapping Southern American English, 1861-1865

Since April 2015 is the sesquicentennial of the end of the Civil War, now is a particularly appropriate time to review the progress of the Corpus of American Civil War Letters (CACWL) project and to suggest directions it might go in the future. Since 2007, we have located and collected images of nearly 11,000 letters and transcribed over 9,000 of these, totaling well over four million words. Of the transcribed letters, just over 6,000 were written by southerners (490 individual letter writers), a corpus extensive enough to begin identifying and describing what features were distinctively Southern in 19th-century American English. We have already mapped many of these features that are especially common in southern letters, for example, fixing to, howdy, past tense/past participle hope ‘helped’, qualifier tolerable, intensifier mighty, pronoun hit, and the noun heap. By way of comparison, we also have a somewhat smaller but rapidly growing collection of 3,000 transcribed letters written by individuals from northern states, and variant features from these letters are also being mapped. The work at present is very preliminary; there are thousands of additional letters to be collected and transcribed, particularly from northern states and from states west of the Mississippi. However, by mapping variants from letters that have already been transcribed, we can begin to get a better understanding of regional differences, as well as how regional features spread westward in the decades before the Civil War. We can also begin to obtain some sense of how American English in general, and particularly its regional dialects, may have changed since the mid 19th century. This article presents a preview of a number of those findings.

Selection for fixation and selection for orthographic processing need not coincide

The E-Z Reader model assumes that the parafoveal selection for fixation and the subsequent selection for attention allocation encompass the same spatially distinct letter cluster. Recent data suggest, however, that an individual letter sequence is selected for fixation and that more than one letter sequence can be selected for attention allocation (processing).

Visual Perceptual Differences in the Dyslexic Reader: Evidence of Greater Visual Peripheral Sensitivity to Color and Letter Stimuli

The present study replicated the 1987 work of Geiger and Lettvin and of Grosser and Spafford in 1989 in providing evidence for greater peripheral sensitivity to individual letter and color stimuli for 10 dyslexics as compared to 10 normal readers. Earlier studies have demonstrated that dyslexics tend to favor clearer images in the peripheral retina as compared to the foveal advantage of proficient readers. For letter and color stimuli individually presented there was a statistically significant difference between dyslexics and proficient readers based on the ability of dyslexics to recognize both letter and color stimuli at greater peripheral distances from the point of fixation. This study directly supports the consideration of visual perceptual factors in the identification and discussion of dyslexia.

Perceptual and Task Factors in Fluent Braille

Hypotheses that fluent braille depends (i) on coding letters by global outline shape for all task and speed levels, or (ii) on lateral dot—gap density scanning in fast reading for meaning were tested with three groups of fluent braillists who differed in reading speeds. In experiment 1, 90°-rotated (near to far) texts under vertical and horizontal finger orientation were used. Hypothesis (i) was not supported. Finger orientation interacted significantly with Speed and Task. Vertical finger orientation, which disrupts lateral scanning, slowed reading for comprehension more than for letter search, and differentially more for faster readers. Horizontal finger orientation, which instead disrupts the familiar finger—body relation, did not have differential effects. The findings support hypothesis (ii). In experiment 2, normal texts and texts containing a degraded dot in some letters were used. These are felt in searching for individual letter patterns, but would disrupt lateral scanning of expected dot—gap density patterns in reading for meaning. The results supported the predictions from hypothesis (ii), that degraded texts slow reading for meaning significantly more than for letter search, and more in the case of faster readers than for the slowest group. Findings were not consistent with hypothesis (i), which predicts that text degradation affects tasks equally, and affects the slowest rather than the fastest readers. The results suggest that perceptual coding in reading differs with task demands and speed.