Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 107)

Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series Editor Andreas H. Jucker University of Zurich, English Department Plattenstrasse 47, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]

Associate Editors Jacob L. Mey University of Southern Denmark

Herman Parret Belgian National Science Foundation, Universities of Louvain and Antwerp

Jef Verschueren Belgian National Science Foundation, University of Antwerp

Editorial Board Shoshana Blum-Kulka

Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni

Hebrew University of Jerusalem

University of Lyon 2

Jean Caron

Claudia de Lemos

Université de Poitiers

University of Campinas, Brazil

Robyn Carston

Marina Sbisà

University College London

University of Trieste

Bruce Fraser

Emanuel Schegloff

Boston University

University of California at Los Angeles

Thorstein Fretheim

Deborah Schiffrin

University of Trondheim

Georgetown University

John Heritage

Paul O. Takahara

University of California at Los Angeles

Kansai Gaidai University

Susan Herring

Sandra Thompson

University of Texas at Arlington

University of California at Santa Barbara

Masako K. Hiraga

Teun A. Van Dijk

St.Paul’s (Rikkyo) University

Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona

David Holdcroft

Richard J. Watts

University of Leeds

University of Berne

Sachiko Ide Japan Women’s University

Volume 107 Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems Edited by Irma Taavitsainen and Andreas H. Jucker

Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems Edited by

Irma Taavitsainen University of Helsinki

Andreas H. Jucker University of Zurich

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam
/
Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Diachronic perspectives on address term systems / edited by Irma Taavitsainen and Andreas H. Jucker. p. cm. (Pragmatics & Beyond, New Series, issn 0922-842X ; v. 107) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Forms of address. 2. Historical linguistics. I. Taavitsainen, Irma. II. Jucker, Andreas H. III. Series. P40.5.F67 D5 2002 415-dc21 isbn 902725348X (Eur.) / 1588113108 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2002034275

© 2003 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

Preface .

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems: Introduction Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen

 

. The T/V pronouns in Later Middle English Literature David Burnley



. The use of tu/vus in the Anglo-Norman Seinte Resureccion Tony Hunt



. “And if Ye Wol nat So, My Lady Sweete, Thane Preye I Thee,[…].”: Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale Thomas Honegger



. From Pragmatics to Grammar: Tracing the development of “respect” in the history of the German pronouns of address Horst Simon



. The sytem of Czech bound address forms until 1700 Michael Betsch



.



Family first: Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century Minna Nevala

. Spanish forms of address in the sixteenth century Paola Bentivoglio



. The co-occurrence of nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus: Who says thou or you to whom? Ulrich Busse



. Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English: A socio-affective marking system in transition Gabriella Mazzon



vi

Table of contents

. Pronominal usage in Shakepeare: Between sociolinguistics and conversation analysis Dieter Stein



. You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues: Patterns of usage Terry Walker



. Rectifying a standard deficiency: Second-person pronominal distinction in varieties of English Raymond Hickey



. Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish Eeva-Leena Seppänen



. The German address system: Binary and scalar at once Raymond Hickey



. Index



Preface

The idea for this volume goes back to a seminar on historical pragmatics at the ESSE-5 Conference of the European Society for the Study of English held in August 2000 in Helsinki. Even though the call for papers for this seminar had been very general, inviting contributions in the vast category of historical pragmatics, it turned out that many papers dealt with the English address term system. In view of the high quality of these papers, we decided to devote a special issue of the Journal of Historical Pragmatics to the topic, but being aware of the many highly complex and interesting systems in other languages, we asked other scholars to contribute to this special issue as well. In the end the response to our call for papers was overwhelming and represented more than a double issue of a journal, and thus we decided that an independent volume would be more appropriate. We thank all the contributors for their cooperation and patience and for their willingness to undertake revisions wherever anonymous reviewers or we felt this to be necessary. We would also like to express our gratitude to a number of anonymous reviewers who read and commented on individual papers and thereby improved the overall quality of the volume. Our thanks are due to Rosemary Bock and Carla Suhr for their careful editorial work. Very sadly, while the work on this volume was in progress, David Burnley died after a long illness and his article appears posthumously. His contribution is characteristic of his sophisticated research on Middle English, based on a firm sociohistorical grounding and expertise on a wide spectrum of issues. It is placed at the opening position in this volume, as it gives the common background to the European developments and sets the scene for several other articles in this volume.

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems Introduction Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen University of Zurich and University of Helsinki

.

Preliminaries

Terms of address are words or linguistic expressions that speakers use to appeal directly to their addressees. In English, for instance, Sir is used in addressing only, but other words used in addressing like you, Helen, daddy, darling, or Professor Brown have other functions as well as they are used to talk about other persons rather than to talk to them, and you can be used generically. Address terms can take the form of pronouns, nouns, verb forms and other affixes (Braun 1998: 2; see also Braun, Kohz and Schubert 1986: xv-xvi). Pronominal forms of address often distinguish between a familiar or intimate pronoun on the one hand and a distant or polite pronoun on the other. German, for instance, distinguishes between du and Sie; Spanish between tu and Usted; Dutch between jij and U; and Finnish uses sinä and te to refer to a single addressee. Brown and Gilman (1960: 254) introduced the convention of using the abbreviations T and V to talk about the choice between these two pronominal forms of address in many European languages. The abbreviation T refers to the second person singular pronoun (French tu or Latin tu) that in many languages is used as an informal and familiar term of address. The abbreviation V, on the other hand, refers to the more distant or polite pronoun for a single addressee, which is in many cases the second person plural pronoun (French vous, Latin vos). Scholars working on Middle English and Early Modern English sometimes employ the convention of using Y as an abbreviation for the second person plural pronoun ye or you and its different case forms, and T for the second person singular pronoun and its related case forms. These abbreviations are also used in some papers in this volume. However, in several languages, or stages of particular languages, there are more than two forms, e.g. in the German of the seventeenth, eighteenth and



Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen

nineteenth centuries and in the Spanish of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and in the Slavonic languages, and third person pronouns are also involved. Nominal forms of address include a wide range of nouns. Typical examples are names (Peter, Sally); kinship terms (mom, granny); titles (Sir, Your Excellence); military ranks (sergeant) and occupational terms (teacher). Languages differ widely as to the inventory and use that they make of such terms, and politeness strategies may change considerably in the course of time. Early Modern English had a rich system of nominal forms of address with kinship terms, and a wide range of occupational terms and titles in addition to terms of endearment and terms of derogation (see, for instance, Breuer 1983 on nominal forms of address in Shakespeare; Nevalainen 1994 on nominal forms of address in Early Modern English; and Fischer 2002 on kinship terminology in the history of English). Present-day English, on the other hand, has a much reduced system. Occupational terms are rarely used, and kinship terms are restricted to just a few like mom or dad. Terms of address may differ according to the formality of the situation, the social relationship between the speaker and the addressee, the politeness or deference that the speaker wants to extend to the addressee, to name a few of the most important underlying motivations for choosing an option. In addition, the influence of other systems, found in neighboring languages, may show in the changing paradigms. Language contact is an important factor in the formulation of address term systems. The choices of address terms reflect subtle nuances, and although speakers choose among the options with apparent ease, the analyst faces a difficult task to uncover the relevant criteria that govern the choice of one form over the other. The criteria differ from one language to the next, sometimes even within one language. They are culture dependent and change in the course of time as old criteria become obsolete and come to be replaced by new criteria, and other criteria may be added to create a new system. At any one time, variation is in evidence as several systems may overlap, some items or uses giving way and some others gaining in importance. All this may create a seemingly confusing picture. Yet the dynamics of change may be caught in synchronic descriptions like still pictures, and when several are taken at various times, the dynamics within the systems start to emerge. The papers in this volume are devoted to systems of relevant criteria that govern the choices of specific terms of address in individual languages, synchronically at a given time focusing on a specific period in the history of a particular language or diachronically, tracing the development over a longer period of time. All the papers in this volume consider these pragmatic and sociolinguistic choices from a historical perspective. How do speakers decide in real situations? Which aspects of the situation play a role in the decision? Does a speaker always use the same term for any given interlocutor, or can they take on-the-spot decisions? The focus of the papers is on the pronominal address term systems, and in particular on the choice between the opposition between – in broad terms – a more

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems

familiar or intimate pronoun and a more distant or polite pronoun. But several contributors also note co-occurrence patterns of pronouns of address and nominal forms of address, e.g. Burnley and Busse both focus on this aspect. In some cases the distinction between pronominal and nominal forms of address is not clear-cut, as for instance in Polish, where the noun pan grammaticalized into a pronoun of address, or in Spanish, where vuestra merced ‘Your honor’ grammaticalized into usted. The notion of “address” is also connected with the self-image of the addresser, and Nevala includes both address and subscription formulae in her assessment of English family correspondence. Subscription formulae are not terms of address but self-presentations that explicate the position of the author in relation to the recipient, illuminating the other side of the coin. The contributions cover a wide and interesting range of languages but, for practical reasons, the selection is restricted to European languages. On the one hand, European languages with different origins show parallel systems. On the other hand, the recent phases in various, even closely related languages, may be very divergent, as the examples below will show. Our selection of European languages is by no means complete or unbiased, as several are missing and some others overrepresented; some receive a historically focused analysis of one specific period, ignoring earlier or later developments. Nevertheless, the articles in this volume build a whole and display the spectrum of current approaches showing a multivaried picture of the evolutionary lines of address terms. But the aim of this volume is not just descriptive. The more important aim is methodological, and we hope that this volume is at least representative, if not entirely comprehensive, in presenting current approaches to the study of address terms. In the following sections of the introduction we shall first outline the developments in some European languages to show how divergent the trends and language policies can be. We shall then raise some issues in the diachronic research of address terms. Different types of data and problems connected with various genres are dealt with. A range of theoretical approaches adopted in the past to studies on the use of address terms will also be summarized. By this we hope to locate the papers in this volume within the current research paradigm and to assess their innovative potential. In the second part of this introduction we are going to give a brief overview of the papers in this volume.

2. The European context As pointed out above, many European languages have more than one pronominal form that can be used to refer to a single addressee. One pronominal form is generally used for more intimate and less formal situations, while another is used for more formal, more distant and more polite situations. Table 1 gives a simplified





Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen

summary of some European languages. Following Brown and Gilman, the informal pronoun is labeled T and the formal or polite pronoun V. These are convenient labels, but they should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the simple power and solidarity semantics proposed by Brown and Gilman (1964, 1989). In addition the etymological origin of the V pronoun is indicated in a simplified form.

Table 1. T and V pronominal forms in some European languages Language

T

V

Origin of V

Spanish Italian Dutch Polish German French Russian Finnish Turkish Swedish

tu tu jij ty du tu ty sinä Sen du

Usted Lei U pan/pani Sie vous vy te Siz ni

respectful title respectful title respectful title respectful title 3rd pers pl 2nd pers pl 2nd pers pl 2nd pers pl 2nd pers pl 2nd pers pl

According to this scheme, the European languages fall more or less neatly into two groups. One group enlisted respectful titles, which were in the course of time grammaticalized into pronominal forms of respect. The other group recruited either the second or the third person plural pronoun to do service as the pronoun of distance and formality (see Mühlhäusler and Harré 1990: chapter 6). The use of a respectful title in formal situations and to high-status addressees and the subsequent grammaticalization of such forms seems intuitively plausible. The Spanish Usted, written as Vd, derives from Vuestra Merced ‘Your Honor’, the Italian Lei from la vostra Signoria (Mühlhäusler and Harré 1990: 136–7). The Dutch formal term of address U has its origin in the grammaticalized respectful title Uwe Edelheit or U edele ‘Your Nobility’, which was written as Ue in seventeenth to nineteenth century Dutch (Bax personal communication), and the Polish forms pan and pani can be translated as ‘you’ but also as ‘gentleman’ and ‘lady’ respectively. It is less obvious how plural pronouns came to be used for single addressees. It is generally maintained that the use of the plural pronoun for a single addressee originated in Latin and French, from where it spread to other European languages, e.g. Middle English and later to Russian. One possible explanation is that

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems

the plural is a metaphor in which size is taken to imply power and thus the use of a plural pronoun for a single addressee would ascribe power to this individual (see for instance Listen 1999). The royal we, as for instance in Queen Victoria’s famous “We are not amused”, would support this explanation. Another rather quaint anecdote, first proposed by Brown and Gilman (1960), has it that the plural pronoun originated as an address form to one of the two Roman Emperors at a time when one resided in Constantinople and the other in Rome. Addressing one always implied addressing both, and therefore the plural pronoun was the appropriate choice. Other explanations have also been offered. Brown and Levinson (1987: 198–199) argue that the plural provides “a conventional ‘out’ for the hearer”. The hearer is not singled out, even if the form is conventionalized to such an extent that the option of not feeling addressed does not really exist (cf. the politically correct plural third person usage of they in Present-day English in place of he or she). Thus the plural pronoun has a similar function to conventional indirectness, e.g. in applying the third person pronoun or titles. It fulfills the practical needs of clarity while it pays token tribute to the hearer’s freedom not to be singled out individually (see below, section 3.3). Brown and Levinson support this argument by reference to a large number of languages which use a plural pronoun to indicate deference or distance, including not only French, German, Spanish, Italian and the Slavonic languages, but also languages such as Hindi, Quechua, Tamil and many African languages (Brown and Levinson 1987: 198). Brown and Levinson also offer an alternative explanation for the use of the plural pronoun for single addressees, in particular for kinship-based societies in which a person’s social status is fundamentally based on his or her membership in this society. In this interpretation, the pronoun refers not only to the individual addressed, but by association to the group as a whole. The present collection is clearly biased towards English, and its features and developments are assessed in several contributions in this volume. In the English language the choice between forms of address existed for more than four hundred years. Walker’s data confirms 1700 as the date when thou had virtually disappeared from the English language. The late medieval period and Early Modern English provide plenty of fruitful material to study, as the system of address pronouns was in a state of flux and allowed a range of situational speaker meanings. The complexities of the pragmatic factors that have to be invoked in order to account for speakers’ choices range from expressive needs to marking discourse with pronoun shifts (Brown and Gilman 1960, 1989; Wales 1983; Calvo 1992, Hope 1993, 1994; Jucker 2000a; Mazzon 2000, Pantaleo 2000). The modern system with only one pronoun for both singular and plural has led to a situation in which the system is being repaired in different dialects and varieties of English.





Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen

The non-standard present-day vernaculars of English make the difference between singular and plural again, and this repair system is in focus in one contribution (Hickey’s first paper). As Scandinavian languages are not represented in this volume, a brief outline of the development of the Swedish address term system is given here (see Widmark 2000). In Swedish, the second person singular du is the default form for addressing anybody, with the exception of the Royal family, who should be addressed in the third person, e.g. Kungen ‘king’, Kronprinsessan ‘crown princess/Princess Royal’ (Svenska skrivregler §94, 2000). Before this phase of universal du was reached some decades ago, there was a varied history, with complications posed by e.g. two second person plural pronoun forms in addressing single persons (I and ni). As elsewhere in Western Europe, the polite address with the plural came to be used in the Swedish court in the Middle Ages and spread among upper classes of society. According to evidence in drama, the pronominal use in the eighteenth century could allow for expressive shifts between I, ni, and du (cf. English of the earlier periods). The history of the V form of pronoun address is complicated in Swedish (see Ahlgren 1978). Ni had its origins in the vernaculars (e.g. haven I > ni), and came to convey connotations shown, for instance, in a retort to a form of address with ni “Do you think I have lice?”, i.e. ‘I am one person, not many’. A way out was to collocate the third person with nominal address; this form developed into a standard of third person address, though the distinction between addressing and referring was then blurred (cf. Seppänen), e.g. Önskar han komma? ‘Does he wish to come?’ was a perfectly normal and polite way of posing a question. This way of addressing is still recognized, but the politeness value has changed. In the nineteenth century, titles and nominal address gained ground and became the standard; upgrading of titles was common, and females were addressed with titles modeled on their husband’s status or occupation. Those who did not have titles were addressed with plain herr, fru, or fröken; in time herr became downgrading, impolite, or humorous, e.g. herr Nilsson is an ape’s name in a popular children’s book. Ni became officially “redeemed” by the Swedish Academy as a neutral term of address in 1906, but even after that, nominal forms and third person address with e.g. faster/moster ‘aunt’, were the norm in private life, and all kinds of expressions to avoid direct addressing were common. In 1968 an Academy member still thought that ni and du would be the regular forms of address in the future, but this changed very quickly in the 1970s: du became the universal pronoun of address by a spontaneous process without major problems. The reasons can perhaps be found in the ideology of an egalitarian society. The development has been very similar in Finland and in Finnish, though the use of the polite address with second person plural has never totally disappeared, and even in Sweden the use of ni has been reintroduced by some.

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems

3. Research context The contributions to this volume cover not only a range of different European languages but they also reflect a range of different approaches to address terms. In this section we sketch some of the key issues of address term research to give an adequate background and to situate the individual contributions in various research paradigms.

. Historical pragmatics Many papers in this volume rely on recent advances and new insights both into diachronic and synchronic linguistics, and the cross-fertilization of different methods is evident. On the one hand, diachronic approaches have learnt to ask pragmatic questions. They have come a long way from treating languages as abstract systems, and increasingly view them as means of communication by people who wish to interact with other people, who have communicative goals and try to reach them by using language strategically. On the other hand, synchronic linguistics, and in particular pragmatics, has learnt to appreciate a wider range of data by accepting material that earlier was shunned, and the data is no longer restricted to recordings of spontaneous conversations, if possible surreptitious recordings. The new field that has emerged as a result of these advances in the two fields is called historical pragmatics. Thus pragmaticists have extended the scope of acceptable data and historical linguists have extended the scope of their research questions to include pragmatic investigations. The cooperation of the two has led to the emergence of the new field of historical pragmatics (see Jucker 1995; but also Jucker, Fritz and Lebsanft 1999; and Fritz and Jucker 2000).

. Data Until recently any type of data other than spontaneous spoken interaction was rejected as unsuitable for pragmatic analyses. But opinions have changed in this respect. One of the common denominators of articles in the present volume is reliance on authentic linguistic material. Empirical research on address terms requires records of interactions between different people. For historical periods such records can only be found in written data, which immediately poses the question of how faithfully written historical records reproduce the reality of spoken interaction (Jacobs and Jucker 1995: 6-10; Koch 1999; Culpeper and Kytö 2000; Jucker 2000b). There are several types of data that provide reasonably good approximations to spoken language. It has also been realized that writing in itself constitutes a form of communication that is worthy of pragmatic analysis. The medium of transmission





Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen

has to be taken into account in the analysis, as we have to be aware of scribal practices and modes of transmission. Medieval manuscripts are often unreliable as guides to actual pronominal address forms as pronouns are among those features that show scribal variation due to copying processes. This poses a potential pitfall if we do not pay particular attention to what, or whose, usage we are studying. Several authors point out this problem and solve it in different ways. Simon, for instance, looks at three different manuscript versions of the Nibelungenlied, Burnley acknowledges the problems with Middle English manuscripts, and Hunt explicitly relies on a manuscript version of the Anglo-Norman play Seinte Resureccion which is deemed to be closer to the author’s original version than the only alternative surviving manuscript. Modern philology has been able to cast new light on scribal practices, and the present approaches take these advances into consideration (cf. below). Early modern texts pose related problems as e.g. the different editions of Shakespeare’s plays have inspired a great deal of research. Mazzon believes that for her investigations the differences between the quarto edition and the folio edition of Shakespeare’s plays are not crucial (fn 1). Walker also notes erroneous transcriptions of Y forms as T forms in her data of trial records (fn 5). The contributions of this volume derive their data mostly from plays, fictional writing, letters and court records. Hunt uses the very early Anglo-Norman play Seinte Resureccion, while Busse, Stein and Mazzon use plays by William Shakespeare. Salmon (1965, 1967) argued a long time ago that at least certain portions of the dialogues in Shakespeare’s dramas are “reasonable imitations of Elizabethan speech” (Salmon 1965: 106). Stein also argues that Shakespeare’s use of pronominal address terms does not deviate from the sociolinguistic conventions of his time, except for the non-reciprocal use of address terms between spouses which was popularized by the Puritans. The problem with such claims is that we have no hard and fast evidence except the intuition of the analyst. We may “feel intuitively” that Shakespeare’s language must be very close to Elizabethan colloquial speech, or we may be convinced that the representation of colloquial speech will be most accurate in the hands of the most skilful dramatists, but as pragmaticists we should be cautious with such claims. Brown and Gilman (1989: 170) justify their use of Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth and Othello for a study of politeness in Early Modern English on the grounds that “there is nothing else”. They reject letters as unsuitable because they do not give us access to “the colloquial spoken language”. They justify their decision to use Shakespearean plays by referring to Salmon, who claimed that “the more skilful the dramatist, the more skilful he will be, if presenting the normal life of his time, in authenticating the action by an acceptable version of contemporary speech” (1965: 105). If drama is a useful source for historical pragmatic research, it is not because it is a fairly good representation of the speech itself, but because it depicts interactions

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems

between different speakers of different social classes and different role relationships towards each other, and because it is interesting to see how skilful dramatists choose to depict such interactions. That is to say dramatic texts can be analyzed as dramatic texts and not as more or less adequate approximations to the spoken language of the day. Fictional writing often contains instances of reported speech. Honegger, for instance, analyzes Chaucer’s The Knight’s Tale, in which direct reported speech is an integral feature. The choice of terms of address depends – among other things – on the social class of speaker and addressee. However, in the case of fictional data, we have to distinguish between the author and the depicted characters. The patterns of use of the address terms may depend partly on the conventions of the situation that is depicted, and it may depend on the conventions of the fictional genre in which the depiction appears. Genre is an important factor, and e.g. in romances there are distinct conventions already at the time of Chaucer (see Taavitsainen 1998). Correspondence by letters represents a form of direct interaction between a writer and an addressee. The turns are extended over time and distanced, and unfortunately usually only one side of the correspondence has survived. On the one hand, the opening and closing sections of letters are mostly formulaic and follow the set conventions of ars dictaminis. Several guidebooks of letter writing were available e.g. in the Early Modern period. On the other hand, family letters have proved a fruitful source for studying interaction, and e.g. a growth in politeness can be detected (see section 3.3). The body of letters is subtler and allows more freedom to the writer to show even transient emotions by shifts of pronoun use, as Bentivoglio demonstrates (see also the papers by Betsch, Nevala, and Bentivoglio; as well as Friedrich 1986). Court records reproduce the actual words that were used in a courtroom and often they report interactions that were the object of the proceedings. Power relations play an important role in trial records, and the use of T or V pronouns may be triggered by the genre and formulaic uses in accordance with its conventions (see Walker; Hope 1993, 1994; Kryk-Kastovsky 2000; Koch 1999; Ramge 1999; Collins 2001). Walker points out that in trial proceedings there are formulaic utterances in the opening and the closing stages of a trial. Descriptions of linguistic data may also benefit from recent advances in corpus compilation. Walker draws her data from the computerized Corpus of English Dialogues 1570-1760, which is being compiled at the universities of Lancaster and Uppsala (Culpeper and Kytö 1999a, 1999b, 2000). This corpus consists of dialogues drawn from trials and witness depositions (authentic dialogues); and from comedy drama and handbooks (constructed dialogue). Thus it goes partially beyond the four types of data listed above. Hickey, in his first paper in this volume,





Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen

uses a multigenre Irish corpus in his study, and relies on other corpora on varieties and international Englishes. Seppänen starts from analyses gathered by dialectologists some one hundred years ago, and adds more recent data consisting of audio and even video recordings to provide material for comparison and to yield insights into interpretation problems. Hickey in his second paper uses his knowledge of linguistics and day-to-day observations to describe the details of the address system in Present-day German. It is clear that none of these data gives us direct access to language as it was used in interaction in the earlier periods of language history. It would in any case be a mistake to expect a coherent set of sociolinguistic usage rules or pragmatic principles for any given speech community at any given time. Sociolinguistic research over the last four decades has taught us that usage is always susceptible to synchronic and diachronic variation. For any given speech community there are differences for different situations of everyday life, and generalizations across a society may be useful but at the same time they provide only approximations: the more general the statements about usage rules, the less precise they become. We should therefore content ourselves with investigations that describe and give part of the picture with a fairly high degree of precision. For instance, we learn how Chaucer chose to depict the usage of pronouns of address in a romance in the Canterbury Tales, or what pronouns were used by sixteenth-century Spanish emigrants to the New World who wrote back to their relatives in Spain. Even if these findings cannot be generalized easily beyond the data for which they were established, they give us insights into motivations and pragmatic strategies in communication. This is exactly what the contributions in this volume set out to do.

. Politeness Address term usage has often been described in terms of politeness. The available options of address terms are assessed in terms of how polite they are in any given situation. The connection between a situation and the choice of a particular form of address can be approached either from the perspective of the situational requirements or, alternatively, that a given form signals a certain level of politeness and therefore establishes the politeness or formality of the situation. Brown and Gilman (1960) in their first seminal paper describe pronoun usage in terms of power and solidarity. In this approach the situation as defined by the power relationship between the speaker and the addressee and the solidarity between them defines the type of pronoun that the speaker will use. Brown and Levinson (1987) in their theory of politeness also deal with address terms. As noted above, they envisage the use of a plural pronoun for a single addressee as a means of giving the addressee options, in particular the option

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems

of not feeling directly addressed or not feeling “singled out”. To give the addressee such an option is an instance of negative politeness because it pays token respect to the addressee’s negative face. By leaving an option, it acknowledges the addressee’s desire to be free from impositions, or at least pretends to leave him or her an option. In actual fact, of course, the plural form of address is highly conventionalized and there can be no doubt as to who is addressed. This is similar to other forms of indirect language use. Under normal circumstances, the utterance, Can you pass the salt? cannot be understood as a question. It is an indirect speech act that questions a felicity condition, i.e. the addressee’s ability to perform the requested action, but it is conventionalized to such an extent that it can only be understood as the request itself (see Brown and Levinson 1987: 133). Nominal terms of address, on the other hand, often constitute forms of positive politeness. Terms such as dear, love, darling, cutie and so on are directed at the addressee’s positive face, that is to say the desire to be liked and approved by others. However, one of the weaknesses of Brown and Levinson’s approach is the fact that it can only distinguish between polite and impolite behavior. A speaker is either impolite because she does not smooth out her face-threatening acts, or she is polite and as such potentially insincere (see Bayyurt and Bayraktaroglu 2001: 212). This does not leave any room for an unmarked middle ground, for utterances that are conventionally appropriate to the current speech situation, that do not adopt any politeness strategies in order to alleviate a potential or real facethreat and that are not rude or impolite either. Watts (1989: 135, 1992: 50) uses the term “politic behavior” for forms of behavior within this unmarked middle ground and defines it as “socio-culturally determined behavior directed towards the goal of establishing and/or maintaining in a state of equilibrium the personal relationships between the individuals of a social group, whether open or closed, during the ongoing process of interaction.” He starts from the observation that in eighteenth century England polite manners and good breeding were considered to enhance social standing and signal class membership. Politeness effectively separated members of the elitist social class as ingroupers from out-groupers, who did not know the rules of polite manners. Thus politeness was a mask and often a means of hiding not such good intentions. He contrasts this with the concern of a social being to keep personal relationships conflict-free and in a state of equilibrium, i.e. politic behavior. In his analysis of nominal forms of address in the introductory stages of a phone-in program he shows how in Present-day British English even very small deviations from the expected norm can have an effect in the interaction between the callers, the moderator and an expert. Bayyurt and Bayraktaroglu (2001) adopt a similar point of view in their analysis of address term usage in Turkish service encounters in a variety of settings. They, too, distinguish between polite and politic behavior in the sense of Watts.





Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen

Brown and Gilman (1989; see also Mazzon) argue that in Shakespearean English the choice between T and V was often an obligatory aspect of speech and was an automatic reflection of status rules. Therefore, the choice between T and V is “not very important in scoring speech for politeness”. This means that in normal circumstances the choice was, in the terms of Watts, a matter of politic behavior, which allowed for deviations to signal politeness or impoliteness. It has often been claimed that the development of the English language from Early Modern English to Present-day English is marked by an increase of positive politeness (Kopytko 1993, 1995; Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 1995). In this volume Nevala demonstrates the increase in positive politeness on the basis of address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence from the late Middle English period to the end of the Early Modern English period.

. Norm, deviation and markedness The use of address terms has often been described in terms of norms or rules that speakers follow. But the situation is often so complex that the norms and rules postulated by the analyst do not cover all extant examples. Approaches differ as to how they deal with examples that do not follow the postulated norms and rules. They may marginalize them as irrelevant and unaccountable deviations or even mistakes, or they may treat them as marked usages that convey special meanings. To take an example from the history of English, Skeat (1894: V, 175) has described the difference between ye and thou as follows: “Thou is the language of the lord to a servant, of an equal to an equal, and expresses also companionship, love, permission, defiance, scorn, threatening; whilst ye is the language of a servant to a lord, and of compliment, and further expresses honour, submission, or entreaty.” Nathan (1959) takes this description as the starting point for his paper. He summarizes the above quotation as follows: “Thou would be informal, while ye would be formal” (Nathan 1959: 193), and then determines for the 2281 uses of the pronouns of address in the singular in the Canterbury Tales whether they are used “correctly” or “incorrectly” according to this distinction. He finds that ninetyeight percent of all uses are “correct” and spends the rest of the paper analyzing the two percent which are not “correct”. He considers, for instance, the evidence of scribal variation in the different manuscripts. In most cases he finds little variation in the use of these pronouns, and in those where there is variation he finds Robinson’s reading, which he used as the basis for his investigation, corroborated. He also considers the possibility of an influence of a French source, but he can show that Chaucer treated pronouns of address with a free hand and did not stick to the choices indicated in source texts (Nathan 1959: 198). From a modern point of view and from a pragmatic point of view Nathan’s approach is dated, and his focus

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems

exclusively on the “incorrect” uses of the singular pronouns leaves a great deal out. Some of his “correct” uses may have been only accidentally so, and it is possible and even likely that scribes changed Chaucer’s usage according to their own, more recent system. In addition it seems rather surprising that it was possible to distinguish so precisely between what Nathan calls “correct” and “incorrect” uses as any definition of the system leaves considerable room for interpretation. Details of the “correct” uses would be of interest as well. Several authors deal with the problem of random variation or “inexplicable fluctuation between T and V” (Brown and Gilman 1960: 255), i.e. systems of pronoun usage in which not all choices of a T form or a V form can be accounted for. Some authors maintain that in the systems that they investigate there is some variation which is purely accidental and does not justify explanation. Brown and Gilman (1960: 255) claim that this is the case for Old French, Spanish, Portuguese and Middle English (see also Burnley). According to this view we just have to resign to the fact that not all the individual instances of pronoun usage can be explained in any systematic way, either as following the norm or deviating in any accountable way from it. In extreme cases, the amount of random variation may even obscure any “normal” usage. Other scholars argue that the right approach will explain virtually all choices at least in a given set of data, e.g. Hunt in his analysis of the late twelfth-century Anglo-Norman play Seinte Resureccion takes this stance. Another approach to address term systems maintains that even if we cannot explain every single occurrence of one pronoun or another, we can account for the percentages of variants that stand in opposition to each other (cf. Busse). This is the sociolinguistic (Labovian) approach. Walker also established percentages of T versus V usages in the different genres covered by her data. She tries to account for ratios that deviate from the expected line of development rather than for deviations of individual choices. Another point in her study pays attention to potential gender differences. According to sociolinguistic research on modern languages, women are often leading in linguistic change, and she contends that a similar situation obtains for earlier periods. In particular she hypothesizes that women were leading in the use of V over T. Stein also sets out to establish the social norm in a statistical way, and accounts for deviations from the norm. According to his study, either T forms or V forms can be deviations. Depending on the context, the connotations for using T instead of an expected V are scorn, disapproval, complicity, affection or intimacy, and in the opposite case the connotations for using V instead of T could also be scorn and disapproval, or formality, elevation and glorification. The common denominator for all marked forms, according to Stein (p. 44) is “some sort of emotional value (positive or negative)”. The norm in any address term system can also be viewed as





Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen

the unmarked usage pattern from which deviations have to be accounted for as marked usages that convey some special meaning. Stein (p. 252) argues that “there could be no meaningful variation if there was not constancy enough to establish what is normal.” He refers to Quirk (1966), who first presented this way of looking at pronoun variation: if you is taken as a default, the wide variety of functions given to thou can be interpreted in a number of ways and attributed expressive meanings.

. Retractability and symmetry Different languages show different degrees of stability in the use of address pronouns. It has often been noted that in some systems pronoun usage between any given dyad of interlocutors is relatively stable, while other systems are more flexible. Mazzon (2000: 135) defines retractability of pronoun use as “the possibility to switch from Y to T and back with the same interlocutor, even within the same exchange.” In Modern Standard German (see Simon and Hickey’s second paper), for instance, permanent switches in pronoun usage – from mutual V to mutual T – are possible. They occur at very specific moments in the lives of those involved and are often accompanied by a ritual. Momentary switches in such systems are rare. They may occur if a speaker uses V for somebody for whom she usually uses T because of a very formal situation such as a formal business meeting or an interview in a public situation (radio or television). In these systems, pronoun usage is largely non-retractable for any given dyad of interlocutors. The distinction between address term systems that are retractable and systems that are non-retractable is, of course, not clear-cut. What to one analyst may appear as a system that is basically non-retractable with some inexplicable deviations will appear as a retractable system to another analyst. Non-retractable systems can be explained macro-pragmatically, that is to say by reference to more or less permanent features of the interlocutors, such as age, role-relationship, social status and so on. Norms for a particular address-term system will generally be postulated on such a macro-pragmatic basis. Retractable systems, on the other hand, must always be analyzed micro-pragmatically, because in such systems the minutiae of the interaction, which can change on a turn-byturn basis, must be taken into account. Attention to the close context is important in order to detect the underlying principles of pronoun shifts. In American Spanish speakers may switch between the T form and the V form with a given addressee, e.g. in formal situations. Parents may switch from T to V with their children when they order them to do something or when they reprimand them. In European Spanish, on the other hand, pronoun usage is no longer retractable. A momentary switch from the expected V to a T is clearly marked and can be understood as an insult (Berschin et al. 1987: 200).

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems

Middle English and Early Modern English had retractable address pronoun systems. Temporary switches from T to V and back were possible. Two interlocutors could switch their pronoun usage depending on the current situation, on discourse status and on emotion. Brown and Gilman (1960: 273–276) talk of the power of address terms to express transient attitudes. In Early Modern English speakers could switch from thou to you or from you to thou to express their emotions. Such emotive shifts were particularly common in plays at points of high dramatic tension. Hope (1993, 1994) also argues for an approach that accounts for the choice of you or thou in his data of Early Modern English court records micro-pragmatically. Hunt presents a system in Old French that has been described as random mixing. But he argues that there is nothing sporadic about the choice of pronouns of address. The changes are properly motivated. They correspond to dramatic and psychological requirements. Honegger argues for the retractability of pronoun usage in his Middle English data. Stein (p. 251-2) maintains that the two forms of singular pronominal address in Elizabethan English are “subtle linguistic indicators of social relations and the management of emotional states at a time.” Mazzon (p. 225) also notes that one of the major points of interest in the research of address terms is to account for pronoun switches with the same interlocutor. She argues that this is most frequent in literary data “because it contributes to portraying interaction between characters”. She quotes Salmon (1967: 59), who says that switches generally signal: “moments of strong emotion, pleasant or otherwise”. In a symmetrical system two speakers address each other with the same pronoun of address, either mutual T or mutual V. In a non-reciprocal system, on the other hand, they use different pronouns, either on the basis of their respective social statuses or on the basis of their relative age. Holmes (1995: 144–147) draws attention to the asymmetrical usage of nominal forms of address between men and women in Australian and New Zealand Englishes. Terms of endearment, such as dear, are commonly used in shops to address women but not to address men. The extreme development of a symmetrical system can be seen in presentday Swedish (see section 2). Very often both systems exist side by side in the same speech community, or there may be swings depending on e.g. ideological/ pedagogical trends in bringing up children, whether they are taught to address older people with first name and T pronoun (as in Sweden and Finland now) or V form and e.g. nominal address terms (as in Sweden and Finland some decades ago). Some dyads of speakers, for instance the members of the same social class, may rely on a symmetrical system, while dyads of speakers that belong to different social classes may use a non-symmetrical system (Brown and Gilman 1960: 256).





Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen

. Case studies The papers in this volume are ordered more or less chronologically. The earlier papers are devoted to address term systems that are furthest removed in time, while the later papers come closer and closer to the present time. The last paper, by Raymond Hickey, studies a present-day address term system in German. The volume opens with a paper by David Burnley on the address term system in Later Middle English literature, relating it to the common European background. He sets the scene for all the other papers in this volume by stressing the complexity and variability of the address term system under analysis. In fact the variability of address term usage makes it impossible to present a single coherent system: there is always diachronic, regional, stylistic and personal variation and the sources at our disposal are limited and often unreliable. He cites many cases in which different manuscript versions of the same text use different address terms, either because of conscious adaptations to other audiences or because of careless copying. He summarizes the choices in Chaucer’s fictional writing in the form of a flow-chart: the plural pronoun ye as an address form for a singular addressee is reserved for courtly genres, whereas speakers used the singular pronoun to address a singular addressee in other types of writing, including learned, religious, and unsophisticated discourse. In the courtly genre the plural address form was further restricted to non-intimate addressees of higher age and/or higher status. However, switches between ye and thou are common and can be explained on the basis of affection, rhetoric and genre. He also points out that the pronominal forms of address tend to collocate with specific lexical items. The nominal forms of address leve brother or dame, for instance, and expressions, such as vouchen sauf or youre curteisie are always accompanied by the V form in Chaucer’s work. Burnley also cites interesting sources that bear witness to the awareness of Chaucer’s contemporaries of the social significance of the choice between T and V forms. The choice was controversial in medieval society, and e.g. French and Italian humanists in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries promoted the use of the T pronoun for singular addressees because of the models of earlier writers and because it was felt to be more grammatical. Tony Hunt offers a detailed account of the usage of T and V pronouns in the Anglo-Norman play Seinte Resureccion dating from the second half of the twelfth century. He points out variation between Old and Middle French manuscripts, and concludes that there is nothing arbitrary in the choice of the pronouns. In contrast to earlier claims, close scrutiny reveals that the frequent shifts from T to V and back corresponds to the dramatic and psychological requirements of characterization. Thomas Honegger deals with forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale. This tale has long been seen as problematic for such an analysis because of the seemingly

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems

arbitrary switches between T and V forms. Honegger argues for an approach that takes the situational status of the interactants into account. The characters may gain or lose status in an interaction with other characters, and address terms may vary on a local level. In addition, he analyzes the pronominal forms of address as part of the more comprehensive concept of “adversion”, which comprises all linguistic and non-linguistic elements of two interactants reacting to each other. This includes gaze, greetings, gestures, and posture in addition to address terms in the strict sense. Thus in The Knight’s Tale, the Theban women who intercept Theseus on his triumphant return from his wars make manifest their low position (their husbands were killed in action) by presenting themselves in prostrate position. They further reinforce the situation by starting their address with the polite plural form ye to address Theseus and the respectful nominal form lord. “It is only within this firmly established framework of ‘respect’ that the speaker varies the pronoun, and addresses Theseus with the thou of solidarity” (p. 67-8). Honegger identifies five patterns of how the different elements of adversion combine to define the relationships between the characters in this tale. Horst Simon sets out to trace the development of the German pronouns of address from Middle High German to Modern Standard German. He argues that the systems differ significantly. In Middle High German speakers had the option of using du or ir for a single addressee. Simon sets out from a close analysis of the use of these pronouns in three different manuscript versions of the heroic epic poem, the Nibelungenlied. It turns out that the scribes had considerable freedom in choosing one form or the other. According to Simon the situation in Middle High German involved the secondary use of a pronoun which was specified as second person plural. The diachronic development of the German polite pronouns of address manifests a high degree of complexity, and Simon argues that German has a grammatical category of “respect”. He distinguishes several stages that involve, at one time or another, all the pronouns in the pronominal paradigm except for the first person pronouns and shows that polite Sie behaves syntactically in many respects like first and second person pronouns rather than like third person pronouns. In Modern Standard German the highly complex system partially collapsed. The polite pronoun Sie occupies an additional – and grammaticalized – slot in the pronoun system. He also adduces data from a distinct dialect of German, i.e. Bavarian, which shows considerable morphological differences between the third person plural pronoun and the pronoun of respect. Michael Betsch traces the development of the address term system in Czech from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century on evidence that is mainly drawn from private and official correspondence. Earlier there had only been one pronominal form of address, the second person singular ty. In the fourteenth and fifteenth century, new forms were introduced, in particular the nominal form Tvá





Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen

Milost ‘Thy Grace’. This form emphasized the subordination of the speaker and was used almost exclusively to address the king or the queen. In the fifteenth century, Tvá Milost ‘Thy Grace’ came to be used for other members of the high nobility, and in addition the plural address forms vy ‘you’ and Vasˇe Milost ‘Your Grace’ came to be used. In the sixteenth century, the noun pán ‘lord’ was added to the choice of address forms and through pronominalization of Vasˇe Milost the form Vasˇnost was created. From the many examples adduced by Betsch a fascinating picture of an increasingly complex address term system emerges. Betsch also draws some parallels to the development in other Slavonic languages and in German. It is interesting to note that in Modern Czech the options have been reduced to the choice between the plural and the singular pronouns, vy and ty, as in Modern German, French and the other Slavonic languages except for Polish. Minna Nevala investigates the use of address and subscription formulae in English, i.e. the salutational forms used at the beginning and the self-presentations at the end of a letter respectively. The address formulae are oriented towards the recipient, while the subscription formulae focus more on the writer of the letter and reveal his or her relationship with the recipient. She compares family letters written in the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, both by families belonging to the gentry and by royals. Her material is drawn from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Her argument is based on a wealth of illustrative examples drawn from her data, which she places on a politeness scale ranging from positive politeness to negative politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987). It turns out that address and subscription formulae tend to become shorter, less formulaic and more based on positive politeness over the three centuries. Paola Bentivoglio analyzes pronoun usage in a corpus of six hundred letters that were written in the sixteenth century by Andalusian immigrants in the New World. These letters are addressed to relatives in Spain and they generally try to persuade the addressees to also emigrate from Spain and undertake the journey to the New World. The analysis is based on Brown and Gilman’s model. Writers had four forms at their disposal, i.e. the most formal vuestra merced and the increasingly less formal él/ella, vos and finally tú. The system of Spanish pronouns of address changed in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. In peninsular Spanish vos gave way to tú and vuestra merced (which later became usted). The majority of letters in Bentivoglio’s corpus use either consistently the old form vos or the new form vuestra merced, but a minority of letters use a combination of forms; vos, tú, él/ella and vuestra merced. These letters are particularly interesting for a pragmatic analysis, and Bentivoglio shows in detail how pronoun switches are used strategically. She also points out that shifts from one form to another do not have a constant meaning but have to be assessed in each individual case. Ulrich Busse analyzes the co-occurrence of nominal and pronominal forms of address in the plays by Shakespeare. He classifies the nominal address forms into

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems

six different types; titles of courtesy, such as Your Grace, my liege or mistress; terms of address indicating occupation such as doctor, justice or nurse; terms of family relationship, such as brother, coz or wife; generic terms of address, such as boy, friend or gentlewoman; terms of endearment, such as bully, chuck, joy, or wag; and finally terms of abuse, such as knave, rascal, varlet or villain. In the analysis he presents the co-occurrence patterns of individual terms from each category with either T or Y pronouns. In a second step he calculates for each nominal term of address whether it is more likely to collocate with a T or a Y pronoun, in order to place them along a scale of what he calls “you-fullness” or “thou-fullness”. It turns out that there are clear differences between the individual terms and also between the individual categories of terms, even though most terms collocate – at least occasionally – with either pronoun. Not surprisingly it is the titles of courtesy which collocate most regularly with Y pronouns followed closely by the terms of address indicating occupation. The terms of abuse and to an even greater degree the terms of endearment collocate most regularly with T pronouns. What is perhaps more surprising is that it is not the comedies with their inventory of lower class characters that have the lowest score of Y pronouns but rather the tragedies. Gabriella Mazzon studies address term patterns in Shakespeare’s King Lear, Othello and Hamlet and focuses in particular on the social relationships between individual characters. On the basis of statistical data she establishes usage patterns for specific types of relationships, such as husband and wife, father and daughter, or the relationship between social unequals. She looks at pronominal terms of address and how they interact with nominal address terms, and in each case she is particularly interested in pronoun switches or more generally in situations in which characters “deviate” from the expected pattern. She argues that such deviations mirror the complex and changing social attitudes of the characters towards each other as well as the changing levels of distance versus intimacy and power versus solidarity. Dieter Stein uses a markedness-based approach to establish the social, pragmatic and emotional meanings of the occurrences of you and thou in Shakespeare’s King Lear and As You Like It. In a first step he identifies the unmarked use for each socially defined type of dyad (e.g. from daughters to fathers, from fathers to daughters, between lovers, from servants to aristocrats or from aristocrats to servants). In a second step he analyses the specific conversational functions of pronoun switches through an interpretation of the dramatic context in which they occur. The common denominator for all such deviations is the emotional involvement of the speaker. The emotions may be positive or negative, and they may lead to a switch from expected you to marked thou or from expected thou to marked you. Stein concludes that the language of the two plays fits in, although in a retarded way, with the general drift towards you as the default pronoun. Around thirty percent of the uses of thou are shown to be due to its marked use as a finely-tuned





Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen

instrument of the management of personal relationships. Shakespeare is seen, in this respect as in many others, to parasitize on linguistic change situations. Terry Walker analyzes data from the computerized Corpus of English Dialogues 1560-1760 (CED) with samples of both authentic and constructed dialogue (i.e. trials and witness depositions, and comedy drama and handbooks respectively). In order to show the development of the address term system, she compares two subcorpora, one comprising data from 1560 to 1600 and the other from 1680 to 1720. During the first period thou still played a significant role in the English language, while after 1700 it only occurs in specialized contexts, e.g. in religious or archaic texts. Walker’s method combines quantitative assessment with a qualitative study of sociohistorical contextual factors. In the first part of her paper, she focuses on the changing ratios of you and thou in the four different text types, while the second half shifts to a sociolinguistic perspective and focuses on gender differences. Walker distinguishes between three main motivations for the use of thou: to express emotion such as contempt; to show the speaker’s superior status; or as a sign of solidarity among the lower ranks of society. It turns out that in the trials thou is generally used to express negative emotions or the social superiority of the speaker. It is also regularly used in formulaic expressions, such as thou hast been found guilty, which are set phrases that occur during the opening and closing stages of a trial (p. 317). In the deposition texts all three motivations for using thou are attested. In comedy dramas, too, all three types occur, but as emotional exchanges are more numerous in this text type, there are more instances of thou expressing affection and intimacy. Handbooks have a didactic purpose, and the speakers have the roles of instructor and instructed and usually reciprocal you is used. Gender also plays a role in the choice of pronoun, although perhaps not as much as expected. During the first period, both sexes used thou with about the same frequency of roughly 25 per cent of all pronouns to single addressees. In the second period, however, men show only a slight decrease (23 per cent), while women have almost stopped using thou (a mere 4 per cent). However, Walker shows that the interpretation of these figures is not straightforward. Cases of women using you to men and receiving thou in return are, perhaps contrary to expectation, very rare, but it seems that male speakers use thou more often to express contempt and as a sign of in-group membership or solidarity. The use of thou as a sign of superior social status, on the other hand, clearly declines. Raymond Hickey, in his first paper in this volume, focuses on the loss of the number distinction for second person pronouns in English. This loss was accommodated without any therapeutic change in the standard variety of Modern English in which the only pronoun of address is you, except for very special cases. In many varieties of spoken English throughout the world the loss of the number distinction led to shifts, borrowings and internal developments to rectify the deficiency

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems

and fill the gap in the pronoun paradigm. Hickey attempts to trace the changes which took place in non-standard English and, wherever possible, to establish historical links between the input varieties and those Anglophone locations overseas which distinguish formally between a second person singular and a second person plural pronoun. He starts his investigation in Early Modern English, because at this time south-eastern British English still distinguished between T forms and V forms, even though the distinction was on the decline. This was the period, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, just before the spread of English to areas of the world outside of the British Isles started. Hickey considers the situations in Ireland, the southern United States, the Caribbean, South Africa and Australia. Eeva-Leena Seppänen studies a special type of address which is obviously part of a system but is difficult to interpret. In Finnish as in Swedish (see above) it was not uncommon to refer to the addressee by using the third person in the address, e.g. the addressee’s name, a common noun, a title, or a combination of these. Seppänen focuses on cases with the demonstrative pronoun together with nominal address. This form of address has its special pragmatic conditions. In the first part of her paper, Seppänen assesses evidence on this form from early syntactic descriptions of Finnish dialects collected by nineteenth-century scholars. Third person addresses involving a demonstrative pronoun were considered non-standard with various functions and shades of meaning. In accordance with their time, the researchers were not so much interested in the pragmatics of this construction, and therefore they did not provide sufficient contextual information that would allow a retrospective analysis of the interactional details. These data beg several interesting questions that Seppänen sets out to answer on the basis of modern video-recorded data that can be analyzed using the now standard techniques of conversation analysis. In particular she investigates why the various scholars propose fundamentally different interpretations of the function of these constructions. It appears that all the examples in these early studies of Finnish dialects are quoted in interrogative sentences and in situations that could include various types of audience. The construction could also be identified as a referring expression rather than as an address term in other contexts and therefore escaped the attention of scholars. In the second part of her paper, Seppänen tackles these questions on the basis of a close analysis of conversational Finnish data that was collected in the 1950s and 1980s. In this material she detects interactional patterns and differences between the different constructions that provide plausible explanations for the older dialect research data. The last paper in this volume, the second paper by Raymond Hickey, is devoted to the present-day German address system, in which speakers have the choice between the familiar T form du and the more formal V form Sie. In the first part of his paper he gives a brief outline of typical social relationships and the pronoun





Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen

choices that these relationships induce. In German as in most other modern European languages, the system is absolute, i.e. the choice of one form or the other is fairly stable for any given dyad of speakers. Permanent or temporary switches from one form to the other are rare, but they do occur, and Hickey discusses several typical situations of switches. In the second part of his paper, he considers a range of special cases, such as co-occurrence with first and last name or salutations and partings. This paper serves as a reminder of how complex the situation even in a seemingly straightforward case such as German actually is. If present-day situations are as complex as this, older situations will probably also have been very complex, even if the available data does not reveal the entire scope of the complexity.

References Ahlgren, Perry 1978 Tilltalsordet ni: Dess semantik ovh användning i historiskt perspektiv. Acta universitatis upsaliensis. (Studia Philologiae Scandinavicae Upsaliensia 12). Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Bayyurt, Yasemin, and Arin Bayraktaroglu 2001 The use of pronouns and terms of address in Turkish service encounters. In: Arin Bayraktaroglu and Maria Sifianou (eds.). Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. The Case of Greek and Turkish. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 88). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 209-240. Berschin, Helmut, Julio Fernández-Sevilla und Josef Felixberger 1987 Die spanische Sprache. Verbreitung, Geschichte, Struktur. München: Max Hueber. Braun, Friederike 1998 Terms of address. In: Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert and Chris Bulcaen (eds.). Handbook of Pragmatics 1998. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Braun, Friederike, Armin Kohz, and Klaus Schubert 1986 Anredeforschung. Kommentierte Bibliographie zur Soziolinguistik der Anrede. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Breuer, Horst 1983 Titel und Anreden bei Shakespeare und in der Shakespearezeit. Anglia 101, 49–77. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman 1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 253–76. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman 1989 Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society 18.2, 159–212. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems

Calvo, Clara 1992 Pronouns of Address and Social Negotiation in ‘As You Like It’. Language and Literature 1:1, 5–27. Collins, Daniel E. 2001 Reanimated Voices. Speech Reporting in a Historical-Pragmatic Perspective. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 85). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Merja Kytö 2000 Data in historical pragmatics: Spoken discourse (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1.2, 175–199. Fischer, Andreas 2002 Notes on kinship terminology in the history of English. In: Katja Lenz and Ruth Möhlig (eds.). Of dyuersitie & chaunge of langage. Essays Presented to Manfred Görlach on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 115–128. Friedrich, Paul 1986 Social context and semantic feature: The Russian pronominal usage. In: John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.). Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 270–300. Fritz, Gerd, und Andreas H. Jucker (eds.) 2000 Kommunikationsformen im Wandel der Zeit. Vom mittelalterlichen Heldenepos zum elektronischen Hypertext. (Beiträge zur Dialogforschung 21). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Holmes, Janet 1995 Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman. Hope, Jonathan 1993 Second person singular pronouns in records of Early Modern ‘spoken’ English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 94: 83–100. Reprinted in: Rydén, Mats, Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Merja Kytö (eds.). (1998) A Reader in Early Modern English. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 377–396. Hope, Jonathan 1994 The use of ‘thou’ and ‘you’ in Early Modern spoken English: Evidence from depositions in the Durham ecclesiastical court records. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.). Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 141–152. Jacobs, Andreas, and Andreas H. Jucker 1995 The historical perspective in pragmatics. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.). Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–33. Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.) 1995 Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jucker, Andreas H. 2000a ‘Thou’ in the history of English: A case for historical semantics or pragmatics? In: Christiane Dalton-Puffer and Nikolaus Ritt (eds.). Words: Structure, Meaning, Function. A Festschrift for Dieter Kastovsky. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 153–163. Jucker, Andreas H. 2000b English historical pragmatics: Problems of data and methodology. In: Gabriella di Martino and Maria Lima (eds.). English Diachronic Pragmatics. Napoli: CUEN, 17–55.





Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen

Jucker, Andreas H., Gerd Fritz, and Franz Lebsanft (eds.) 1999 Historical Dialogue Analysis. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 66). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Koch, Peter 1999 Court records and cartoons: Reflections of spontaneous dialogue in Early Romance texts. In: Andreas H. Jucker, Gerd Fritz, and Franz Lebsanft (eds.). Historical Dialogue Analysis. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 66). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 399–429. Kopytko, Roman 1993 Polite Discourse in Shakespeare’s English. Poznan´: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adam Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Koptytko, Roman 1995 Linguistic politeness strategies in Shakespeare’s plays. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.). Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 515–540. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara 2000 Representations of orality in Early Modern English trial records. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1.2, 201–230. Listen, Paul 1999 The Emergence of German Polite Sie. Cognitive and Sociolinguistic Parameters. (Berkeley Insights in Linguistics and Semiotics 32). New York: Peter Lang. Mazzon, Gabriella 2000 Social relations and form of address in the Canterbury Tales. In: Dieter Kastovsky and Arthur Mettinger (eds.). The History of English in a Social Context. A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 135–168. Mühlhäusler, Peter, and Rom Harré 1990 Pronouns and People. The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. (Language in Society). Oxford: Blackwell. Nathan, N. 1959 Pronouns of address in the Canterbury Tales. Mediaeval Studies, xxi, 193–201. Nevalainen, Terttu 1994 Ladies and Gentlemen: The generalization of titles in Early Modern English. In: Francisco Fernández, Miguel Fuster, Juan José Calvo (eds.). English Historical Linguistics 1992. Papers from the Seventh International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Valencia, 22–26 September 1992. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 317–327. Nevalainen, Terttu, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg 1995 Constraints on politeness: The pragmatics of address formulae in Early English correspondence. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.). Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 541–601. Pantaleo, Nicola 2000 Distancing and focusing strategies in direct vs. implicit addressing: The pragmatics of pronoun switching in Middle English religious writing. In: Gabriella

Diachronic perspectives on address term systems

di Martino and Maria Lima (eds.). English Diachronic Pragmatics. Napoli: CUEN, 129–141. Quirk, Randolph 1966 [1959] English language and the structural approach. In: Randolph Quirk and A.H. Smith (eds.) The teaching of English. (Language and Language Learning 3). London: Oxford University Press, 6–35. Ramge, Hans 1999 Dialoge im Rechtsprotokoll: Ein Wetzlarer Erbstreit a. 1309 und die Entstehung einer neuen Textsorte. In: Andreas H. Jucker, Gerd Fritz, and Franz Lebsanft (eds.). Historical Dialogue Analysis. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 66). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 371–398. Salmon, Vivian 1965 Sentence structures in colloquial Shakespearian English. Transactions of the Philological Society, 105–140. Reprinted in Salmon and Burness 1987. Salmon, Vivian 1967 Elizabethan colloquial English in the Falstaff plays. Leeds Studies in English. New Series 1, 37–70. Salmon, Vivian, and Edwina Burness (comps.) 1987 A Reader in the Language of Shakespearean Drama. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Skeat, W. W. (ed.) 1894 Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Oxford. Svenska skrivregler (the official guide) issued by Svenska språknämnden, Stockholm, 2000. Taavitsainen, Irma 1998 Emphatic language and romantic prose: Changing functions of interjections in a sociocultural perspective. European Journal of English Studies 2/2, 195–214. Wales, Katie 1983 Thou and you in Early Modern English: Brown and Gilman re-appraised. Studia Linguistica 37/2, 107–125. Watts, Richard J. 1989 Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8.2/3, 131–166. Watts, Richard J. 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In: Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds.). Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 43–70. Widmark, Gun 2000 “Ers höggrevliga höga härlighet!”: Svenskt tilltalsskick genom tiderna. In: Gun Widmark, Boksvenska och talsvenska: Ett urval uppsatser samlade till författarens 80-årsdag, 31 juli, 2000. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet, 57–66



The T/V pronouns in later Middle English literature David Burnley † University of Sheffield

.

The background

Around 1384–5 Chaucer received a well-known letter from a French contemporary, Eustache Deschamps. It was a verse epistle congratulating him as a master of both practical and theoretical branches of learning, and as poet equivalent to Ovid, who has enlightened all Britain with his poetry (Brewer 1978: I, 39–42). He is welcomed as a fellow auctour; that is, one who writes with the intention of associating himself with the classic tradition of European literature. The style is rhetorical and elevated, and the poem expresses sincere respect for its addressee, but the second stanza begins with a direct address using the T-form of the pronoun: Tu es d’amours mondains dieux en Albie ‘You are [an] earthly god of love in Albion’, which echoes an earlier reference to ta poetrie, and forms part of a continuous chain of T-address in the poem. Compare this with a story told in the journal of the founder of the Quaker movement, George Fox, in 1656 (Nickalls 1975: 242). “Professors and priests,” we are told, are outraged by the behaviour of Quakers, who “thee and thou all people without respect, and will not doff their hats to one nor bow the knee to any man”. Their opponents therefore look forward to retribution for this behaviour before a court where the dissidents will find themselves on trial for their lives. There is an apparent conflict here. Respectable people are scandalised by the Quakers’ insistence on the use of thou, yet Deschamps uses tu in elevated and respectful address. The assumption that hat-doffing should be accompanied by the use of the V-form in polite society, is what we might have expected both from our knowledge of modern custom and also from what we find in many later medieval texts, and although 250 years and distinct linguistic milieux separate the two events, this does not seem to explain the contrast. In fact, it will emerge that these two events are indeed related within the same value system and are not so remote as might at first appear.



David Burnley

Although Skeat paved the way for the study of Middle English T/V phenomena in his 1867 edition of William of Palerne (Skeat 1867: xli–xliii), major investigations begin with the surveys of Kennedy (1915) and Stidston (Stidston 1917), culminate in the synthesis of Finkenstaedt (1963), and are supported by a substantial number of shorter papers on the use of the pronouns in particular works (see References). The V-form of address commenced in Latin epistolary practice in the fifth century, but it is generally agreed that no trace of the V-form used to a single addressee is to be found in Old English. From the middle thirteenth century isolated examples emerge in English, but their distribution is unpredictable. The reports of early investigators tend to be purely descriptive and accumulative. Very often, they contain too overtly the fruits of their methodology in the form of relatively raw data: for example, we may be told that Troilus uses ye to Criseyde (except in moments of high emotion), or that Troilus demonstrates familiarity with or (superiority to) Pandarus by the use of thou. God is normally addressed by the T-form, although a pagan deity often attracts the V-form. Versions of such explanations are often reproduced in the notes of literary editions when the editor seeks to explain the linguistic behaviour of characters, and fairly convincing interpretations of the personal relations attributable to characters can be arrived at in this way. From the point of view of linguistic analysis, this descriptive presentation can seem naïve and ad hoc, yet building on such data a certain abstraction is possible along the lines proposed for modern languages by Brown and Gilman (1960) or Ervin-Tripp (1969). Power, solidarity, superiority, inferiority, familiarity, remoteness and relative age are categories involved in the fictional confrontations, and can be invoked in order to characterise usage more generally.1 In my own Guide to Chaucer’s Language (1983) – which was meant to serve as a practical interpretative aid for readers of Chaucer – I produced a diagram (reproduced in slightly modified form as Fig. 1 below) which sought to illustrate the factors which might influence the choice of pronoun by Chaucer when he intended to lend verisimilitude to verbal exchanges between his characters. The hierarchical series of binary choices in the diagram represents the “institutionalised” expectations (or the “unmarked” choices) of speakers of late Middle English, inferred from the analysis of interpersonal relations in many contexts. The interpersonal relations depicted vary somewhat in their explicitness (for example, age differences or degrees of familiarity are less decisive in choice than evident social status might be), but this approach generally works quite well. However, choice does not depend exclusively on interpersonal relations, and it is clearly necessary to include not only the initial condition concerning the nature of the discourse or genre (see below), but also the possibility in certain circumstances for relative social status to outweigh other conditioning factors. Hence, in the diagram, it is necessary to draw

The T/V pronouns in later Middle English literature

a thin line cutting across other conditioning factors from the familiarity node direct to the choice of ye. In addition, within any personal interaction, various contextually-determined kinds of switching are commonly found to occur in the same continuous discourse, overriding institutional expectations or temporarily re-categorising interpersonal relations in a manner analogous to “metaphorical code-switching” in multilingual communication (Fishman 1970: 44). The diagram makes provision for this by various types of switching, which cut across institutionalised expectations.2

Figure 1. Chaucer’s use of the second-person pronoun

. Interpreting the sources In arriving at a proper understanding of the use of T/V pronouns we can employ two distinct sources of evidence: literary texts and letters. The latter follow established formulae appropriate for a specific genre of written language, and may not reflect spoken usage for that reason. Data from letters is therefore the description of a restricted language from a specialised context. Fictional sources may seek to reproduce spoken language with greater or lesser verisimilitude, they may reflect the values and social milieu of author, audience or both, but also the fictional social milieu of the work, as for example when sophisticated authors write fabliaux. The few documentary sources which purport to quote the brief utterances of real individuals may be complicated by the multilingualism of medieval record-keeping, and may not be free from the effects of translation. The status of the fundamental sources of evidence may therefore be uncertain, and it is as well to be aware of this





David Burnley

at the beginning. Nor should we have too high expectations of the consistency of our evidence of the use of pronouns of address for another, related, reason. Since what we experience has been preserved in written form, at least in literary documents it has normally been subjected to the processes of scribal copying. This may be too easily overlooked in the eager pursuit of data, but medieval manuscripts all too often do not accurately represent what the author wrote (Brook 1972; Hudson 1966; Kristensson 1981; Smallwood 1986), let alone how he might have spoken. Comparison of different manuscripts of the same texts shows, moreover, that personal pronouns are among the word classes most susceptible to variation by scribal copying. Sometimes, as in the various manuscripts of Scogan’s Moral Balade (Burnley 1999), the pronoun address forms are deliberately altered in the course of adaptation to a new audience, but changes are more frequently the result of careless copying: Troilus and Criseyde has at least half a dozen cases in which there is T/V variation between different manuscript versions (I, 776; II, 850; III, 203, 1512, 1807; IV, 318; V, 1008). Similar manuscript variation is evident in lines 241–2 of the Wife of Bath’s Prologue in the Canterbury Tales (Robinson 1996) and is a feature of Anglo-French as much as of English texts (see the paper by Hunt in the present volume). Hence, even in the most assiduously copied literary manuscripts, unauthorised fluctuations in usage will occur. Even if we can be certain that the pronoun choice belongs to the author’s original text, it may be difficult to distinguish that internal variation which it is justifiable to try to explain from that which is purely accidental. The fictional addressee does not exist in the same sense as he/she would in modern field studies, and indeed not all choices of T- or V-form are directed at clearly identifiable addressees at all. In literary sources the addressee is the conceptual construct of the author, or of how the author sees the relationship between his characters, his narrator and his audience. The audience of the fictional narrator, like that of the actual preacher, may from moment to moment be conceptualised as multiple or as single individuals, affecting the choice of pronoun. Addressees in proverbial or fossilised expressions may be imprecise, and may represent idiomatic usage having little relevance to the relationship between the fictional speakers currently using such expressions. Indeed, as Koziol noted, the T-form could be used from Old English onwards as an indefinite pronoun, like man (Koziol 1942), and such usage can disrupt presuppositions about the interpersonal function of pronoun choice.3 Temporal distance has a foreshortening effect which can trap investigators into unwise generalisations about “medieval usage” as though this were some synchronic state. The situation with regard to T/V pronouns is not static in fourteenth and fifteenth-century English. We are witnessing changing linguistic behaviour, in which the T/V choice is becoming more complex and more extended through society. But, unlike the classic neogrammarian conception of linguistic change, this pragmatic

The T/V pronouns in later Middle English literature

change is fairly rapid, very untidy, and above all prominent in the consciousness of the users of the language. Drawing an analogy with pronoun development in English, we are dealing with a phenomenon much more akin to the recent adoption of spellings such as <s/he> than with the development of the phonological form /she/ through the influence of Scandinavian on earlier English. Finally, it is perhaps preferable to admit, rather than seek to over-interpret, that we sometimes cannot interpret the significance of the text. The confidence which allowed Nathan to report to Finkenstaedt that he had counted 2234 “correct” and 47 “incorrect” uses of the pronoun of address in the Canterbury Tales (excluding the prose tales), seems seriously misplaced. Finkenstaedt notes, with apparent satisfaction, that Professor Funke’s Chaucer seminar had managed to improve on this by explaining away many of the apparent exceptions to be found in the Tale of Melibee (Finkenstaedt 1963: 75–6). This desire to “tidy up” is quite understandable, but probably misplaced.

. The context of T/V usage The choice between T/V-pronouns is not made in linguistic or behavioural isolation. By understanding context first as “co-text” it is demonstrable that certain patterns of lexical choices tend to occur with one or other of these pronouns, producing predictable phrasing (compare papers by Busse, Honegger and Nevala). Using corpus material, it can be shown for example that forms of address such as leve brother and sone are almost invariably accompanied by the T-form, whilst fader is accompanied by the V-form. This occurs regardless of whether the relationship depicted is literal or metaphorical, as in the exchanges between the dreamer and the priest Genius in Gower’s Confessio Amantis. Similarly, the forms sire, dame and madame are always accompanied by the V-form in Chaucer’s works, and certain other phrases nearly invariably invoke the V-form. Hence the expression vouchen sauf and the phrase for youre curteisie are never accompanied by anything other than the V-form in good Chaucer texts. However, there is not complete uniformity in usage either between individual authors or between the authors and their copyists: in some manuscripts of Troilus and Criseyde, thou collocates with vouchesauf at Book II 1691, and in William of Palerne, sire collocates with thou. These are not the grammatical rules of the language, but the socially-marked performance choices of a particular class, and it is not surprising that in wider usage there should be variation. The choice of the V-form and its combination with other honorifics and phrasing is not only class-dependent, but undergoing development and extension during the fourteenth century. Certain phrasing, certain forms of address are preferred, standing as testimony to the respect (the words used in Middle English are reverence





David Burnley

or worshipe) in which the addressee is held. Willingness to show respect where it is due is considered to reflect well on the speaker, and it reinforces the self-esteem of the addressee, and this is part of those medieval ideals of refinement summed up in the word curteisie. Curteis speche, which we can interpret as the linguistic code of the curteis, includes awareness of approved forms of address, but is associated with far more than these alone. Less striking than the coherence between V-forms and the words and phrases mentioned above, it will also include such stylistic devices as selected vocabulary items, extended sentences, widespread use of conditionals, and the creative use of metaphor in speech (Burnley 1986; 1998: 99–121). These features are general in Middle English curteis speche. However, Middle English also furnished the opportunity for individual creativity in polite address. An example might be the opportunity which existed for a more intimate absorption of honorifics into the grammar of the language. Some dialects of Middle English possessed distinct singular and plural forms of the imperative, and concord between the plural imperative and the V-form was already well established in William of Palerne (composed about 1335). The same concord can be found in Chaucer and Hoccleve: for example, the latter uses the V-form consistently in his appeal to Lady Money (Three Roundels), and begs her in the plural conforteth … me. She replies consistently with the T-form and the singular imperative go … Hoccleve. However, although both Chaucer and Hoccleve sometimes exploit this possibility further, no consistent pattern of concord with the plural imperative can be found in their language. A similar possibility arises in Chaucer’s use of imperatives introduced by as. These imperatives are sparingly but widely used in late Middle English, often with a singular form of the imperative (“As keepe me fro thy vengeaunce and thyn ire” Knight’s Tale 2302). However, Chaucer is highly unusual in employing what seems a distinctly unassertive kind of plural imperative introduced by as, and always in the context of the V-form: “And for the love of God, my lady fre,/ Whomso ye hate, as beth nat wroth with me” (Troilus and Criseyde V 144–5). There are only three other examples of this pattern in Chaucer’s works (Franklin’s Tale, 1059; Clerk’s Prologue, 7, and Clerk’s Tale, 885). All are in convincingly polite exchanges, but he did not exploit this possibility more widely, and it seems extremely rare elsewhere in Middle English. Later Middle English, therefore, offered opportunities for the elaboration of the simple choice of ye or thou in address, but it is significant that these are exploited differently and inconsistently by different authors. This aspect of courtly speech was not stereotyped during the fourteenth century, and permitted individual creativity. Hence, although the author of William of Palerne made careful use of T/V choice, and exploited the plural form of the imperative, he did not observe the strong affinity between sire, madame, and ye. By contrast, the Auchinleck manuscript, which was compiled about the same time as the composition of William of Palerne, takes little consistent account of

The T/V pronouns in later Middle English literature

T/V pronoun choice at all, except in Lai le Freine, which observes the madame-ye connection4. Chaucer and his contemporaries observe the general pattern of T/V choice represented in Fig. 1, and expand it by certain fixed phrasing and collocations, but only patchily exploit the opportunities offered by the plural imperative. Broadening the significance of “context” to include genre, it is apparent that there is great variety in T/V usage in the different tales gathered together in the Canterbury collection. Whereas the Pardoner’s and Physician’s tales use predominantly T-address, the tales of the Merchant, Clerk, Franklin, Shipman, Squire, and Man of Law prefer V-address, and may creatively switch to T-address for particular effects. The remainder of the tales use mixed address forms to a considerable extent. Since the Shipman’s Tale is a classic fabliau, and the Knight’s Tale with its mixture is a kind of heroic romance, this distribution cannot always be attributed to familiar literary genres. A reasonable case can be made for the T-forms of the Pardoner’s Tale echoing the practice of preachers, but the V-forms of the Shipman’s Tale belong not to the fabliau genre but to satirical characterisation, where the monk as seducer echoes the respectful address forms which medieval women found attractive, rather than the T-form more appropriate to his vocation. Similarly, although the genre and most of the contexts in Piers Plowman tend to determine the choice of T-forms, in the court scenes and in the pleas of flattering beggars seeking charity the V-form is selected. We might summarise that, because of the social standing of the protagonists and the content of the narrative, some literary genres may appear to promote the use of the V-form, yet in most cases the true motivating factor is the imagined status and relationships of the characters portrayed, which are intended to reflect the values and behaviour of real contemporary individuals.

. The social context of T/V address We know from a wide range of sources that what Brown and Levinson call “negative politeness” was much valued in the later medieval period (Brown and Levinson 1987: 129–210; Shimonomoto 2001). The ostentatious assertion of status had been a feature of aristocratic society for centuries, but seems to have been extending in the fourteenth century, and minor acknowledgements of reverence are particularly associated with wealthy townsfolk, who especially welcomed reassurance about their claim to respect. The Miller’s wife in Chaucer’s Reeve’s Tale insists on address as “dame”, a predilection shared by the guildsmen’s wives in the General Prologue (It is ful fair to been ycleped ‘madame’/ And goon to vigilies al bifore 376–377). In the earlier fourteenth century accomplishment in French and its cultural ideals extended widely into the social milieu of the urban well-to-do, and regard for the ideals, at least, persisted throughout the Middle Ages.5 Langland,





David Burnley

however, expresses a very different view, repeatedly condemning the reverence offered to wealth and status, and caricaturing himself in the opinion of others as an insane beggar incapable of observing the proprieties of social behaviour: (1) And some lakkede my lif – allowed it fewe – And leten me for a lorel and looth to reverencen Lordes or ladies or any lif ellis – As persons in pelure with pendaunts of silver; To sergeaunts ne to swiche seide noght ones, “God loke yow, lordes!” – ne loutede faire, That folk helden me a fool; and in that folie I raved. (Schmidt 1995, B-text, Passus 15: 4–10) ‘And some blamed my life – few approved of it- and held me a rascal and unwilling to give reverence to lords and ladies or any other human being, such as persons in fur with pendants of silver. To sergeants-at-law and such others I never said “You look good, lordes!” or bowed graciously. People held me a fool, and in that folly I raved.’ (Translation by the editors.)

The hunger for reverence, which drove the adoption of V-form address during the fourteenth century, placed Langland beyond the pale of polite society, but he was far from being in isolation. Indeed, a generation before he wrote, Robert Mannyng of Bourne was already attacking the secular predilection for elaborated forms of address: (2) ∑yf ©ou haue grete desyre To be clepyd lorde or syre, For to glose ©e, and slyppe, And to haue ©e wurdys of wurschyp; Or ∑e wymmen also, comunly, wulde be kallede “madame” or “lady”; Al ©ys com© of grete pryde; yn ©y shryfte ©ou noght hyt hyde. he ys ry∑t lorde, ©e kyng of heuene; wrong hyt ys ©at men any o©er neuene. (Furnivall 1901: 118, Handling Synne, 3407–16)6 ‘If you have great desire to be called ‘lord’ or ‘sir’, with the purpose of flattering you, and to have the words of worship, or you women also, commonly, would like to be called ‘madam’ or ‘lady’; all this comes from great pride. In your confession do not hide it. He is the true Lord, the King of Heaven, it is wrong to put any others in that place.’ (Translation by the editors.)

The T/V pronouns in later Middle English literature

It might be objected at this point that the argument has strayed too far from T/V pronoun address, but such an objection would miss an essential purpose of this paper. I have been concerned to recreate here something of the social values which promoted respectful forms of address in the fourteenth century, and to indicate that the use of the V-form is part of the value system which medieval people called curtesie. T/V choice is embedded in a broader behavioural matrix, and is simply an optional extension to other linguistic and behavioural resources available for maintaining a more general social semiotic. Similar motives encouraged the use of the V-form to those which promoted honorific address such as lord, lady, sire, (ma)dame, or the physical gesture of doffing a hat or hood. Caxton’s translation of the Book of the Knight of the Tower (24–5) relates how a lady’s action in removing her hood to a tailor was questioned by other gentry standing by. Her answer that she had rather doff her hood to a tailor than leave it on before a gentleman is highly commended, and exactly duplicates the motivation among courtly people for choosing the V-form of address as the starting-point of conversational exchange. If wealthy townspeople coveted such indications of respect, it might be expected that kings could claim them by right, and indeed formal letters addressed to kings use the V-form, which formed an explicit part of the training of scribes in dictamen7. However, in the B-text of Piers Plowman (Prologue, 123) a “lunatik” kneels before the king and addresses him clergially with the T-form. The author of the early fifteenth-century The Crowned King imitates this scene, turning the lunatic into a clerk. This time there is explicit reference to grammatical number, but the clerk’s attitude is less uncompromising than that of Langland, since he feels it necessary first to ask permission to use the singular form in this situation. Nevertheless, his use of the words peynte and pike a thonk retain the implied clerkish criticism of flattery and pride which Robert Mannyng had already condemned. (3) With that a clerk kneled adoun & carped these wordes: “Liege lord, yif it you like to listen a while, Sum sawes of Salomon y shall you shew sone, Besechyng you of your souerainte that y myght be suffred To shewe you my sentence in singuler noumbre – To peynte it with pluralites my prose wolde faile; To pike a thonke with plesaunce my profit were but simple.” Than the kyng of his curtesie comaunded hym to ryse, To stonde and sey what hym semed and knele no lenger. Than he seid. “Sir, crowned kyng, thou knowest well ©yself.” (Robbins 1959: 227–32, Crowned King: 42–51)





David Burnley

‘With that a clerk kneeled down and said these words: “Dear Lord, if it pleases you to listen for a while, some sayings of Salomon I shall show to you soon, beseeching your sovereignty that I might be suffered to show you my sentence in the singular. My prose would fail to paint it in the plural, to gain credit with eloquent speech, my profit would be low.” Then the king in his courtesy commanded him to rise, to stand and say what he thought and kneel no longer. Then he said: “Sir, crowned king, you know yourself well”’ (Translation by the editors.)

It is clear from such passages not only that the choice between T- and V-pronouns was a highly conscious one at this time, but that it was also potentially controversial. Medieval society was not monolithic in its values: that is, that among those who cared, there was a conscious desire to merit the use of the V-form on the one hand, but potentially strong opposition to its use on the other. The tradition of objection to the use of a plural pronoun to address an individual, rooted in accusations of pride, belongs to clerks whose attitude is based on religious disapproval of worldly self-aggrandisement, and it forms part of a persistent religious critique of curtesie. This tradition is attested over several centuries, and the earliest statement of it in England in linguistic terms predates our evidence for the use of the V-form in English or French, occurring in an unpublished thirteenth-century Latin sermon by Alexander Neckham: (4) Hodie ergo volunt prelati ecclesie ut vobiscetur cum eis, cum numquam Petrus vel aliquis discipulorum dixit Domino, “vos”. Ait enim Petrus, “Tu scis, Domine, quia amo te”; non dixit, “vos scitis, Domine, quia amo vos.” (Bodl. Wood empt. 13, fol. 361r. Cited Ullman 1973: 258n.) ‘Today, then, prelates of the Church desire that one should address them with vos, when neither Peter nor any of the disciples said vos to the Lord. Indeed Peter said, “Thou knowest, O Lord, that I love thee”; he did not say “You know, O Lord, that I love you.”’

This is the attitude which provokes the opposition to V-address in the fifteenthcentury life of St Elizabeth of Spallbeck, who also condemned the practice of standing up to show respect (Finkenstaedt 1963: 89), and which persists into the seventeenth century in the journal of George Fox, with which this paper began. It corresponds to what in Figure 1 is represented as a discourse choice: consciously religious discourse, which is associated with dissent from worldly values predisposes the choice of the T-form and conscientious resistance to the use of the V-form.8 Figure 1 offers two other pathways associated with the discourse-based choice of T-forms. One is the literary representation of the speech and behaviour of social groups who had no knowledge of or interest in pronoun choice. For them, the pronouns may be in free variation. The other relates closely to the letter which Chaucer

The T/V pronouns in later Middle English literature

received from Eustache Deschamps. The latter’s choice of the T-form in this letter contravenes established precept and practice in the forms of epistolary address between cultivated individuals: correspondence between members of the aristocracy at this time normally uses the V-pronoun, following a well-established formula of salutation. Yet it is not associated here with the renunciation of worldly values. So, what is the implication of Deschamps’ use of tu? There is no direct evidence to prove that Chaucer understood Deschamps’ choice of pronoun here, but an intriguing piece of indirect evidence that he associated T-address with the learned can be found in his Franklin’s Tale. In that tale, the predominant form of polite address is by the V-pronoun, with occasional affective switching in the exchanges between the husband and wife, Arveragus and Dorigen, and in apostrophes and prayers9. When the amorous young squire, Aurelius, seeks magical help from an anonymous Orleans clerk, he naturally addresses him with the respectful V-form, but receives a uniform T-form in return. This learned man certainly undertakes to instruct his young client in moral values, but unlike Langland or Mannyng, is not concerned with a religious critique of courtly behaviour. Nevertheless, it is very tempting to believe that his consistent choice of the T-form is influenced by considerations of characterisation in which the learned as a social type were associated with this particular style. There is, fortunately, a wealth of evidence in contemporary French to support this last assumption: a kind of metacriticism of the use of the T-form. Around 1403, Christine de Pizan wrote a verse epistle to the ageing Deschamps, which in some respects echoes his own earlier letter to Chaucer. It is unique among her verse epistles in that it employs the T-form of address. In it she declares her admiration for his work and seeks his friendship and patronage. First, however, she includes a digression on her choice of address-form. (5) . . . le saige Enseigne aux disciples a prendre Amistié aux saiges, se apprendre Desirent; et pour tant en voye M’a mis ton scens que je l’envoye. Sy soit premisse a humble chiere, Recommandacion trés chiere, Te suppliant que a desplaisance Ne te tourt se adès plaisance Ay qu’em singulier nom je parle A toy, car je l’ay apris par le Stille clergial de quoy ceulx usent Qui en science leur temps usent. (Roy 1886-96: 295–6, Epistre a Eustace Mourel, 10–22.)





David Burnley

‘The wise instructs his disciples to take friendship from the wise, if they wish to learn; and indeed your advice has so set me on the way that I am sending it [i.e. the letter]. So it may be a preamble, a very cordial recommendation, humbly begging you that you are not displeased if now I am pleased to speak to you with singular reference, for I have learned it through the learned style of the kind used by those who spend their time in the pursuit of knowledge.’

The reference to the style of address of those who concern themselves with the pursuit of knowledge as le stille clergial verbally echoes the manner of speech attributed to Langland’s lunatic, who addresses a king in the singular. But, despite this verbal echo, the spirit and associations of this passage are utterly different from that in Langland. The choice of the T-form is not here a rejection of worldly pride, but a mark of solidarity between the learned. Although, of course, in the medieval period, learning cannot be completely separated from its traditional function of helping to lead humankind to salvation, there is at the turn of the fifteenth century a growing esteem for secular learning for its own sake, and this is sufficient to justify the third choice (learned discourse) represented in Figure 1 above. The explanation for the choice offered by Christine is repeated in dedicatory letters to some of her works, but may not have been an intellectual position with which she had long been familiar. In late summer 1402 she had received a letter from the royal secretary Pierre Col in which he writes: (6) Et me pardonne se je parle par “tu”, car je le fais pour monstrer que ceste mienne response vient par bonne amour, c’est assavoir pour toy ramener a droit voye; et auxi pour parler plus proprement selonc que nos anciens maistres ont parley. (Hicks 1977: 90) ‘And pardon me if I speak using tu, because I do it to show you that my reply comes from my concern for you, that is to gather you to the true way, and also to speak more correctly according to the way our ancient teachers have spoken.’

In what seems to be a reply to this letter, Christine wrote on the 2nd October: (7) Et comme verité pure me contraingne a toy respondre ce que plus voulantiers tayroie (pour ce que la matiere n’est a ma plaisance), le feray selonc mon rude stile. Mais si come tu m’escrips que je te pardonne se tu parles a moy par “tu”, samblablement te pri, come ce soit le plus propre selonc nos anciens, – come tu mesmes dis. (Hicks 1977: 116)

The T/V pronouns in later Middle English literature

‘And as simple truth compels me to reply to you about that which I would rather remain silent (because the subject matter isn’t to my taste), I will do it according to my limited writing skills. But just as you write to me that I should pardon you if you address me with tu, I make the same plea to you, since that is most correct according to the ancients – as you yourself say.’

Although Christine’s response may seem to betray a certain suspicion of Col’s form of address, she herself soon adopted it and used it widely, accompanied by the usual explanation of grammatical correctness in the light of earlier usage. Similar explanations for its use are offered by Pierre Col’s brother, Gontier, and by a clerk and administrator of a somewhat greater prominence, Jean de Montreuil. It is an intellectual position whose origin can be traced with a precision which is unusual in medieval studies. Jean de Montreuil had been a correspondent of Coluccio Salutati, Florentine Chancellor from 1375 to 1406. The latter had himself been impressed by Petrarch’s adoption of T-address, modelled on the works of Cicero, and had energetically promoted its use on the grounds of propriety by comparison with the usage of the antiqui. He even went so far as to try to overthrow conventional rules of dictamen and introduce it into the official correspondence of the city, but in this he was unsuccessful during his lifetime (Witt 1976: 25–7). The circumstances in which Salutati may have communicated his enthusiasm for T-address to Jean de Montreuil can be traced quite persuasively. Jean took part in a French military expedition to Italy in 1384, and in the November of that year, whilst at Arezzo, made contact with Salutati. In the letter he received in reply, Coluccio criticises Jean for his use of the plural form to a single addressee: “Tu me pluraliter allocutus es, quasi non unus, sed plures essem, cum quo tibi sermo foret. Scio te hoc loquendi scemate usum esse, corruptis hominum moribus, ut michi plusquam convenit deferas” (‘you addressed me in the plural, as if I were not one but more, with what may be your customary language. I know that you are accustomed to this style of address, through the corrupt customs of men, so that you defer to me more than is appropriate’). Coluccio develops this view at some length, condemning the use of the plural as a “vulgar error” (Billanovich and Ouy 1964: 347). There is no doubt that Jean took his lecture to heart, since years later he recalled it to one of his own correspondents, citing Coluccio as the source of his conviction (Ornatò 1963: 162). Jean became a strong apologist for this form of address, and at least half a dozen of his extant letters contain a passage in which he begs the understanding of his addressee, and advocates the use of the singular form as that of the classical writers and poets, and indeed of God himself in the Bible. The enthusiasm with which the Italian humanists and their French followers promoted the use of the T-pronoun furnished an extra dimension to the long





David Burnley

association between clerks and tu address. It was no longer simply the form which declared humility and rejection of worldly aspirations, in which the literacy of its users was accidental to its use. Now, classical Latin literacy was central to the use of the T-form, and the learning of those who used it claimed its own respect. At the end of the fourteenth century, a coherent international network of scholars emerged who consciously adopted T-address as the badge of their identity. Indeed, it has been said that “the use of tu is one of the simplest rule of thumb tests to determine whether a writer of the fourteenth century was a humanist” (Ullman 1963: 106). This test is relevant to Italian writers, but as we have seen, the same values were inculcated into the French literary world by the turn of the century. Could Chaucer have shared this outlook? He almost certainly had contact with Italian merchants in London, and travelled to Genoa and Florence in 1373 (Crow and Olson 1966: 39–40). His route may well have taken him through Lucca, where Coluccio Salutati was then chancellor. Although Chaucerians like to ponder on whether Chaucer met Petrarch on this journey, it is at least as likely that he may have encountered Salutati, so that when he received a letter from Deschamps more than a decade later he fully understood the implications of its address by tu. Yet, when he came to depict a learned Clerk (who apparently knew some of the works of Petrarch) in the Canterbury Tales, his creation carefully uses the polite V-form to all those he addresses – except in the general gnomic utterances after his performance. This raises some interesting questions. Was Chaucer in fact unaware of the humanist debate? Was the clerk of the Franklin’s Tale using thou in the manner of Langland as a sign of unworldliness? How well does the Petrarch admirer who narrates the Clerk’s Tale square with the figure among the pilgrims, who seems to prefer Aristotle and addresses his fellow pilgrims with a courteous ye? Indeed, his characters in the Clerk’s Tale seem well aware of T/V usage and use it appropriately. How justified are we in expecting fictional figures to reflect exactly the speech habits of real persons? Or was Chaucer not very concerned with this debate at all? Bloomfield’s famous remark concerning what is now defined as pragmatic meaning – that scientifically accurate description requires “scientifically accurate knowledge of everything in the speakers’ world” (Bloomfield 1935: 139) – echoes peculiarly hollowly for the medievalist. Such questions summarise the difficulties faced by scholars in unravelling Middle English pragmatics and in approaching the majority of early literary texts. We can never know too much about the social and historical circumstances which give meaning to linguistic data, and neither should we underestimate the influence in the medieval period of a multilingual and international culture. These factors, coupled with the uncertainty of many of our primary sources, often leave us with more questions than answers. Awareness of this should modify our confidence both in interpretation and in building too firm theoretical constructs based on early data.

The T/V pronouns in later Middle English literature

Notes . The extreme example of explanatory abstraction is to declare one or other pronoun to be “marked”. Too often this tends to operate as a device to avoid engaging with the contexts which determine the marked form. Since the marked form changes according to context and history, the label “marked” is frequently unrevealing. . Rhetorical switching may be associated with role-playing, affective switching with temporary shifts in interpersonal attitudes and genre shifting with quoted speech or intertextual reference within a discourse. It may be noted that re-categorisation of relations may emerge from the presence of other individuals, which may determine a switch from the familiar to the formal pronoun. . Although such uses have no relevance to context-determined T/V choice, they may nevertheless represent possible switches in discourse, as when a speaker deliberately quotes conventional wisdom. For example, the V-address of Prudence in the Tale of Melibee, appropriate for a wife to her husband, is punctuated by quotations from authorities using the T-form. . Perhaps also in the Pennyworth of Wit, in which a merchant’s wife greets him with sire and ∑e; he returns ©ou. In Arthour and Merlin (1374–97) the latter makes a long speech to the king which divides equally between T and V address; at lines 7656–7669 a son addresses his mother as dame followed by the T-form, but punctuated by the phrase bi ∑our leue, and he receives T-address in return. In Beues 3313, a wife addresses her husband as sire followed by the V-form, switches momentarily to the T-form, then back to the V-form. There is a strong temptation to explain these switches, but it should probably be resisted.

. Burgesses’ wives in Hereford in 1307 were capable of giving evidence concerning a miracle of William of Cantilupe in French, whilst a few of their husbands could manage Latin (Richter 2000). . The passage is prompted by its Anglo-Norman source, William of Wadington’s Manuel des Pechiez, which condemns a fondness for address by sire, mestre or dame. . Guido Faba notes that important people refer to themselves in the plural and should be addressed similarly in the plural, and Conrad van Mure advises that when less important people write their superiors they should use the plural “according to the custom of our country” (Rockinger 1969: 189, 435). . It is worth noting that the Brigittine Rule stipulates the use of appropriate titles and the V-form between members of the order as an indication of respect (Hogg 1980a: 73.24; 1980b: 123.20). This perhaps reflects the social ties of this order, which recruited mainly from the upper classes, but perhaps also social change, since the manuscripts date from the turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. . In the prayer of Aurelius to Phebus (FranT 1031–79), he commences with the T-form, but the phrase if yow lest (1041) acts as the trigger of a switch, and the V-form is then maintained until the final lines, which revert to T-address.





David Burnley

References Benson, Larry D. (ed.) 1988 The Riverside Chaucer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Billanovich, Giuseppe, and Gilbert Ouy 1964 La première correspondence échangée entre Jean de Montreuil et Coluccio Salutati. Italia medioevale e umanistica 7, 337–74. Bloomfield, Leonard 1935 Language. London: Allen and Unwin. Brewer, Derek (ed.) 1978 Chaucer: The Critical Heritage. 2 vols. London, Henley and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Brook, G.L. 1972 A piece of evidence for the study of Middle English spelling. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 73, 25–8. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman 1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language. New York: MIT Press, 253–76. Burnley, David 1983 A Guide to Chaucer’s Language. London: Macmillan. –––––– 1986 Courtly speech in Chaucer. Poetica 24, 16–38. –––––– 1998 Courtliness and Literature in Medieval England. London: Longman. –––––– 1999 Scogan, Shirley’s reputation, and Chaucerian occasional verse. In: G. Lester (ed.). Chaucer in Perspective: Middle English Essays in Honour of Norman Blake. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 28–46. Crow, Martin Michael, and Clair Colby Olson (eds) 1966 Chaucer Life-Records. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dillon, Bert 1969 Formal and informal pronouns of address in Malory’s Le Morte Darthur. Annuale Medievale 10, 94–103. Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 1969 Sociolinguistics. In: L. Berkowitz (ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 4, 93–107. Evans, William W. 1967 Dramatic use of the second-person singular pronoun in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Studia Neophilologica 39, 38–45. Finkenstaedt, Thomas. 1963 You und thou: Studien zur Anrede im Englischen, mit einem Exkurs über die Anrede im Deutschen. Berlin: de Gruyter.

The T/V pronouns in later Middle English literature

Fishman, Joshua A. 1970 Sociolinguistics: A Brief Introduction. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Furnivall, Frederick J. (ed.) 1901–3 Robert of Brunne’s Handlyng Synne. 2 vols. (Early English Text Society O.S. 119, 123). London: Kegan Paul. Furnivall, Frederick J., I. Gollancz, Jerome Mitchell, and I.A. Doyle (eds) 1970 Hoccleve’s Works: Minor Poems. 2 vols. (Early English Text Society E.S. 61, 73). London: Oxford University Press. Hicks, Eric 1977 Le Débat sur le Roman de la Rose (Bibliothèque du XVe siècle 43). Paris: Champion. Hogg, James (ed.) 1980a The Rewyll of Seynt Sauioure and Other Middle English Brigittine Legislative Texts. Vol. 4: The Rewyll of Seynt Sauioure: The Syon Additions for the Sisters from the British Library MS. Arundel 146 (Salzburger Studien zur Anglistik und Amerikanistik 6). Salzburg: Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Universität Salzburg. –––––– 1980b The Rewyll of Seynt Sauioure and Other Middle English Brigittine Legislative Texts. Vol. 3: The Rewyll of Seynt Sauioure: The Syon Additions for the Brethren and the Boke of Signes from the St Paul’s Cathedral Library MS (Salzburger Studien zur Anglistik und Amerikanistik 6). Salzburg: Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Universität Salzburg. Hudson, Anne 1966 Tradition and innovation in some Middle English manuscripts. Review of English Studies, New Series 17, 359–72. Johnson, Judith A. 1979 ‘Ye’ and ‘thou’ among the Canterbury pilgrims. Michigan Academician 10, 71–6. Johnston, Everett C. 1967 The signification of the pronoun of address in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Language Quarterly 5, 34–6. Kennedy, Arthur G. 1915 The Pronoun of Address in English Literature of the Thirteenth Century. Stanford: Stanford University Publications. Koziol, Herbert 1942 Die Anredeform bei Chaucer. Englische Studien 75, 170–4. Kristensson, Gillis 1981 Another piece of evidence for the study of Middle English spelling. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 82, 159–161. Muranaka, Ryoko 1982 Thou and ye in Sir Degrevant. Attempts (International Christian University Tokyo) 10, 37–61. ––––––. 1983 Thou and Ye in Sir Launfal. Attempts (International Christian University Tokyo) 11, 51–6.





David Burnley

Nakashima, Kunio 1981 Studies in the Language of Sir Thomas Malory. Tokyo: Nan’ un-do Publishing. Nathan, Norman 1956 Pronouns of address in the Friar’s Tale. Modern Language Quarterly 17, 39–42. –––––– 1959 Pronouns of Address in the Canterbury Tales. Mediaeval Studies 21, 193–201. Nickalls, John L. (ed.) 1975 The Journal of George Fox. London: Religious Society of Friends. Offord, Marguerite Y. (ed.) 1971 William Caxton: The Book of the Knight of the Tower (Early English Text Society S.S. 2). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ornatò, Ezio (ed.) 1963 Jean de Montreuil, Opera. Turin: Giappichelli. Richter, Michael 2000 Collecting miracles along the Anglo-Welsh border in the early fourteenth century. In: D.A. Trotter (ed.). Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 53–61. Robbins, Russell Hope (ed.) 1959 Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Centuries. New York: Columbia University Press. Robinson, Peter (ed.) 1996 The Wife of Bath’s Prologue on CD-ROM. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rockinger, Ludwig 1969 Briefsteller und Formelbücher des 11. bis 14. Jahrhunderts (Quellen und Erörterung zur Bayerischen Geschichte, Alte Folge 9). Aalen: Repr. Scientia Verlag. Roy, Maurice (ed.). 1886–96 Oeuvres poétiques de Christine de Pisan. 3 vols. (Société des Ancines Textes Français). Paris: Champion. Schmidt, Aubrey V.C. 1995 Piers Plowman: A Parallel-Text Edition of the A, B, C and Z Versions. 2 vols. Harlow: Longman. Shimonomoto, Keiko 2001 The Language of Politeness in Chaucer: An Analysis of the Use of Linguistic Features Reflecting Social and Interpersonal Relationships. Tokyo: Waseda University Enterprise. Skeat, Walter W. 1867 William of Palerne: To Which is Added a Fragment of the Aliterative Romance of Alexander. (Early English Text Society E.S. 1). London: Bungay. Smallwood, T. M. 1986 Another example of the double-copying of a passage of Middle English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 87, 550–54.

The T/V pronouns in later Middle English literature

Stidston, Russell Osborne 1917 The Use of Ye in the Function of Thou in Middle English Literature from MS. Auchinleck to MS. Vernon (Leland Stanford Junior University publications. University series 28). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ullman, Berthold Louis 1963 The Humanism of Coluccio Salutati. Padova: Editrice Antenore. –––––– 1973 Studies in the Italian Renaissance. 2nd ed. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Walcutt, C.C. 1935 The pronoun of address in Troilus and Criseyde. Philological Quarterly 14, 282-7. Wilcockson, C. 1980 ‘Thou’ and ‘Ye’ in Chaucer’s Clerk’s Tale. Use of English 31, 37–43. Witt, R.G. 1976 Coluccio Salutati and his Public Letters (Travaux d’humanisme et Renaissance 151). Geneva: Droz.



The use of tu/vus in the Anglo-Norman Seinte Resureccion Tony Hunt University of Oxford

.

Introduction

In contrast to a number of recent studies on the use in contemporary French of the pronominal tu and vous forms (Gardner-Chloros 1991, Ashby 1992), relatively little progress has been made in investigations of the medieval period.1 The employment of the T/V forms in Old and Middle French is often regarded, following Foulet’s discouraging remarks (Foulet 1928 para. 289), as completely unstable and the two forms are still often thought of as freely interchangeable as he had already asserted in a celebrated article (Foulet 1918–19). Consider, for example, the following brief excerpt from an Anglo-Norman Commentary (based on William of Newburgh) on the Song of Songs at Cant. I, 7: (1) Bele entre muliers, si tei ne conusez Ke es la bele Espuse au Rey de Majestez E estis Mere de merci, pleine de pitez, Ki al cel en joie od tun Fiz manez, O Bele, regardez voz granz dignetez E vostre merciable vis a nus treturnez, De tes euz plein de pité kar nus regardez. (MS Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Rawlinson Poetry 234, f. 65v) ‘Blessed amongst women, if you do not know yourself who are the fair Bride of the King of Majesty and are the Mother of mercy, full of compassion, who resides in heaven in joy, together with your Son, behold, o fair one, your great dignity and turn your merciful face towards us and behold us with your compassionate eyes.’ This passage seems almost freely to alternate the T/V pronominal, adjectival and verbal forms. Yet, following the seminal article by Brown and Gilman (1972), a



Tony Hunt

number of Old French scholars seem to have succeeded in identifying certain principles behind the use of the T/V forms. Gérard Moignet in his influential grammar of Old French (1973) notes that tu is standard when addressing God, is also commonly used in the depiction of close friends, and may frequently be used to signal violent or abrupt emotions.2 In a comparative study of Old French and Middle English usage Patricia Mason (1982) summarised the Old French situation generally as follows: ... by the 13th century vous was established in Old French literature as the pronoun to use when addressing one’s superiors, and also as the normal form of address used among members of polite society, where even for friends and close relatives it was standard. As a general rule, tu was reserved for prayer, and for addressing social inferiors, persons of junior status, and such uncourtly creatures as giants and dwarfs, who gave tu as well as receiving it. In addition, tu could be used to express temporary hostile or violent emotions on the part of the speaker towards someone who would normally receive vous (66).

In particular, her study reveals that in the Middle English translation of the Roman de la Rose the rules of pronominal address are not the same as those in Old French: The main difference lies in the greater frequency of occurrence of the historically singular form in English: although vous is translated as thou, there are no instances of tu becoming ye, and in cases of pronoun mingling in English, the normal situation is for a thou to be substituted for a ye. In Old French, vous is the normal pronoun of address between equals, whereas in English at this period, singular ye is almost invariably associated with special feelings of respect or humility towards the addressee (74).

Mason subsequently extended her investigation to the Quinze Joies de Mariage, Petit Jehan de Saintré and Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles (1990), where, in addition to reaffirming her earlier conclusions, she shows that relationships of power are conveyed by non-reciprocal pronoun use, that switching is often based on recoverable principles, and that non-switching (mutual pronoun use) may function as a means of expressing solidarity, which is confirmed as an important principle in determining pronoun choice. A new approach was adopted by Franz Lebsanft (1987b) who investigated the question of medieval consciousness of the problem, the practices of scribes and linguistic developments which facilitated the confusion of T/V verbal forms. Amongst several factors – written language versus spoken language, logical objections versus poetic licence – Lebsanft pays particular attention to phonetic and

The use of tu/vus in the Anglo-Norman Seinte Resureccion

morphological changes which rendered the clear distinction between familiar and polite verbal forms sometimes precarious. He concludes: En ancien français, certaines habitudes graphiques, mais aussi certaines évolutions proprement linguistiques rendirent la distinction entre le tu et le vous particulièrement difficile et favorisèrent par là le mélange. Cela est indirectement prouvé par les éditeurs modernes qui introduisent parfois des mélanges superflus dans les textes médiévaux. Un témoignage plus direct nous est fourni par les attitudes divergentes de scribes différents copiant le même texte. Le fait d’éviter le mélange devint aussi affaire de délicatesse et de style (19). ‘In Old French a number of traditional graphies and also purely linguistic developments sometimes blurred the distinction between tu and vous thus facilitating mixing of the two. Indirect evidence of this is provided by the fact that modern editors sometimes introduce an unnecessary mixing of them in medieval texts. A more direct indication is furnished by the diverging attitudes of different scribes when copying the same text. Avoidance of mixing the pronouns became a matter of sensitivity and style’.

More studies are clearly needed.3 There are lengthy texts, for example, where the second person singular is virtually absent and vus is universalised as part of polite, literary discourse: such a work is Hue de Rotelande’s Protheselaus (1185-90) (Holden 1993: 19). Detailed studies of individual texts seem to provide the most promising basis for the determination of underlying rules governing T/V use and switching. In the case of the celebrated medieval romance-writer Chrétien de Troyes, there is a useful conspectus of the use of tu forms in a motif index prepared by E.H. Ruck (1991).

. Drama The obvious place on which further investigation might be concentrated seems to be the theatre, since it necessarily offers the highest concentration of spoken dialogue. The earliest examples of French vernacular theatre come from south-western France c.1100 (the Sponsus drama treating the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins) and from Anglo-Norman England in the second half of the twelfth century (the so-called Jeu d’Adam and the Seinte Resureccion). The Seinte Resureccion (Jenkins et al. 1943), which may have been composed as early as c.1200, is a play which comprises not only dialogue, but quite detailed stage directions and narrative lines written in the same verse form as the dialogue, which permit a fair reconstruction of its outside staging.





Tony Hunt

The narrative lines continue to pose a puzzle so far as dramatic performance is concerned. In the edition by Jenkins et al. the situation is summarised as follows: Whether the narrative lines always accompanied the text or were a later addition to it, whether they served as stage directions, as explanations of the action recited to an audience, or were added to make the play suitable for reading or for the monologue of a jongleur, it is impossible to decide with certainty. We can only conclude that the Resureccion, originally a dramatic composition, was probably adapted to more than one type of presentation, and thus shows through what varied changes a text might pass, reworked continually to suit the purposes of the author into whose hands it might fall (cxxv).

The original, now lost, may have extended to more than two thousand lines, quite the most ambitious drama before the fifteenth century and a work of considerable originality, independence (in relation to Scripture), and artistry (Hunt 2001), designed for outside performance before a mixed audience. It is all the more regrettable, therefore, that the two surviving manuscripts, which really constitute two versions of the play, should offer texts so reduced in size as to constitute mere fragments. The Paris MS (B.N. fr. 902 = P) dates from around the middle of the thirteenth century and offers a text of 371 lines which is deemed to be closer to the original, and since I am concerned with the playwright’s usage rather than that of scribes I shall concentrate on this version (Jenkins et al. 1943). The later fragment (London, B.L. 45103 = C) was written at Canterbury, shortly after 1275, and offers an expanded and reworked (possibly involving two revisors) text of the play running to 522 lines, with 198 lines quite unrelated to the Paris text. The latter ends with a brief dialogue, not contained in the Canterbury text, which in turn has three new scenes after the point at which the Paris fragment ends. The translations provided below are drawn from the edition of David Bevington (1975) for the Paris text and Everett C. Wilkie Jr (1978) for the Canterbury text.

. The Seinte Resureccion The surviving fragment of the play may be divided into eight scenes determined by both movement of the characters and by (introductory) narrative verses / stage directions: 1. 29–88 (Meeting of Joseph and Pilate) 2. 93–130 (Longinus’s recovery of his sight) 3. 133–82 (Pilate’s reaction to the miraculous cure of Longinus) 4. 185–212 (The Deposition from the Cross) 5. 217–44 (Joseph requests permission from Pilate to take away the body) 6. 247–276 (The entombment of the body) 7. 279–332 (The setting of the guard over the tomb) 8. 335–72 (The swearing in of the guard).4 It is the first three scenes which provide the richest material for our

The use of tu/vus in the Anglo-Norman Seinte Resureccion

present purposes, some of the later scenes being both short and relatively uninstructive in their small incidence of T/V forms, though the purpose of citing them is to demonstrate the consistency of their use. Where the usage of C differs from that of P I clearly indicate it; where it does not, I pass over it in silence. The play opens with Joseph and Pilate, in two carefully matched quatrains (sharing the same rhymes), ceremoniously addressing each other in the third person: “Deus ... / I sault Pilate, le mien seignur” 29/32; “Hercules [corr. Herodes] ... doinst a celui ben e honur / Qui saluz me dit par amur” 33/35–6 ‘May God ... save Pilate, my lord; May Hercules (corr. Herod) grant prosperity and honour to him who offers me greetings amiably’. In the following two sixains Joseph first slips into a more familiar and intimate mode, addressing Pilate in the tu form (3 pron. & 1 vb.) with Pilate following suit (2 pron. and 4 vb)5: (2) Sire Pilate, beneit seies tu, S’ait te Deus par sa grant vertu. Deus, par la sue poissance, Te doinst vers mei bone voillance. Ceo me doinst Deus omnipotent Que oir me voilles bonement. Dan Joseph, ben seiez tu venuz, Ben deiz estre de mei receuz, Ben es de mei, sanz dotance, Si eel en quides, ceo est enfance. Sachez ben e verraiment Que jeo te orrai mult dulcement. (P37–48) ‘ Sir Pilate, may you be blessed; May God help you by his great power. May God, by his might, Grant you good will toward me. May God almighty grant me That you will hear me favorably. Welcome, Joseph. You deserve a warm reception from me, And unquestionably you enjoy my favour. If you think otherwise, that’s childish folly. Be well assured, truly, That I will hear you most sympathetically.’





Tony Hunt

In other words, reassured by their opening greeting, one reciprocating the other, Joseph and Pilate obviously consider that they can afford to proceed without delay to greater intimacy. But in C these two sixains, though still matched in certain formal particulars, are different in formulation and employ exclusively the vus forms (4 pron. & 3 vb.; 3 pron. & 3 vb.). The tone here is evidently intended to be more cautious and mutually reassuring: Joseph, in imitation of Pilate (C46), declares “vus salu par amisté” (C48) ‘I greeted you in friendship’, “de vus ai jo fiance grand” (C51) ‘And from you I have ample assurance’. After Joseph’s and Pilate’s exchange of tu forms, Joseph, in tactfully broaching the more contentious issue of Christ’s body, now employs the respectful vus form: (3) Beal sire, ne vus en peist mie Si jo vus di del fiz Marie (P49-50; cf. C59–62) ‘Worthy sir, do not be displeased If I speak to you concerning Mary’s son.’ which he quite naturally continues when he warns Pilate that he can expect retribution for his wrong-doing in permitting the Crucifixion of Jesus. But Pilate, in a conciliatory admission that he had been placed in a very difficult position, and apparently anxious to prove his goodwill (cf. 44–6), maintains the tu form: (4) Dan Joseph de Arunachie, Ne leirrai que nel te die (P57–8) ‘Joseph of Arimathea, I won’t hesitate to tell you this.’ Again the nuance is lost in C which continues to use the vus form (the tu form has not yet been used at all). Encouraged by Pilate’s use of tu, Joseph now adopts it when pursuing his argument that Pilate has done wrong, but finishes his speech (in the second of two quatrains) more formally: (5) Si tu veis que tu as mesfait, Cri lui merci, si fras bon plait. Nul ne lui crie qu’i nel ait, Nis icels qui a mort l’ont trait. Mes pur eel venuz i sui: Donez mei sul le cors de lui.

The use of tu/vus in the Anglo-Norman Seinte Resureccion

Tant vus requer, grantez le mei, Si en frai ceo que faire dei. (P65–72) ‘If you see that you have sinned, Beseech him for mercy; that way you will obtain a favourable hearing. No one petitions him in vain, Even those who have died. But I have come for something else: Just give me his body. This much I earnestly beg, grant it me; Then I will do what I ought to do.’ Again, it seems that Pilate is responsive to the changes of tone introduced by tu and vus forms and now adopts the vus form himself in imitation of his interlocutor. C, which up to this point has used vus throughout, now inexplicably in the middle of a speech by Joseph suddenly abandons vus for tu. However, we may point out that the first part of the speech (C81–90) with its two examples of vus, is not in P and seems to be the unhappy invention of C (Jenkins et al. cxxii), which then picks up the first two lines of the text preserved in P and omits the rest: (6) Beal Sire, quant nus eimes en parole entré, Suffrez ke jo vus en die la verité: Jesus se fit rai apeler, Nient pur Cesar rien desturber, Nient pur lui tolir terrien honur, Mais pur li faire aver greignur. Se il vosist mel, il n’unt suffert, Li fals Hebreu, ke mult sunt culvert. Mes qui chaut? de ço vus tant requer, Sun cors me donez pur enterer. Si tu vais ke tu as mesfait, (=P65) Cri lui merci, si fras bon plet; Nul ne li crie merci ke il nel ait. Il ert vengé cument ke sait. (C81–94) ‘Good sire, since we are speaking frankly, Allow me to tell you the truth of this:





Tony Hunt

Jesus had Himself called king Not to threaten Caesar Or to take away his worldly honour, But to make it all the greater. Even if he had wished evil, they have not suffered, Those false Hebrews, a scoundrelly lot. But who cares? This I ask you, Give me his body to bury. If you see that you have erred, Beg mercy of him, and your suit will be good; Noone begs pardon who does not receive it. He will be avenged, however it be.’ Thus we might view C’s unique move to tu in the middle of a speech as an error or negligence arising in the process of remodelling the original. In summary, this first scene seems to offer a coherent progression in the use of the tu – vus forms, beginning with a formal, third-person address, changing to the more intimate tu form in the two sixains, then progressing to the more respectful vus form, from which point dramatic and psychological nuance is obtained through the alternation of the tu – vus forms, the scene concluding on the respectful note of the vus form. The second scene of the Seinte Resureccion presents the soldiers accompanying Longinus. They address the latter, who is portrayed as a blind beggar, with the tu form (just as a soldier does later at 175f.), whereas he himself retains the respectful vus form, mindful of the fact that the soldiers have offered him monetary reward, of which he has great need, for piercing the side of the crucified Christ. However, in Longinus’s lyric expostulation before the Cross (113–20) he addresses Christ with the tu form four times (also in C), and then concludes more reverentially “A vus me rend, merci vus cri” (119–20) (also in C): (7) Ohi, Jesu, ohi bel sire! Ore ne [sai] suz ciel que dire, Mes mult par es tu bon mire Quant en merci turnes ta ire. Vers tei ai la mort deservi, E tu m’as fait si grant merci Que ore vei des oils que ainz ne vi. A vus me rend, merci vus cri. (P113–20) ‘O Jesus, O worthy Lord! Now I don’t know what in the world to say.

The use of tu/vus in the Anglo-Norman Seinte Resureccion

But you are a very great physician When you turn your wrath into mercy. At your hands I have deserved death, And you have dispensed such great mercy to me That now I see with eyes that were blind. I yield myself to you, I cry you mercy.’ At the beginning of the third scene Pilate and Joseph are addressing each other in the vus form (133–6), since Pilate, irritated by the soldiers’ report of the miracle of Longinus’s recovery of his sight, seeks to be as polite as possible to Joseph, who reciprocates: (8) Dan Joseph, mult m’avez servi. Pernez le cors, jol vus otri. Sire, la vostre grant merci. Mult m’es bel si onc vus servi. (P133–6) ‘Joseph, you have always served me well. Take the body, I grant it you. Sire, I thank you most humbly. It is my good fortune ever to have served you thus.’ In contrast the soldiers are addressed by Pilate with tu (141–4, 151). One of the soldiers uses the same form of address with Longinus (175–8), whilst another uses vus (169–72). In scene 4 Joseph uses second-person plural verb forms (185, 189) to Nichodemus who responds with vus (204, 209), and Joseph reciprocates (212). In scene 5 Joseph and Pilate, remaining mutually respectful, however irritated Pilate may be with the soldiers, use the vus form to each other, whilst Joseph, before the Cross, uses the tu form (231f., cf. Longinus in 115–18): (9) Tant fist Judas grant felonie E a son os grant folie, Quand te vendi par envie A cels qui ne t’aiment mie! (P229–32) ‘How heinous was the crime Judas committed, And how foolhardy for himself, When he sold you out of envy To those who did not love you!’





Tony Hunt

This is followed by Nichodemus: (10) L’alme de lui en est perie Quant sei mesme toli la vie. Mult par poaient estre dolenz Chaistif Jueu, li men parenz; Plus sunt malurez qu’altres genz. Ceo est si veir que tu n’i menz. (P233-38) ‘His soul perished for it When he took his own life. Certainly they ought to be greatly afflicted by this, These wretched Jews, my own kindred; They have more to be unhappy about than other peoples. This is indeed true, you do not lie.’ It is uncertain whether 238 “Ceo est si veir que tu n’i menz” (not in C) is to be attributed to Joseph agreeing with Nichodemus’s preceding comments on the Jews (236–7 reflecting Joseph’s own views) or whether it should be interpreted as a reference, in the mouth of Nichodemus, to Jesus.6 The latter is perhaps more consistent with the playwright’s careful use of tu and vus forms, whereby tu is the normal form of address to Jesus. In scene 6 Nichodemus addresses God with tu (258, 264), as both Joseph and Longinus did earlier (227f., 111f.), but he addresses Joseph with vus (269). It is best interpreted (‘This is indeed true, for Thou speakest the truth’) as a reference to Jesus’s prophecy of the evil that was to befall the Jewish race (Matth. 23, 37–8). In scene 7 Caiaphas uses vus to Pilate (280), who reciprocates (294), and he does so a second time (321), and Pilate again reciprocates (322), an indication of the playwright’s consistency in maintaining vus in respectful formal exchanges (compare 238 “Ceo est si veir que tu [= Jesus] n’i menz’ and 294 “Vus [= Caiaphas] ditez veir, ceo m’est avis”).

. Conclusion The conclusion of this brief survey is that the playwright has made remarkably coherent and consistent use of the tu – vus choices open to him and that his selection of the forms corresponds to the dramatic and psychological requirements of characterisation, particularly, of course, the relationships of the characters.

The use of tu/vus in the Anglo-Norman Seinte Resureccion

The frequently asserted arbitrariness of the choice or the alleged random mixing of the tu and vus forms receive no illustration here. There is nothing sporadic about their appearance. They occur mostly in blocks of matching speeches and sudden changes seem to be properly motivated.

Notes . For the Old French period see Woledge (1976, for Chrétien see pp. 49-192); Bianchini (1971); Kennedy (1972: 135-49) shows how certain dramatic and stylistic effects are consistently obtained and generally preserved in the transmission; Breivega (1977). . Cf. the observation of Bianchini (1971: 73) that the change from vous to tu is never arbitrary in Chrétien, but rather is used “per sottolineare un cambiamento nel rapporto tra i due interlocutori, cambiamento che puo essere dovuto a dolore, sdegno, paura o ad altri sentimenti simili, mai a tenerezza o amore”. ‘to highlight a change in the relationship of two speakers, a change which may be caused by pain, disdain, fear or other similar emotions, but never by tenderness or love’ . A useful bibliography will be found in Lebsanft (1987a). . This division of the scenes differs from that (also totalling eight) produced by Jenkins et al. (1943: cvii). . I use “pron.” to indicate the subject and object pronouns, and “vb.” to indicate 2nd pers. verbs when employed without a personal pronoun. It should be noted that z is a common orthographical variant for s in MS P and this makes the determination of the person of the verb less obvious than in standard Francien usage, see Lebsanft (1987b: 10–11). . It is possible, in view of the rhyme scheme, that 233-4 should complete a huitain in the mouth of Joseph and that Nichodemus’s speech (a quatrain) should begin at 235. Jenkins et al. (1943: 54) translates P238 ‘It is indeed true, that Thou (Jesus) art to be relied upon’ whilst condemning the line as “isolated and incorrect, a pure cheville”.

References Ashby, William J. 1992 The variable use of on versus tu / vous for indefinite reference in Spoken French. Journal of French Language Studies 2, 127–45. Bevington, David (ed.) 1975 Medieval Drama. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Bianchini, Simonetta 1971 I pronomi allocutivi in Chrétien de Troyes. Cultura Neolatina 31, 69–114. Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Rawlinson Poetry 234 (Commentary on the Song of Songs).





Tony Hunt

Breivega, Ola 1977 Vos et Tu dans les Fables de Marie de France. In: Lennart Carlsson (ed.). Actes du 6e Congrès des Romanistes scandinaves. Uppsala, Almqvist and Wiksell International, 31–40. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman 1972 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Pier Paolo Giglioli (ed.). Language and Social Context: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 252–82 (with bibliography). Foulet, Lucien 1918–19 Le tutoiement en ancien français. Romania 45, 501–3. –––––– 1928 Petite syntaxe de l’ancien français. 3rd rev. ed. Paris: Champion. Gardner-Chloros, Penelope 1991 Ni tu ni vous: principes et paradoxes dans l’emploi des pronoms d’allocution en français contemporain. Journal of French Language Studies 1, 139–55. Holden, Anthony J. (ed.) 1993 Prothesilaus by Hue de Rotelande. Vol. 3 (Anglo-Norman Texts 49). London: Anglo-Norman Text Society. Hunt, Tony 2001 Verbal Artistry in the Seinte Resureccion. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 11, 3–10. Jenkins, Thomas Atkinson et al. (eds) 1943 La Seinte Resureccion (Anglo-Norman Texts 4). Oxford: Anglo-Norman Text Society. Kennedy, Elspeth 1972 The use of tu and vous in the first part of the Old French prose Lancelot. In: F.J. Barnett et al. (eds). History and Structure of French: Essays in Honour of Professor T.B.W. Reid. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 135–49. Lebsanft, Franz 1987a Die Anrede im Französischen. Ein Überblick über ältere und neuere Arbeiten. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 38, 35–60. –––––– 1987b Le problème du mélange du ‘tu’ et du ‘vous’ en ancien français. Romania 108, 1–19. Moignet, Gérard 1973 Grammaire de l’ancien français: morphologie – syntaxe. Paris: Klincksieck. Mason, Patricia 1982 The pronouns of familiarity and respect in the Roman de la Rose and its Middle English translation. In: Patricia W. Cummins et al. (eds). Literary and Historical Perspectives of the Middle Ages: Proceedings of the 1981 SEMA Meeting. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 66–75. –––––– 1990 The pronouns of address in Middle French. Studia Neophilologica 62, 95–100. Ruck, Elaine H. 1991 An Index of Themes and Motifs in Twelfth-Century Arthurian Poetry. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer.

The use of tu/vus in the Anglo-Norman Seinte Resureccion

Wilkie, Everett C. Jr. 1978 Anglo-Norman Resurrection (C Text). Allegorica 3, ii 127–61. Woledge, Julia 1976 The Use of Tu and Vous in Medieval French Verse Romances from 1160 to 1240. Unpublished PhD. dissertation, University of London.



“And if ye wol nat so, my lady sweete, thanne preye I thee, [...].”1 Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale Thomas Honegger University of Jena

.

Review and critique of the relevant literature

The (implicit) position of most scholars (Stidston 1917, Walcutt 1935, Koziol 1943, Nathan 1959, Brown and Gilman 1960, Schentke 1962, Finkenstaedt 1963, Evans 1967, Johnston 1967, Metcalf 1971, Sampson 1979, Wilcockson 1980, Burnley 1983 and 1990, and Wales 1996) who have analysed forms of address within the framework of historical (socio-)linguistics could be characterised as biased in favour of a “Systemlinguistik” approach,2 i.e. starting from the assumption that we are dealing with a closed and homogenous system of address with a well-known and limited set of variants. The second-person pronouns of address, which are in Middle English ye, with the oblique-case forms you, your(e), and thou, with the oblique-case forms thee, thy, thine – from now on referred to as ye and thou for all forms3 – have often been treated as if they were the only relevant features by means of which social and interactional-emotional categories such as “superordination vs. subordination”, “distance vs. intimacy”, “respect vs. disrespect”, “emotional involvement (positive or negative) vs. emotional distance”, “upper class usage vs. lower class usage” etc. could be expressed. As a consequence, critics have often neglected to consider systematically4 other sources of information, such as nominal forms of address, self-reference, situational information provided by the narrator, the relative interactional status of the speakers,5 and the overall tone of the interaction.6 Such a limited approach may work well in languages with a more rigid and clear-cut distribution of T and V (e.g. modern German7 and French). Yet in languagesystems such as those of the Middle English dialects of the time of Chaucer, things are not so clear.8 On the one hand, the use of thou and ye as representatives of two mutually complementing categories was not yet universally implemented, and even in Chaucer’s lifetime remained in a state of flux.9 Depending on the speaker’s



Thomas Honegger

geographic origin, social standing and age, it could well be that he or she would not have ye in his or her repertory as a form of address for a single person,10 a phenomenon also observed in present-day languages.11 On the other hand, the characteristics of the emerging “system” differ greatly in at least one point from those of modern-day reference languages such as German or French: it is possible to switch back and forth between the two forms. This switching between thou and ye in speeches addressed to an individual is, to the irritation of many a modern-day linguist, rather frequent and not always governed by obvious rules,12 which has led to the inclusion of the all-purpose category of “switching”13 in the explanatory models. The implementation of such a “loophole” can be seen as an attempt to save the “Systemlinguistik” model by allowing the neglected “situational” elements in by the back-door, yet without including them in the primary analysis. The focus remains therefore on the second-person pronouns as the one category that carries the greatest weight in establishing the interactional relationship between speakers. I would like to argue that this need not be always the case. It is perfectly possible that linguistic categories other than pronouns of address, or even non-linguistic elements, may take over the main burden of defining the interactional relationship. Within an overall theory of adversion,14 pronominal forms of address are only one (though admittedly an important) element. An ideal and comprehensive analysis would take into account not only the various forms of address and (self-) reference, but also the overall tone and relevant nonlinguistic elements. There are, however, two formidable challenges which render such an approach rather difficult to implement in the analysis of historical texts. First, we often lack any information other than that provided by the (written) dialogues. Second, the elements other than T and V forms are less easily – if at all – systematised into convenient dichotomies and flow-charts.15 Nominal forms of address, for example, constitute a basically open category, and establishing the exact relationship between these forms to each other and to other possible categories may prove too complex a task for scholars without “native speaker competence”.16 “Systemlinguistik” research into nominal forms of address has thus been restricted to contemporary languages.17 And those scholars who have tried and explored the use and function of nominal forms of address in historical times often remain on a descriptiveempirical level.18 My research suggests that a more comprehensive analysis that aims at including pronominal and nominal forms of address as well as other linguistic and nonlinguistic features will be possible only on a case to case basis since it has proved difficult to incorporate these features in the limited “Systemlinguistik” model of the pronouns of address.19 Thus, such a comprehensive approach may be used to complement the more restricted “pronominal model”, but it cannot – and should not – replace it.

Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale

.

Basics

The following, greatly simplified graphic illustration of the “situation of address” will serve as our point of departure:

too polite

S

Figure 1.

H

irony

appropriate

politeness

not polite enough

insult

Situation of address. S = speaker, H = hearer (addressee)

Every participant in a social interaction which has gone beyond the preliminary (nonlinguistic) stage (e.g. mutual visual perception) sees him or herself confronted with the problem of choosing (sooner or later) an appropriate form of address for the person he or she is talking to. There are basically three possible scenarios. If the speaker (S) uses a form of address which is too polite (e.g. a knight addresses a simple peasant with lord and ye), the hearer (H) will most likely interpret the inappropriate form as a sign of irony.20 If an appropriate form of address is chosen, however, (e.g. a knight addresses the king with my lord and ye), the effect is one of politeness.21 Thirdly, if the speaker happens to use a form of address which is not polite enough (e.g. a peasant addresses a king with freke and thou), he or she insults the addressee.22 The problem of the appropriateness of any form of address is, of course, inseparably connected with extralinguistic categories such as status, social hierarchy, and emotional or social distance or closeness – or, to use Brown and Gilman’s (1960) terms, power and solidarity. I will briefly illustrate this basic distinction, which has been discussed predominantly within the “Systemlinguistik” framework of V and T, by using, once more, the examples of the peasant and the king, and of the knight and the king. A medieval peasant, by legal definition, finds himself at the lower end of the social hierarchy. In terms of power, he is thus inferior to the king – a fact which is expressed by his unidirectional use of the pronoun ye when speaking to the monarch. The king, however, does not return the respectful ye but correctly uses





Thomas Honegger

the pronoun thou, thus indicating the vast gap in the social hierarchy which separates him from his interlocutor. The use of ye by the king would be utterly inappropriate and, in most circumstances, ridiculous. Leaving the lowly spheres of peasant-life, we can now turn to the realm of courtly society, which is also the sphere in which the events of The Knight’s Tale take place. The general “courtly” pronoun of address is ye, irrespective of the fine or not so fine distinctions of power and hierarchy. Thus, a knight addresses the king with ye and, in return, is also addressed as ye. The singular pronoun thou is only used on special occasions, e.g. when two related courtly persons talk to each other and want to express their closeness (Brown and Gilman’s “pronoun of solidarity”); or, when the king is rebuking one of his knights, he may switch to the unidirectional thou, thus stressing his higher hierarchical status (Brown and Gilman’s “pronoun of power”). Thus, every deviation from the pronominal ye-norm within courtly society has an expressive function. Yet, without anticipating the results of our analysis, we may already point out some severe limitations of the “pure pronominal theory”.23 Even though the pronominal forms of address are often used to establish the basic interactional categories of power and solidarity, they are, at the same time, a rather crude tool and thus need to be complemented by other means. A king in a romance, for example, would be severely limited in his linguistic ability if he could only choose between the “power pronoun” thou and the “polite pronoun” ye in order to express his feelings towards other members of courtly society. Luckily, as we will see, the pronominal forms of address can be complemented by suitable nominal forms of address and other elements of adversion, and this combinatory flexibility allows a speaker to remain on a chosen level while at the same time being able to express finer shades of meaning. A knight may thus address another knight with the “general courtly pronoun” ye (indicating that both persons are on the same hierarchical level), yet express his feelings towards the other person by means of an additional nominal form of address (e.g. the Christian name to indicate emotional closeness, or the formal Sire to express emotional distance or neutrality or additional respect). An interactional sequence may thus be compared, to some extent, to an orchestrated piece of music. Some instruments may predominate for a while (“the first violins of pronominal forms”) yet the musical theme may also be taken up and carried by other instruments (“the violas of nominal forms” or “the horns of gesture”). After these short preliminary remarks on the general use of the pronouns of address, I will now turn to Chaucer’s “courtly tale of the Knight”. The Knight’s Tale distinguishes itself not only by being told by a member of courtly society, but also by being the “most courtly” tale as far as content is concerned: the action is restricted to courtly protagonists – with the notable exception of deities, a fact which is also mirrored in the use of the pronouns of address.

Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale

Thus, as a rule, we have the use of the “general courtly pronoun of address” ye among human protagonists. In order to obtain consistency in results, I have limited my exemplary analysis to this tale. I presuppose that the forms of address show a certain inner consistency, even if The Knight’s Tale may be a revision of an early work24 and may therefore differ in this respect from Chaucer’s usage in later tales. In a first step, I will give a brief overview of the most prominent instances of interplay between the different elements of adversion in The Knight’s Tale and, in a second step, discuss the notoriously difficult case of the ritualistic address to deities which has proven “resistant” to analysis within the “Systemlinguistik” framework of V and T.

. The Knight’s Tale: Talking to people The Knight’s Tale, with its courtly narrator and similar range of protagonists, can be expected to and actually does feature V forms, mainly in accordance with the general principles as first outlined by Skeat.25 In interactions between humans, the following combinations of elements of adversion occur: 1) Mutual reinforcement of nominal and pronominal forms of address. See, for example, the noble lady’s address to Theseus with lord and ye: “And certes, lord,26 to abyden youre presence, / Heere in this temple of the goddesse Clemence / We han ben waitynge al this fourtenyght.” (ll. 927–9) ‘And certainly, lord, in order to wait for your presence, we have been dwelling here in this temple of the goddess Clemency for a fortnight.’ 2) Modification, disambiguation or complementation of pronominal address by means of nominal forms of address (and vice versa). See, for example, Palamon’s address to Arcite in which thou is, in the first case, the thou of solidarity and affection, as becomes clear by the accompanying my leeve brother. Some lines futher on, however, it changes to the thou of scorn, as is indicated (lacking other information such as tone of voice etc.) by false Arcite: “[...] / Neither of us in love to hyndre oother, / Ne in noon oother cas, my leeve brother, / But that thou sholdest trewely forthren me / In every cas, as I shal forthren thee –” (ll. 1136 –9) ‘Neither of us should hinder the other in matters of love nor in any other case, my beloved brother; but you should help me in good faith in any endeavour, so as I shall help you.’





Thomas Honegger

“Nay, certes, false Arcite, thow shalt nat so.” (l. 1145) ‘No, false Arcite, you shall certainly not do so.’ 3) Complementation of forms of address by means of self-reference. See, for instance, the noble ladies’ complementation of the solidarity thou used towards Theseus by means of a humiliating self-reference such as wrecched women: “Som drope of pitee, thurgh thy gentilesse, / Upon us wrecched wommen lat thou falle” (ll. 920–1). ‘Let a drop of pity, in your nobleness, on us unhappy women fall.’ 4) Complementation of forms of address by means of nonlinguistic elements. See, for example, the self-humiliating behaviour of the queen, Emelye, and all the ladies in her retinue who implore the enraged Theseus to have pity on Palamon and Arcite: “‘Have mercy, Lord, upon us wommen alle!’ / And on hir bare knees adoun they fall / And wolde have kist his feet ther as he stood” (ll. 1757–9) ‘Have mercy, Lord, on all us women!’ And down onto their bare knees they fell and would have kissed his feet right where he stood.’ 5) Preceding forms of address influence the value of the following ones. See, for instance, the use of lord and ye in the foremost lady’s answer to Theseus’ rather brusque folk and ye (plural). She thus demonstratively highlights her courtliness: “‘What folk ben ye, that at myn homcomynge / Perturben so my feste with criynge?’” (ll. 905–6) ‘Who are you to disrupt at my homecoming my feast with your weeping?’ “She seyde, ‘Lord, to whom Fortune hath yiven / Victorie, and as a conqueror to lyven, / Nat greveth us youre glorie and youre honour’” (ll. 915–7) ‘She said, ‘Lord, to whom Fortuna has given victory and to live as a conqueror, it is not your glory and your honour that grieves us.’’ These combinations often occur after and next to each other, as the example of the encounter between Theseus and the wailing Theban women on the road to Athens show. Theseus returns in triumph from his wars and before he enters Athens, he comes upon a group of wailing women at the side of the road. Angry at their unfitting behaviour on such a festive occasion, he addresses them rather brusquely with folk and ye (plural) (l. 905; this is an example of category 2, i.e. the disambiguation of the pronominal address by means of the nominal form) and asks for an explanation. The foremost lady, the widow of King Cappaneus, answers him as follows:

Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale

(1) She seyde, “Lord, to whom Fortune hath yiven Victorie, and as a conqueror to lyven, Nat greveth us youre glorie and youre honour, But we biseken mercy and socour. Have mercy on oure wo and oure distresse! Som drope of pitee, thurgh thy gentilesse,27 Upon us wrecched wommen lat thou falle, For, certes, lord, ther is noon of us alle That she ne hath been a duchesse or a queene. Now be we caytyves, as it is wel seene, thanked be Fortune and hire false wheel, That noon estaat assureth to be weel. And certes, lord, to abyden youre presence, Heere in this temple of the goddesse Clemence We han ben waitynge al this fourtenyght. Now help us, lord, sith it is in thy myght.” (Knight’s Tale I (A) 915–30)

915

920

925

930

‘She said, “Lord, to whom Fortuna has given victory and to live as a conqueror, it is not your glory and your honour that grieves us, but we rather beg your mercy and help. Have mercy on our woe and our distress. Let a drop of pity, in your nobleness, on us unhappy women fall. For sure there is not one among us all who was not once a duchess or a queen. But now we are utterly miserable, as may be clearly seen; thanks be to Fortuna and her treacherous wheel that guarantees to no estate on earth to be secure. And certainly, lord, in order to wait for your presence, we have been dwelling here in this temple of the goddess Clemency for a fortnight. Now help us, lord, since it is in your power to do so.”’ The occurrence of both thou and ye forms can be explained by means of Skeat’s principles, with the ye as pluralis reverentiae and the thou of companionship or, better, human solidarity. Yet this is only half, or even less than half the story. If we take also nominal terms of address and other elements of adversion into account, we will arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of the situation. The basic tone is set by the respectful nominal form lord (l. 915) and the polite plural form of the pronoun, ye (l. 917; category 1, mutual reinforcement of nominal and pronominal forms of address). In this context, the situationally appropriate ye functions also as an in-group marker28 to indicate the speaker’s “courtliness” (as is then made explicit in l. 922f.). It is only within





Thomas Honegger

this firmly established framework of “respect” that the speaker varies the pronoun, and addresses Theseus with the thou of solidarity (l. 920f.). Yet another strategy is used by the ladies. They may address Theseus with thou, but at the same time it must be noted that they (although duchesses or even queens) simultaneously call themselves wrecched wommen (l. 950; category 3, complementation of forms of address by means of self-reference) and kneel in front of Theseus (l. 897f.; category 4, complementation of forms of address by means of nonlinguistic elements), or else lie prostrate on the ground,29 thus demonstratively humiliating themselves in front of the duke who sits on horseback. This act of self-humiliation is of great importance, since it guarantees that the necessary courtly minimum distance between the ladies and Theseus is maintained in spite of the “pronominal rapprochement” – as is shown by the following illustration:

Figure 2.

Minimum polite distance. S = speaker, H = hearer.

The ladies’ verbal (wrecched wommen l. 950) and nonverbal (kneeling down or prostrating) acts of self-humiliation make it possible for them to address Theseus with thou without incurring his wrath. The basic tone of “respect” is guaranteed by means of a minimal polite distance which is kept up by additional elements of adversion. We have thus the establishment of a courtly-respectful basic tone by means of stance, nominal and pronominal forms, and a variation of this prevailing mood by means of the pronominal forms. The next example seems to be a similar case – at least at first sight. Palamon addresses Venus in her temple. He, too, is kneeling (cf. l. 2219):

Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale

(2) ‘Fairest of faire, O lady myn, Venus, [...] Have pitee of my bittre teeris smerte, And taak myn humble preyere at thyn herte. [...] That make I myn avow, so ye me helpe! [...] For though so be that Mars is god of armes, Youre vertu is so greet in hevene above That if yow list, I shal wel have my love. Thy temple wol I worshipe everemo, And on thyn auter, where I ride or go, I wil doon sacrifice and fires beete. And if ye wol nat so, my lady sweete, Thanne preye I thee, tomorwe with a spere That Arcita me thurgh the herte bere. [...] Yif me my love, thow blisful lady deere.’ (Knight’s Tale I (A) 2221–60)

2225

2237

2250

2255

2260

‘Fairest of the fair ones, o my lady Venus, [...] Have pity on my bitter and painful tears and take my humble prayer to your heart [...] This I swear [to do] if you help me [...] Even though Mars is the god of arms, your power is so great in the heaven above that if it pleases you, I may well have my love. Your temple I will worship evermore and on your altar, wherever I ride or go, I will sacrifice and kindle fires. Yet if you desire otherwise, my dear lady, then I pray you, that tomorrow Arcite shall pierce me through the heart with a spear [...] Give me my love, you dear blissful lady.’ As in the example before, the nominal and pronominal forms lady and ye seem to express the respectful basic tone which is then varied by means of an additional thou of solidarity. However, since the addressee is a goddess, the interaction needs special consideration.

. The Knight’s tale: Talking to gods The “interaction” between humans and deities has often been set apart.30 On the one hand, God and gods have been traditionally addressed with thou,31 even





Thomas Honegger

though the French language started to apply vous.32 On the other hand, Chaucer’s (or his protagonists’) use of pronouns in addressing God and gods often shows seemingly random changes between thou and ye.33 From a point of view based on the thou/ye dichotomy, there is indeed a problem, so that Nathan (1959: 194) suggests that there is “no firmly established usage in addressing a deity.”34 The fact that most “conversations” with God or gods are one-way affairs and usually rather brief does not help either. The three lengthy invocations of the pagan deities in The Knight’s Tale provide therefore one of the rare opportunities to analyse the problem in depth and a closer examination of Emelye, Arcite, and Palamon’s addressbehaviour towards deities will provide possible explanations for some of the seemingly arbitrary switching between thou and ye. As we have seen, it is usually the nominal forms of address that are used to keep up the basic tone of an interaction in The Knight’s Tale, while the pronominal forms serve to modify the relationship.35 Emelye and Arcite’s invocations follow this pattern. Emelye visits the temple of Diana and addresses the goddess as follows: (3) ‘O chaste goddesse of the wodes grene, To whom bothe hevene and erthe and see is sene, Queene of the regne of Pluto derk and lowe, Goddesse of maydens, that myn herte hast 36 knowe Ful many a yeer, and woost what I desire, As keepe me fro thy vengeaunce and thyn ire, That Attheon aboughte cruelly. Chaste goddesse, wel wostow that I Desire to ben a mayden al my lyf, Ne nevere wol I be no love ne wyf. I am, thow woost, yet of thy compaignye, A mayde, and love huntynge and venerye, And for to walken in the wodes wilde, And noght to ben a wyf and be with childe. Noght wol I knowe compaignye of man. Now help me, lady, sith ye may and kan, For tho thre formes that thou hast in thee. [...] Bihoold, goddesse of clene chastitee, The bittre teeris that on my chekes falle. Syn thou art mayde and kepere of us alle, My maydenhede thou kepe and wel conserve,

2300

2305

2310

Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale

And whil I lyve, a mayde I wol thee serve.’ (Knight’s Tale I (A) 2297–330)

2330

‘O chaste goddess of the green woods, who perceives heaven and earth and sea, queen of Pluto’s dark and deep realm, goddess of maidens, you who have known my heart for many a year and who knows what I desire, spare me from your vengance and your wrath which Actaeon received full cruelly. Chaste goddess, you know well that I desire to remain a virgin all my life, never to be a mistress or a wife. I am, as you know, still of your company, a virgin, and I love hunting and the chase and to walk in the wild woods, and not to be a wife and with child. Neither do I want to know the company of man. Now help me, lady, since you may and can by the three forms that you unite in yourself. [...] See, goddess of pure chastity, the bitter tears that fall upon my cheeks. Since you are a virgin and protector of us all, keep you my maidenhood and preserve it well, and as long as I live, I will serve you as a maiden.’ Emelye repeatedly uses a nominal form of address that stresses Diana’s divine nature (goddess, ll. 2297, 2300, 2304, 2326). This way she initiates and sustains a hierarchical relationship between woman and goddess. The thou is, on this level, the norm and needs no explanation, i.e. the combination goddess and thou is an example of category 1, mutual reinforcement of nominal and pronominal forms of address. The predominant framework for the interaction is therefore one of human being and god(dess), i.e. of categorial difference.

woman to goddess categorial difference nominal TA,37 goddesse and traditional thou

Emelye

level of human being to god/goddess Figure 3.

Emelye addressing the goddess Diana.

Diana





Thomas Honegger

Yet, at the same time, Emelye successfully creates a “bond of solidarity” between herself and the goddess by referring several times and by various means to Diana’s and her own state of virginity and chastity (ll. 2297, 2300, 2304–8, 2326, 2328–30) together with their shared likes (hunting, ll. 2308–9) and dislikes (childbearing, l. 2310). The goddess Diana becomes more and more humanised and we may assume the existence of an additional, though somewhat subordinate “human being to human being level”. On this level, respect is expressed by means of such forms as lady and ye (category 1, mutual reinforcement), and thou is no longer a neutral form. Yet since sufficient deference is given by means of the nominal forms of address, Emelye’s consistent use of the now ambiguous thou-forms38 may not quite unintentionally exploit the connotations of intimacy. On the pronominal level they are talking from maiden to maiden, so to speak.39 (maid-)servant to lady nominal TA, lady and ye, queene

hierarchy/power Diana woman to woman

Emelye ?daughter to mother?40 thou

solidarity

level of human being to human being Figure 4.

Emelye addressing the “woman” Diana.

Arcite then turns to Mars with the following words: (4) ‘O stronge god, that in the regnes colde Of Thrace honoured art and lord yholde, And hast in every regne and every lond Of armes al the brydel in thyn hond, And hem fortunest as thee lyst devyse, Accepte of me my pitous sacrifise. If so be that my youthe may deserve, And that my myght be worthy for to serve Thy godhede, that I may been oon of thyne, Thanne preye I thee to rewe upon my pyne.

2375

2380

Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale

For thilke peyne and thilke hoote fir In which thow whilom brendest for desir, Whan that thow usedest the beautee 2385 Of faire, yonge, fresshe Venus free, And haddest hire in armes at thy wille – Although thee ones on a tyme mysfille, Whan Vulcanus hadde caught thee in his las And foond thee liggynge by his wyf, allas! – 2390 For thilke sorwe that was in thyn herte, Have routhe as wel upon my peynes smerte. I am yong and unkonnynge, as thow woost, [...] And wel I woot, withouten help or grace 2400 Of thee ne may my strengthe noght availle. Thanne help me, lord, tomorwe in my bataille, For thilke fyr that whilom brente thee, As wel as thilke fyr now brenneth me, And do that I tomorwe have victorie. 2405 Myn be the travaille, and thyn be the glorie! Thy sovereyn temple wol I moost honouren Of any place, and alwey moost labouren In thyn plesaunce and in thy craftes stronge, And in thy temple I wol my baner honge 2410 And alle armes of my compaignye, And evermo, unto that day I dye, Eterne fir I wol bifore thee fynde. And eek to this avow I wol me bynde: My beerd, myn heer, that hongeth long adoun, 2415 That nevere yet ne felte offensioun Of rasour nor of shere, I wol thee yive, And ben thy trewe servant whil I lyve. Now, lord, have routhe upon my sorwes soore; Yif me [victorie]; I aske thee namoore.’ 2420 (Knight’s Tale I (A) 2373–420) ‘O powerful god who is venerated and considered lord in the cold realms of Thracia and who guides the arms in every realm and land, and who favours them as it pleases you, accept of me my humble sacrifice. If it be





Thomas Honegger

that my youth is deserving and my strength worthy to serve your godhead, so that I may be one of your company, then I pray you to have pity on me. For the sake of the same pain and the same hot fire in which you once were consumed by desire, when you enjoyed the beauty of the fair, young, fresh and willing Venus, and had her in your arms at your will - although things went once wrong for you, when Vulcan caught you in his snare and found you lying by his wife, alas! - for the same sorrow that was in you heart, have pity also on my hurting pain. I am young and ignorant, as you know, [...] And I know very well that, without help or grace of you, my strength will not suffice. Thus help me, lord, tomorrow in my fight, for the sake of the same fire that once consumed you, as this same fire is now consuming me, and make that tomorrow I will have the victory. Mine be the toil and yours be the glory! Your most excellent temple I will honour above all places, and always work most for your delight and in your mighty art, and I will hang my banner in your temple, and all the arms of my company. And forever, until the day I die, an eternal fire before you I will provide. Furthermore to this vow will I commit myself: my beard, my hair, that hangs down long, that as yet has never suffered the touch of razor or of shear, I will give to you, and be your faithful servant while I live. Now lord, have pity upon my painful sorrow, give me victory, I ask for nothing else.’ Arcite, like Emelye before, establishes a hierarchical man – god relationship in the first part of his invocation. It is, however, less prominent than the one between Emelye and Diana, and he addresses Mars only once with god (l. 2373; which suggests the interpretation of the immediately following thou-forms as the traditional pronominal address to gods; as such it is an example of category 1, i.e. mutual reinforcement). man to god categorial difference nominal TA, god and traditional thou

Arcite

level of human being to god Figure 5. Arcite addressing the god Mars.

Mars

Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale

Similar to Emelye, Arcite also points out similarities between himself and Mars (cf. l. 2383f., 2391f., 2403f.) and establishes a “bond of solidarity” so that instead of talking to a god, he begins talking to a senior warrior and man who has also experienced the pains of love. The traditional thou can be interpreted, on this level, as a sign of solidarity, while the predominant nominal address of the second half of his invocation, lord (l. 2402, 2419) mirrors Arcite’s attempt to define his relationship to Mars primarily as one of vassal and liege-lord (see also his offers of service, l. 2380f., 2406-2418).

vassal to liege-lord nominal TA, lord

hierarchy/power Mars

Arcite

man to man warrior to warrior thou

solidarity

level of human being to human being Figure 6.

Arcite addressing the “warrior” Mars.

Palamon’s situation is more complicated. He invokes Venus with these words: (5) ‘Fairest of faire, O lady myn, Venus, Doughter to Jove and spouse of Vulcanus, Thow gladere of the mount of Citheron, For thilke love thow haddest to Adoon, Have pitee of my bittre teeris smerte, And taak myn humble preyere at thyn herte. Allas! I ne have no langage to telle Th’effectes ne the tormentz of myn helle; Myn herte may myne harmes nat biwreye; I am so confus that I kan noght seye But “Mercy, lady bright, that knowest weele My thought and seest what harmes that I feele!” Considere al this and rewe upon my soore, As wisly as I shal for evermore, Emforth my myght, thy trewe servant be,

2225

2230

2235





Thomas Honegger

And holden werre alwey with chastitee. That make I myn avow, so ye me helpe! [...] But I wolde have fully possessioun Of Emelye, and dye in thy servyse. Fynd thow the manere hou and in what wyse: I recche nat but it may bettre be To have victorie of hem, or they of me, So that I have my lady in myne armes. For though so be that Mars is god of armes, Youre vertu is so greet in hevene above That if yow list, I shal wel have my love. Thy temple wol I worshipe everemo, And on thyn auter, where I ride or go, I wil doon sacrifice and fires beete. And if ye wol nat so, my lady sweete, Thanne preye I thee, tomorwe with a spere That Arcita me thurgh the herte bere. [...] Yif me my love, thow blisful lady deere.’ (Knight’s Tale I (A) 2221–60)

2245

2250

2255

2260

‘Fairest of the fair ones, o my lady Venus, daughter of Jove and spouse of Vulcan, you bringer of joy of Mount Citherea, for the sake of the same love that you had for Adonis, have pity on my bitter and painful tears and take my humble prayer to your heart. Alas, I have no words to tell either the effects or the torments of my hell(pains); my heart cannot express my sufferings. I am so confused that I cannot say anything but ‘Mercy, lady bright, you know so well my mind and you see the despair that I feel.’ Consider all this and have pity on my pain as surely as I shall ever be your faithful servant according to my ability, and always combat chastity. This I swear [to do] if you help me [...] But I would have fully possession of Emily, and die in your service. You find the manner how and in what way. I do not care whether it is better to have the victory over them, or they over me, only that I have my lady in my arms. Even though Mars is the god of arms, your power is so great in the heaven above that if it pleases you, I may well have my love. Your temple I will worship evermore and on your altar,

Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale

wherever I ride or go, I will sacrifice and kindle fires. Yet if you desire otherwise, my dear lady, then I pray you, that tomorrow Arcite shall pierce me through the heart with a spear [...] Give me my love, you blissful dear lady.’ The relationship human being – god(dess) that has been explicitly established in the preceding two invocations is only present by implication in the first few lines (cf. ll. 2221–2223; category 1, mutual reinforcement).

man to goddess hierarchy/power nominal TA, e.g. doughter to Jove and traditional thou Venus

Palamon

level of human being to goddess Figure 7.

Palamon addressing the goddess Venus.

Palamon, like Arcite, attempts to establish a strong “vassal – liege-lord (or liegelady)” relationship, which finds expression in his repeated use of lady (ll. 2221, 2231, 2254 and 2260). It gains additional prominence by means of ye (ll. 2237, 2249f. and 2254) and his offer of service (ll. 2235 and 2243).

knight to his liege-lady knight to his beloved lady? hierarchy/power lady (and ye) Venus man to woman

Palamon

?lover to beloved? thou

level of human being to human being Figure 8.

Palamon addressing the “woman” Venus.

solidarity





Thomas Honegger

Palamon starts out with the default form thou, yet repeatedly switches from thou to ye41 and back. The reason for this pronominal instability may be seen in the fact that Venus is of the opposite sex. Thus, also their hierarchical (“human”) relationship is in danger of being re- and misinterpreted in terms of a knight’s service to his beloved lady (“Minnedienst”). Because of this, Palamon finds it difficult to establish an asexual, “companionable” sub-relationship with the goddess. He may turn to her trustingly, appealing to her mercy, and try to create a certain feeling of solidarity by referring to a shared experience of love-longing (l. 2224). Yet he does not succeed in establishing a “companionable” relationship as is the case between Emelye and Diana and between Arcite and Mars. He seems not to be able to ignore the fact that Venus is a woman, and he a man. Thus, the stronger basic courtly relationship of a knight’s homage to his lady (with ye as the pronoun of address) not only dominates the nominal dimension of address, but also interferes with his use of pronouns. The thou is too ambiguous on the “human level” and Palamon is simply not able to hit the right tone with Venus. The seemingly random switching between thou and ye is thus the expression of Palamon’s interactional insecurity vis-à-vis Venus, which he himself hints at when he confesses: “I am so confus” (l. 2230).

. Conclusion As has become clear from our analysis of the interactional sequences in The Knight’s Tale, it is of the utmost importance to take a broader view when analysing more involved interactional patterns. This is especially important in cases where we have competing interactional levels, such as in addresses to (pagan) deities of the opposite sex. Concentrating on the pronouns of address, as scholars have tended to do in the past, is too limited an approach and does not do justice to the complexity of the matter. The prevalent model of pronominal address must, if necessary, be complemented by a “situational” analysis that takes into account all linguistic and nonlinguistic elements of adversion, such as nominal forms of address, selfreference, gestures, spatial position etc. I have deliberately added “if necessary”, since such a comprehensive analysis will, in most cases, merely confirm the findings of the more limited thou/ye approach. In others, however, it will yield additional information or even explain those cases which do not fit the general model.

Notes . The Knight’s Tale (l. 2254f.). All quotations are, if not indicated otherwise, taken from Benson (1987). The manuscript-variants of the passages discussed in detail have been crosschecked with the edition by Manly and Rickert (1940).

Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale

. Braun (1984 and 1988: 18) gives a well-informed critique of this approach. See also, more recently, Blake (1992: 537–539). . I will use ye and thou when talking about Middle English pronouns of address used for individual persons, but I will use V (< vos) and T (< tu) as generic designators for the polite and the familiar pronouns respectively in any language (cf. Brown and Gilman 1960: 254). . There is no lack of isolated attempts to connect nominal forms of address with the occurrence of T or V (e.g. Finkenstaedt 1963: 97, Burnley in this volume), yet these instances do not add up to a systematic approach. The notable exception to date is Busse’s study on the co-occurrence of nominal and pronominal address forms in Shakespeare (in this volume). . I am indebted to Andreas H. Jucker (conference lecture and personal communication) who pointed out the crucial importance of the momentary situational context. . The necessity for a more inclusive approach has been noted early by some critics. Already Jakobson (1960: 278), commenting on Brown and Gilman (1960), argued: “The use of different pronouns designating the addressee is but a part of a more complex code of verbal attitudes toward the addressee and must be analysed in connection with this total code, in particular with the question of whether we do or do not name the addressee and how we title him.” See also Ervin-Tripp (1972: 237): “We need to know other signals, such as tone of voice, other address features, and the available ambiguities of the relationship.” . See the discussions of the German pronouns of address by Simon and Hickey in this volume. . See Stidston (1917) and Finkenstaedt (1963: 48–90). . See Stidston (1917: 81): “But if these two monuments [i.e. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and William of Palerne] be set aside we may say that the sing. is, even as late as the time of the Vernon MS. [ca. 1380], the accepted form and the use of the plur. should call for some special explanation.” See also Burnley’s study in this volume. . This might be the case with the Green Knight in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, though a certain “rudeness” is certainly intended. . Braun (1988: 20) points out that in Jordanian Arabic, for example, rural speakers do not have a V form and thus, when speaking to an urban higher status adressee, cannot do anything other than use the T form. . Simon, in his contribution in this volume, differentiates therefore between the pragmatically oriented system of Middle High German and the grammaticalised one of Modern Standard German. . Sampson (1979: 67) argues that “changes of emotional state on the part of the addresser are concurrent with pronominal switching.” Burnley (1983: 20–22) differentiates between “affective switching”, which corresponds to Sampson’s “pronominal switching”, “rhetorical switching”, and “style switching”. Older scholarship simply labelled this phenomenon as “Mischstil” (e.g. Ganter 1905). See Hunt (this volume) for a fresh interpretation of the alleged random mixing of T and V in the Anglo-Norman Seinte Resureccion by means of an approach that takes into account the situational context and the psychological motivation of the protagonists.





Thomas Honegger

. The term “adversion” is defined by Kohz (1982: 116) as comprising all the linguistic and non-linguistic elements of the act of changing one’s approach to a person; e.g. gaze, greeting, gesture, stance, address etc. I will use adversion rather than address since the former is the more comprehensive term. . This does not mean that dichotomies and flow-charts are per se desirable forms to present one’s findings. Braun (1988: 19–20) comments: “A flow chart can only summarize or symbolize the selection process which takes place either in one speaker or in a completely homogenous speech community.” . Preliminary research into the nominal forms of address in KnT, FranT, WBT, Tr and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in the context of my M.A. thesis has shown that Chaucer uses only a limited number of nominal forms of address that may be systematised to a certain degree. The Gawain-poet, however, uses a wide variety of forms, many of which are difficult to categorise. For a successful attempt of linking nominal and pronominal forms of address in Shakespeare, see Busse (this volume). . See, for example, Ervin-Tripp (1972/1969) and Brown and Ford (1964/1961) . See, for example, Böhm (1936), Breuer (1983), and Stoll (1989). Pearsall (1995) is the exception to the rule, but his analysis remains limited to a discussion of the unadorned vocative in some of Chaucer’s works. . Shimonomoto’s (1986 and 2000) studies point in this direction, too. . See Sperber and Wilson (1986: 237–243) on irony. . Cf. Braun (1988: 49): “Forms of address are called and considered polite when they are adequate for the situation.” . This is true even if the peasant knew only the T form. What matters is the perlocutive effect of an utterance. Yet if the speaker is a cleric, then he may use T as part of the “style clergial”. See Burnley (1990 and this volume) on clerical address to kings. . For a critical evaluation of both Brown and Gilman’s (1960), and Gilman and Brown’s (1958) theory, see Braun (1984). . Nathan (1959: 201) tries to explain the irregularities of pronominal usage in The Knight’s Tale by seeing it as an early, though possibly revised, work. . Skeat (1894: V, 175): “Thou is the language of the lord to a servant, of an equal to an equal, and expresses also companionship, love, permission, defiance, scorn, threatening; whilst ye is the language of a servant to a lord, and of compliment, and further expresses honour, submission, or entreaty.” Skeat established these general principles on the basis of the pronouns-of-address usage in William of Palerne, but found them also true for Chaucer. . Italicisations are my own. . The Hengwrt as well as the Ellesmere manuscript have thy (line 920) and thou (line 921; see Ruggiers 1979: 13v). These forms have often been replaced in (later) manuscripts by

Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale

your (line 920) and now, ye, ∑ou thou or it (line 921; see Manly and Rickert 1940: III, 42), which could be interpreted as a move in the direction of a less complex system of address, i.e. one that endeavours to link nominal forms of address with corresponding pronominal ones – or at least tries to avoid “clashes”. . The combination lord and ye can be seen as being in deliberate contrast to Theseus’s preceding brusque folk and ye (plural). Thus it is an example of category 5, i.e. preceding forms of address influence the value of the following ones. . “They fillen gruf ” (1. 949) actually means ‘they fell face down’. . See Nathan (1959: 193 –194). . See Stidston (1917: 45–49) and the various examples throughout the centuries in Finkenstaedt (1963: 72, 94, 154f., and 169f.). . See Ganter (1905: 43) on the use of French vous to address God. . Whereas we have consistent use of thou in the narrator’s invocations of Mars and Polymya in Anelida and Arcite (Benson 1987: 376, ll. 1–21), Thesiphone and Cleo in Troilus and Criseyde (Benson 1987: 473, ll. 6–11; 489, ll. 8–10) or of God in The Prologue of the Prioress’s Tale (Benson 1987: 209, ll. 453–466), there also occur as yet inexplicable changes in the invocations of Venus in Troilus and Criseyde (Benson 1987: 513f., ll. 1–44) and Mary in the Prologue of the Prioress’s Tale (Benson 1987: 209, ll. 467–487), to name just a few examples. The most prominent instance of “inconsistent pronominal address” is, of course, Palamon’s to Venus in The Knight’s Tale. . It is noteworthy that the manuscripts show hardly any variation from one another in their use of pronominal forms of address towards deities. . The exceptions are Arcite and Palamon who always use thou when addressing each other. The nominal forms serve to disambiguate the ambiguous thou. . I have also italicised verbal forms that indicate second person singular by means of their ending. . TA stands for Terms of Address. . One exception: ye in l. 2312, which Schentke (1962: 102–103) explains as being due to the number of syllables and the quality of the vowels in the line discussed. However, the use of ye may also be interpreted as a sign of respect on the “human being to human being” level. . It is not always easy to decide which socio-semantic categories are of relevance. In Emelye’s invocation of Diana, the category of “virginity/chastity” is sufficiently stressed so that we can safely posit a “maiden to maiden” relationship. . As Stidston (1917: 41–44) points out, children would use both thou and ye to address their parents. Since Diana, in her reply to Emelye, uses doghter and thou (l. 2348), it can be assumed that this relationship is also relevant. . The switch from thou to ye occurs in lines 2237, 2249 and 2254.





Thomas Honegger

References Benson, Larry D. (ed.) 1987 The Riverside Chaucer. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Blake, Norman (ed.) 1992 The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume 2: 1066–1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Böhm, Annemarie 1936 Entwicklungsgeschichte der englischen Titel und Anreden seit dem 16. Jahrhundert. Dissertation Berlin. Braun, Friederike 1984 Die Leistungsfähigkeit der von Brown/Gilman und Brown/Ford eingeführten anredetheoretischen Kategorien bei der praktischen Analyse von Anredesystemen. In: Werner Winter (ed.). Anredeverhalten. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 41–72. –––––– 1988 Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Breuer, Horst 1983 Titel und Anreden bei Shakespeare und in der Shakespearezeit. Anglia 101, 49–77. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman 1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language. New York and London: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, 253–276. Brown, Roger, and Marguerite Ford 1964 Address in American English. In: Dell Hymes (ed.). Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row, 234 –244. [First published 1961 in: Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62, 375–385.] Burnley, David 1983 A Guide to Chaucer’s Language. London: Macmillan. –––––– 1990 Langland’s Clergial Lunatic. In: Helen Phillips (ed.). Langland, the Mystics and the Medieval English Religious Tradition. Essays in Honour of S.S. Hussey. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 31–38. Dickey, Eleanor 1997 Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics 33, 255–274. Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 1972 Sociolinguistic rules of address. In: J.B. Pride and Janet Holmes (eds). Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 225–240. [First published in: L. Berkowitz (ed.). 1969. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 4, 93 –107.] Evans, William W. 1967 Dramatic use of the second-person singular pronoun in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Studia Neophilologica 39, 38–45.

Forms of address in Chaucer’s Knight’s Tale

Finkenstaedt, Thomas 1963 You and Thou: Studien zur Anrede im Englischen (mit einem Exkurs zur Anrede im Deutschen). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Ganter, August 1905 Beiträge zur Geschichte der Anrede im Altfranzösischen. Dissertation Heidelberg. Darmstadt: Otto’s Hof-Buchdruckerei. Gilman, Albert, and Roger Brown 1958 Who says ‘tu’ to whom. ETC: A Review of General Semantics 15, 169–174. Honegger, Thomas 1991 Der Gebrauch der Anredeformen im mittelalterlichen höfischen Roman. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Zurich. Jakobson, Roman 1960 Comment on Brown and Gilman. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language. New York and London: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, 278–279. Johnston, Everett C. 1967 The signification of the pronoun of address in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Language Quarterly 5, 34–6. Kennedy, Arthur G. 1915 The Pronoun of Address in English Literature of the Thirteenth Century. Stanford: Stanford University. Kohz, Armin 1982 Linguistische Aspekte des Anredeverhaltens. Untersuchungen am Deutschen und Schwedischen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Koziol, Herbert 1943 Die Anredeformen bei Chaucer. Englische Studien 75, 170–174. Manly, John M., and Edith Rickert 1940 The Text of The Canterbury Tales: Studies on the Basis of All Known Manuscripts. Eight volumes. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Metcalf, Allan A. 1971 Sir Gawain and You. The Chaucer Review 5, 165–178. Nathan, Norman 1959 Pronouns of address in the Canterbury Tales. Mediaeval Studies 21, 193–201. Pearsall, Derek 1995 The Franklin’s Tale, Line 1469: Forms of Address in Chaucer. Studies in the Age of Chaucer 17, 69–78. Ruggiers, Paul G. (ed.) 1979 The Canterbury Tales. A Facsimile and Transcription of the Hengwrt Manuscript, with Variants from the Ellesmere Manuscript. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Sampson, Gloria Paulik 1979 Sociolinguistic aspects of pronoun usage in Middle English. In: William C. McCormack and Stephen A. Wurm (eds). Language and Society: Anthropological Issues. The Hague, Paris and New York: Mouton, 61–69.





Thomas Honegger

Schentke, Manfred 1962 Die Geschichte der pronominalen Anrede im Englischen. Dissertation. Typoscript. Berlin: Humboldt-University Berlin. Shimonomoto, Keiko 1986 The Use of Ye and Thou in the Canterbury Tales and its Correlations with the Terms of Address and Forms of the Imperative. M.A. Thesis. Sheffield: University of Sheffield. Shimonomoto, Keiko 2000 The Language of Politeness in Chaucer. Tokyo: Waseda University. Skeat, Walter W. (ed.) 1894 The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. 6 volumes. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson 1986 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Stoll, Rita 1989 Die nicht-pronominale Anrede bei Shakespeare (Neue Studien zur Anglistik und Amerikanistik 41). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Stidston, Russell Osborne 1917 The Use of Ye in the Function of Thou in Middle English Literature from MS. Auchinleck to MS. Vernon. Revised for publication by Arthur G. Kennedy. Stanford: Stanford University. Walcutt, Charles Child 1935 The pronoun of address in Troilus and Criseyde. Philological Quarterly 14, 282–287. Wales, Katie 1996 Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilcockson, Colin 1980 Thou and Ye in Chaucer’s Clerk’s Tale. The Use of English 31(3), 37–43.

From pragmatics to grammar Tracing the development of respect in the history of the German pronouns of address Horst J. Simon Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

.

Introduction

Whenever a speaker of Modern Standard German (MSG) wants to refer directly to a single addressee, s/he has the choice between two pronouns of address: du and Sie. The choice is largely determined by sociolinguistic factors such as age, social status, or level of familiarity between the interactants. Likewise, speakers of Middle High German had to choose between two pronouns; in their case it was either du or ir. Despite the fact that in both cases the speaker’s choice is a binary one, I maintain that the two linguistic systems have to be analysed quite differently. In my opinion, Middle High German polite address involves the secondary use of a personal pronoun which is fundamentally a pronoun with the feature specification “second person plural”; the polite meaning of ir is here conveyed by a pragmatic reinterpretation rule. In contrast, Modern Standard German address differs in two ways: it involves a different pronoun (Sie is traditionally regarded as a third person plural pronoun), and it correlates with several syntactic peculiarities. Therefore the characteristics of MSG Sie make it necessary to reserve a special slot in the pronominal paradigm; the polite effect is achieved through the semantics of the grammatical category involved, which I call “respect”. In other words, unlike the Middle High German du–ir-dichotomy, the present du– Sie-distinction is grammaticalised. The transition from the Middle High German to the Modern Standard German opposition was, however, not immediate. It involved a sequence of several address systems, which eventually gave way to the present one. The main purpose of the present paper is to demonstrate the differing theoretical status of the dichotomy in the two periods in question (pragmatics in Middle High German vs. grammar in Modern Standard German). In order to account for the Modern Standard German situation, it is necessary to outline the development that led to this state of affairs, recounting the successive stages in the devel-



Horst J. Simon

opment of polite pronouns of address in German. Hence I trace the emergence of the grammatical category “respect”. In particular, I first offer an analysis of the older, pragmatic stage represented by Middle High German, which is characterized by the variable application of politeness strategies (Section 3). Then I briefly follow the evolution of the more complicated multi-value systems reflecting intermediate stages (c. sixteenth/seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries) (Section 4). After that, I demonstrate some of the syntactic characteristics of present-day address pronouns in Standard German and in a contemporary dialect of German, Bavarian (Section 5). In conclusion, I suggest how this development can contribute to the ongoing discussion of models of language change.

. Diachronic overview: A succession of systems Compared to other languages, the number of systems in the diachrony of the German polite pronouns is remarkable, as is their complexity. Before the individual systems can be further discussed in the following sections, it is essential to present the overall pattern: several distinct stages in the gradual build-up of address paradigms (and eventually their partial collapse) can be discerned. Figure 1 schematises the main steps:1 The basic pronoun referring to a single addressee (second person singular), viz. du, is inherited from Common Germanic; it remains the fundamental means of addressing someone throughout the whole history of German. Over the course

er

sie

dieselben

dieselben

Sie

Sie

er

sie

ihr

ihr

ihr

ihr

du

du

du

du

du

du

CG

OHG/MHG

17th cent.

18th cent.

early 19th cent.

MSG

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

Figure 1.

er

sie

Pronominal paradigms used in reference to a single addressee

Sie

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German

of time, however, more and more pronouns enter into the system – each of them more polite than the previous one, but none of them ousting the ones already there. Thus the inventory of forms gradually expands and becomes relatively large by the eighteenth century. After some restructuring, the intermediate pronouns are lost (as pronouns of polite address in the standard language) and only the pronouns at the extreme ends of the scale remain: basic du and polite Sie.2 All forms used regularly as polite pronouns in German are in fact normal personal pronouns in secondary use.3 When projected into an abstract system, the diachronic development can, therefore, be seen as a walk through the pronominal paradigm: ...

...

er, sie

sie

3 SG

3 PL

du

ihr

2 SG

2 PL

ich

wir

1 SG

1 PL

Figure 2. Grammaticalisation path of polite pronouns, simultaneously a “pronominal politeness hierarchy”

From the limited typological evidence that has been gathered thus far (cf. Head 1978), it appears that the illustrated path through the paradigm is far from being random. Rather, if languages employ more than one polite pronoun of address at all, they seem to follow the same diachronic zigzag path while introducing them (unless factors such as language contact intervene). Since languages always introduce new pronouns of address at the polite end of the scale,4 the grammaticalisation path at the same time represents the (universal) hierarchy of polite pronouns (if their feature specifications can be linked to the person-number-paradigm).

. System II: Pragmatic variability – using the number-dichotomy due to the application of politeness strategies Originally, in Common Germanic, there probably was only one pronoun of address for all speaker-addressee-dyads in all speech situations, as is evidenced by those poems that are still in the Germanic heroic tradition.5





Horst J. Simon

The earliest occurrences of a second person plural pronoun (i.e. OHG and MHG ir) referring to a single addressee that have come down to us, date from the third quarter of the ninth century. They appear in the rhymed letter to Bishop Salomo of Constance which accompanies the biblical epos by Otfrid of Weissenburg: (1) Lékza ih therara búachi thaz ir irkíaset ubar ál, Oba ir hiar fíndet iawiht thés

iu sentu in suábo richi, oba siu frúma wesan scaL; thaz wírdig ist thes lésannes:

‘I send to youPL in Swabia the selection of books, so that youPL can decide above all if it will be useful; [and] if youPL find here something that is worthy of being read.’ (Otfrid: Salomoni Episcopo Otfridus, v. 5–7; Erdmann and Wolff 1973: 8; translation partly based on Listen 1999: 41)6 In the main body of Otfrid’s Evangelienbuch not a single form of polite ir can be found. Similarly, none of the other Old High German texts contains an instance of polite ir – with one significant exception: the Altdeutsche (or Pariser) Gespräche:7 (2) guane cumet ger, brothro? - id est unde venis, frater? ‘Where do youPL come from, brother?’ (Altdeutsche Gespräche, phrase 17; Gusmani 1999: 134) Despite the singular verb form in the Latin text and the vocative singular nouns, the German text uses a plural pronoun, apparently indicating the politeness of the question. This interpretation is confirmed by the following exchange which contains the first instance of asymmetric address usage in German: (3) guaz queten ger, (h)erra(n)? - id est quid dicitis vos? co(h)ores(t) tu, narra! - id est ausculta, fol! ‘What do youPL say, Sir(s)?’ ListenSG, fool!’ (Altdeutsche Gespräche, phrases 64 and 65; Gusmani 1999: 138) In this case of social inequality, the interactants use different pronouns (for an elaboration cf. below). Significantly, the only two texts containing polite second person plural pronouns with singular reference in Old High German do not belong to religious (or biblical) genres – a fact which sets them apart from the bulk of surviving Old High German texts. This observation raises the suspicion that the scarcity of polite ir-occurrences in Old High German might be due to a distortion in the sur-

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German

viving text types and might not reflect their frequency in real discourse in Old High German times.8 Whatever the reason for the small number of polite ir-usages in Old High German texts may be, as soon as we have more diversified data available (beginning roughly with the earliest forms of Middle High German), the picture changes considerably: from that period onward, the large body of courtly literature exhibits an address system that Brown and Gilman (1960: 256) describe as typical for the feudal societies of the European Middle Ages (spanning in this respect well into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries): In medieval Europe, generally, the nobility said T to the common people and received V; the master of a household said T to his slave, his servant and received V. Within the family, of whatever social level, parents gave T to children and were given V. [...] There were also norms of address for persons of roughly equivalent power, that is, for members of a common class. Between equals, pronominal address was reciprocal; an individual gave and received the same form. During the medieval period, and for varying times beyond, equals of the upper classes exchanged the mutual V and equals of the lower classes exchanged T.9

The research literature on German (as well as on other European languages) has recognised for a long time, however, that in any one dyad, the use of T/V pronouns was not entirely stable (cf. e.g. Paul, Wiehl and Grosse 1989: 392). In many texts one finds temporary shifts from one pronoun to the other, resulting in a kind of “Mischstil” (Ehrismann 1902: 147). The reason for this pronominal mixing is sometimes understood as being a consequence of changing literary conventions (Palmer 1988, Sayce 1993). More often though, one can argue that the replacement reflects a “momentary shift of mood” (Brown and Gilman 1960: 275) on the part of the speaking character in the text. And often, the situationally induced variation can be attributed to differences between particular types of speech acts.10 Of particular interest is the following: unrecognised by modern linguists is the fact that the pronominal variation in Middle High German does not only exist between different speech acts of a given character in a given speaker-addressee-dyad but also between different manuscripts representing the same narrative. I take this manuscript variation to be evidence for a view that analyses Middle High German pronouns of address solely in terms of pragmatics (in contrast to the grammarinduced situation in Modern Standard German to be discussed in Section 5 below). Since modern editors tend to level out pronominal variation between manuscripts and, at best, relegate textual variants to footnotes, this type of variation can be easily overlooked. In order to rectify this, I present data from a text for which a convenient diplomatic edition of three different manuscripts in parallel print is





Horst J. Simon

available: the Nibelungenlied (Batts 1971). For this epic, written about 1200 somewhere along the Danube in the Austro-Bavarian area, some thirty-five manuscripts survive.11 In what follows I demonstrate in a short stretch of discourse (and in a few other single utterances) how three of the oldest manuscripts (called A, B, and C in the research literature) behave in respect to pronominal usage. Each of the three manuscripts dates back to the thirteenth century and originated roughly in the area of the epic’s composition. The chosen text passage is from the tenth aventiure ‘chapter’ of the Nibelungenlied.12 It consists of a dialogue between two noblemen Gunther and Siegfried. In this passage, Gunther, the Burgundian king, secretly tells his friend and confidant how embarrassingly he was treated by his wife, Brunhild, during their wedding night. The following Table 1 schematises the pronouns of address in this passage:13 Table 1. Pronouns of address in an excerpt from the Nibelungenlied14 stanza in manuscript C Speaker → 653 654 655 656 657

manuscript C (stanzas 653–662) Gunther

Siegfried

manuscript A (stanzas 598–605) Gunther

V V V

Siegfried

V

T

659 660 661 662

T T T

V

V

T stanza missing

stanza missing ?? V T

T

Siegfried

no address T

stanza missing

658

Gunther

V no address T

T

manuscript B (stanzas 648–656)

T T T T

T

T

As one would expect, they begin by using the upper class pronoun V with each other. But then King Gunther shifts to the T-pronoun: in manuscripts A and B this happens when he confides in Siegfried the secrets of that night: (4) daz sol dir frivntlichen

tovgen sin gechleit.

‘I’m telling youSG this secretly, from friend to friend.’ (Nibelungenlied, ms. A, stanza 600, line 3) In manuscript C, however, the shift to T occurs one move later, when Gunther complains about the maltreatment he had to suffer from his wife:

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German

(5) Nv schowe mine hende, die twanc si mir so sere, daz mir blv˚t zen nagelen

wie di geswollen sint. als ob ich wære ein kint, allenthalben dranch.

‘Now lookSG at my hands, how swollen they are. She squeezed them so tightly, as if I were a child, so that blood poured from my nails on all sides.’ (Nibelungenlied, ms. C, stanza 657, lines 1–3) In both manuscripts B and C, Siegfried’s immediate reaction to the king’s pronominal shift is to also shift to du: (6) ez ist mir werliche leit.

Des bringe ich dich wol innen;

‘I am truly sorry, I’ll prove it to youT.’ (Nibelungenlied, ms. B, stanza 650, line 4b, and stanza 651, line 1a) (7) dv maht noch wol genesn. ‘It will turn out good for youT.’ (Nibelungenlied, ms. C, stanza 658, line 1b) In the present context, the address forms in manuscript A are illuminating. In this version, Siegfried does not react to Gunther’s T-form by using T himself. Instead, he keeps on employing the courtly V-pronoun, thereby producing a temporary pronominal asymmetry between the two characters. Siegfried’s persistence, however, causes problems for the scribe/redactor of the manuscript when the pronominal form stands in verse final position, where it stands in a rhyming relation: (8) ich kvme noch heint also tovgenliche

ze der kemenaten sin in der tarnkappe min.

‘I come today to his room so secretly in my magic hood.’ (Nibelungenlied, ms. A, stanza 602, lines 1–2) The passage as is does not make sense.15 Since it is Gunther’s room that Siegfried talks about (i.e. his addressee’s), one would expect an addressee-deictic pronoun in the italicised slot for the possessive at the end of the first line in (8) instead of the third person form sin (and indeed, this is what one finds in manuscripts B and C at the corresponding place, viz. din). Now, since the scribe of A, for some reason, has Siegfried use only V-forms in the surrounding stanzas, he is reluctant to use a form of the T-pronoun here and thus settles for the nonsensical, but rhymetechnically perfect sin. One possible interpretation for this finding might be that scribe A was someone who generally felt it inappropriate in courtly contexts to use T-forms, especially towards the king. But this interpretation is not borne out by





Horst J. Simon

further evidence: First, a few lines below the passage just quoted, even the scribe of A resorts to the use of T instead of V in a parallel case of rhyming constraints: (9) Daz tu˚n ich, sprach Syfrit, daz ich ir niht minne. ist mir vor in allen,

vf die triwe min, div liebe swester din die ich noch ie gesach.

‘I promise, said Siegfried, by my honour, that I won’t make love to her. YourSG lovely sister is more important to me than all those who I have ever seen.’ (Nibelungenlied, ms. A, stanza 605, lines 1–3) Second, and more importantly, there are cases in the text where the distribution of pronouns is exactly the opposite. For example in (10), Gunther uses T toward his noble follower Hagen only in manuscript A (the corresponding passages in B and C have a V-form); similarly, in an inverted speech situation, Hagen, the vassal, says T to his king (Gunther), e.g., in (11) in manuscript A (and manuscript B), but not in C. (10) des solt du mir, Hagne, hie der warheit veriehen. ‘YouSG shall tell me the truth about that, Hagen.’ (Nibelungenlied, ms. A, stanza 84, line 4) (11) allen dinen degnen, durch striten her ze Rine.

vns mac wol wesen leit, daz er ie gereit,

‘We, all of yourSG knights, have good reason to be sorry that he has ridden hereto to the Rhine in order to fight.’ (Nibelungenlied, ms. A, stanza 120, lines 1b–3a) The list of instances where one of the three manuscripts shows a different pronoun than the other two can easily be extended. All types of variation between the manuscripts A, B, and C on the one hand, and the pronouns T and V on the other hand, can be found. To sum up the manuscript evidence concerning variation in pronouns of address in the Nibelungenlied-tradition, one can say that there is a great deal of apparently unsystematic variation. For any speaker-addressee-dyad, variation can occur in one manuscript along the axis of narrated time (vertically, so to speak) as well as between different manuscripts in parallel occurrences of the same passage (horizontally, so to speak). What is important is the fact that among the three (roughly contemporary and dialectally similar) manuscripts none can be shown to differ from the others in a consistent way. This means that none of the manu-

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German

script redactions has manipulated pronominal address in order to make the text, say, more modern, adhering more to courtly norms or such. What is shown by the variation is simply the fact that each scribe had a certain freedom to use one or the other address form in his text. The forms were – at least to a certain extent – interchangeable.16 But what is the theoretical significance of these findings? If we assume that the Nibelungenlied-scribes to a certain extent represent contemporary linguistic practices in their texts, this means that in Middle High German the distinction between du and ir was not an absolute one, but rather one that was subject to manipulation by speakers.17 Such a situation which is characterised by optionality and a certain amount of freedom is typical of a pragmatically organised system (in contrast to a grammaticalised one; cf. below Section 5.2.). It is difficult to understand how such a pragmatic system works in detail, but it can fruitfully be interpreted along the lines of the theory of politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). In this model, the notion of politeness is connected to the – at least in principle – variable application of pragmatic rules. In order to behave politely, speakers can flout Gricean Maxims in appropriate ways, whereby they produce (conversational and conventional) implicatures.18 They can, thus, save their interactants’ “negative faces”, which Brown and Levinson define as “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction – i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition” (1987: 61). Therefore, a classic strategy of how to pay attention to a negative face is to give options, to remain vague, to avoid pinning down the addressee. In the case of polite pronouns of address, the mechanism works as follows: normally one would expect a pronoun with the feature specification “second person singular”. But, when a speaker wants to convey a sense of politeness to her or his interactant, s/he can choose to employ a pronoun with the specification “second person plural” instead. A plural pronoun in place of a singular one can be motivated in the following way: [S]ince it does not literally single out the addressee, it is as if the speaker were giving H the option to interpret it as applying to him rather than, say, to his companions. The fact that by conventionalization it no longer really does give H that out does not render it useless. Rather, it conveys the desire of the speaker to render H that tribute, while fulfilling the practical needs of clarity and on-record talk (Brown and Levinson 1987: 198f.).

So, for example, one can speculate that in the passage quoted in (4) and (5) above, Gunther shifts to the T-pronoun because he wants to heighten the commitment of his speech and to emphasise the relevance of his topic by explicitly singling out his addressee, Siegfried, and thereby not placing him symbolically in a larger group.





Horst J. Simon

Likewise one could argue that with his T-pronoun Gunther employs an in-group identity marker – a strategy that is said to be typical of positive politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987: 107). Thus, Gunther supports Siegfried’s “positive face”, viz. his “positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants” (Brown and Levinson 1987: 61). In the cited context, this helps Gunther to create a more intimate atmosphere and to symbolically stress his strong, personal bonds with his addressee. Quite a different perspective on polite pronouns of address in the forms of plurals is taken by Listen (1999: 40–9). He uses Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar to model the metaphors that lie behind the pluralisation: In conceptualizing power relations, the source domain SIZE is mapped onto the target domain SOCIOPOLITICAL POWER. [...] Using plural pronouns for address or reference to individuals carries the POWER IS SIZE metaphor a step further with the correlation SIZE IS NUMBER. [...] Thus, for social deixis with plural pronouns there is a metaphor: POWERFUL IS PLURAL (Listen 1999: 44f.).

This approach generally focuses on the metaphorical content of the grammatical categories involved in the formation of the polite pronouns. It is clear that a metaphor – as long as it is still a living metaphor – must be something “extra”, something put atop of a “normal” meaning, something that is pragmatically produced but not semantically given. Whether one prefers an explanation in terms of politeness strategies (Brown and Levinson) or in terms of metaphors (Listen) – and one may even not need to choose, since both models complement rather than exclude each other – a certain variability in early stages of polite pronominal development is predicted in any case. Indeed, such a type of optionality and variability of grammatical number in connection with polite speech patterns can still be found in living languages, the most famous example being Malagasy as discussed by Keenan (1974: 65f.). Older stages in a number of other languages exhibit similar variable systems with more or less random shifts between singular and plural pronouns of address.19 Whether they can all be subjected to a similar analysis remains to be seen in further research. In conclusion, the du-ir-dichotomy in reference to a single addressee in Middle High German can be attributed to the variable and somewhat optional application of politeness strategies. Address in Middle High German (system II from Figure 1) thus falls into the realm of pragmatics. Before I contrast this finding with the present-day situation where address is more a matter of grammar, it is essential to briefly summarise the categorial development in the seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries.20

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German

. Systems III to V: Blowing up the system – gradual over-increase of the paradigm through the introduction of third person forms During the late Middle Ages, the Middle High German dichotomy remained basically intact. Slowly, more and more people felt entitled to receive the V-pronoun ir, so that by the late 1500s, it became fashionable to use a new way of addressing someone when one wanted to be extra-polite and felt ir not to be enough. The adoption of nominal terms related to persons, such as der Herr ‘the gentleman’ or meine Schöne ‘my beautiful one’, as addressee-referential “bound forms” (Braun 1988: 11) is here seen in a sentential syntagma: (12) Der Herr mus von uns in ungut nicht auffnemen, Das wir so ungekleidet den herrn anreden. ‘The gentleman should not think ill of us that we talk so poorly dressed to the gentleman.’ (Herzog Heinrich Julius von Braunschweig 1594, drama; cited in Keller 1904/05: 168) (13) Nahchdähm es nicht gnug ist, däm schreiben meiner Schönen gnüge zu tuhn ... so überschikk’ ich ihr dasjenige, welches ... mich entbürden würd. ‘Since it is not enough to do justice to the letter of my beautiful one ... I send her that one which would relieve me.’ (Philip von Zesen 1645, novel; cited in Metcalf 1938: 91) When such a nominal form functions as the subject of a clause, the agreeing verbal form is then specified for “third person singular” (cf. mus in (12)). As it is very cumbersome to reiterate a nominal form again and again in a longer discourse (like in (12)), such nouns are often replaced by anaphoric pronouns (13). But at the beginning of this development, the third person pronouns occurring in such cases cannot be regarded as real pronouns of address. First, because they never appear without a nominal antecedent; this shows that they have not yet developed a deictic force of their own. Secondly, the old ir-forms can still be used in polite contexts, alongside the new nominals (14); this shows that nominals and their anaphors are merely extra-polite options. (14) Der Juncker hat ja nach mir geschickt, Was ist ewer beger? ‘The squire has sent after me, what is yourPL desire?’ (Herzog Heinrich Julius von Braunschweig 1594, drama; cited in Svennung 1958: 47) Thirdly, and this is the decisive argument, the pronoun at this early stage agrees with its antecedent in grammatical gender and is not automatically related to the





Horst J. Simon

sex of the referent, i.e. the addressee. In most cases, this cannot be seen in the surface forms because nouns like der Herr ‘the gentleman’ or die Jungfer ‘the young lady’ have a grammatical gender that corresponds to the natural gender of the referents anyway – masculine and male, and feminine and female. Nevertheless, in the case of das Fräulein ‘the young lady’ (literally: ‘the ladyDIM’) they differ: as a diminutive, this noun is morphologically specified for neuter, but it refers to female persons. When Fräulein is taken up anaphorically in this period, the pronoun is often neuter (cf. the dative form of the third person singular pronoun Ihm in (15)).21 (15) Wan es mein gnädiges Fräulein im bästen vermärken wolte, so könt’ ich Ihm noch wohl den wahren sün gnugsam eröfnen. ‘If my gracious young ladyDIM[NEUT] wanted to take notice perfectly, I could probably disclose the real meaning to it3.PS.SG.NEUT → addr. sufficiently.’ (Philip von Zesen 1645, novel; cited in Keller 1904/05: 172) From a Brown and Levinson point of view one could argue that the employment of a third person form in addressee-deictic function is also a method of paying attention to the addressee’s negative face, since referring to an addressee as “he” or “she” gives him/her the opportunity to construe the referring act as concerning someone else. On a symbolical plane this is an instance of metaphorical “absentisation” (for a similar idea about “Verabwesendung” in pronominal address cf. already Gedike 1801). From about the third decade of the seventeenth century onwards, we regularly find third person pronouns without an antecedent. The gender of the pronoun then co-varies with the sex of the addressee. This can be seen as a sign that the pronouns have acquired an addressee-deictic force of their own.22 That stage represents system III from Figure 1. The next step in the history of German pronouns of address is the introduction of the pronoun Sie, which is the source of the “polite” pronoun in Modern Standard German; it is traditionally regarded as specified for “third person plural”.23 Sie enters the system by a path similar to that of the singular forms: via anaphora after nominal terms, although now this process happens in regard to nominal abstractions like (Euer) Majestät ‘yourPL majesty’. The creation of a polite meaning can, thus, be reconstructed: Concepts such as majesty, grace, favor, friendship and wisdom, conjoined with possessive morphology, are thus part of a conventionalized construction, metonymies of imputed part for whole. The abstract nominal address form in this type of usage fulfills the same roles as the personal pronoun. By appealing to the addressee’s graciousness, mercy, majesty, holiness or other such flattering characteristics, the speaker brings about a similar sort of indirectness as with second person plural address: the addressee is refer-

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German

enced indirectly via associated entities. In the case of plural pronouns, these entities are real or unreal other individuals in a group to which the hearer belongs. For abstractions, it is the associated entity, an abstract personal trait or virtue, that is named and engaged in conversation. In short, we once again see a strategy whereby a metonymic model enables indirectness (Listen 1999: 57).

Although the employment of abstractions like these in addressee-reference is much older (Svennung 1958: 103f.), it first becomes widespread in the seventeenth century. Since all the relevant abstractions are inherently specified for feminine gender in German, they often induce feminine anaphora (similar to the personnominals just discussed).24 But the historical significance of these abstractions is the fact that due to some of their characteristics, they prepared the path on which the modern pronoun of address Sie entered the paradigm. In the early modern period, there was some restructuring in the system of declension classes in German. Therefore many of the abstractions, such as Gnaden ‘grace(s)’ could not be attributed to a particular number specification beyond doubt: they could be understood as an instance of either “weak declension singular” or “strong declension plural” (cf. Metcalf 1941: 242–50, in particular fn. 9 and 10; for data cf. Wegera 1987: 138–47). In addition, the widespread use of these abstractions led to an increase in abbreviated forms in letters and books: (16) Der Allmechtig G O T T / wöll E.[ur-] F.[ürstlich-] G.[nade-] langes Leben / Sterck / vnnd Genad verleihen / damit sie inn so wol angefangener / vnnd so beharrlich fortgetribner arbeit nimmer mat noch müth werden [...] Also bin ich guter Hoffnung / vnnd der gäntzlichen zuuersicht / E. F. G. werden ihr diese Dialogos vmb so viel mehr vnnd besser genedig gefallen lassen / [...] ‘May the almighty God grant Y.[our] P.[rincely] G.[race] long life, strength and grace, so that (sie) never grow weary or tired in present and continuous work [...] Thus I hope and completely anticipate, Y. P. G. will all the more and graciously like these dialogs [...].’ (Conradus Vetter 1606, book dedication; cited in Listen 1999: 76, therein also the translation and the resolution of the italicised abbreviation) The endings of the italicised forms in (16) cannot be reconstructed with absolute certainty, which makes it even more difficult to guess what their number specification should be. Moreover, even in cases where a pronoun is used, they do not necessarily reveal their number, because after the Middle High German period, the inflectional forms of the pronouns “third person singular feminine” and “third person plural” are homonymous in all cases except the dative (ihr vs. ihnen).





Horst J. Simon

The three mentioned components (inflectional class shifts, abbreviations, homonymy) brought about uncertainties for language learners as to the number specifications of the forms involved. They could not parse their linguistic input morpho-syntactically without doubt. Additionally, the plural-related politeness strategies discussed above were still active in the period, as can be seen from the fact that according to the data gathered by Listen (1999: 113–30), plural morphology on verbs appeared even independently of plural subjects.25 These two factors (number uncertainties and pluralisation strategies) taken together gave rise to the regular, autonomous (i.e. without antecedent) employment of a pronoun “third person plural” as polite pronoun of address by the beginning of the eighteenth century (system IV in Figure 1). Being maximally removed from the basic pronoun of address du in terms of grammatical categories – it involves a number as well as a person shift – the pronoun Sie is, in a sense, an ideal candidate for a polite pronoun. Nevertheless, parallel to the rise of Sie, another pronoun appeared in the addressing function: dieselben. Again, this is a form taken from somewhere else in the system; this time not a personal pronoun, but a pronoun of identity, meaning something like ‘the same one(s)’; literally ‘the selves’. Given its basic inappropriateness as a polite pronoun (due to its highly specifying force, it contradicts all negative face considerations), it is not surprising that it never fully entered the system like the other forms discussed in this paper.26 Some time around 1800, yet another change occurred (cf. system V in Figure 1): The pronouns ihr and er/sie exchanged their places in the politeness hierarchy, probably due to several independent reasons (degree of explicitness of grammatical specification, French influence; cf. Simon 1997, 1998). Once again, this was only a short-lived development. In the middle of the nineteenth century, the elaborated system of German pronouns of address broke down. Apparently, the possibilities of the pronominal address system had been over-strained.27 What remained after the breakdown was again a two-way distinction, albeit one with a theoretical status quite different from the one in Middle High German.

. System VI: The workings of “respect” – a grammatical category organizing the pronouns of address in contemporary German In this section I argue that the du-Sie-dichotomy in contemporary German is one that is grammatically organized. I maintain that in addition to the grammatical categories traditionally assumed to be involved in the paradigm of personal pronouns in German (viz. person, number, gender, and case), one also needs a further category to do full justice to the grammatical facts of the language. If this is correct,

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German

then the linguistic status of pronominal address in contemporary German is remarkably different from that of Middle High German as discussed in Section 3. To substantiate my argumentation I discuss syntactic data from present day Standard German which show that the combinatorial behaviour of the pronoun of address Sie differs in several ways from the syntagmatics of the third person plural pronoun sie. Therefore, one should not be misled by their superficial phonological characteristics. Even more convincing data come from a modern dialect of German, Bavarian, where the pronoun of address as well as the corresponding inflected form of the verb differ in their phonological shape from the third person plural forms.

5.2 “Respect” as a grammatical category I view the following characteristics as crucial in order to form an understanding of grammatical categories: first, they are obligatory in their (language-specific) domain, i.e. whenever a speaker uses a relevant linguistic structure, s/he has to express one of the values of the category.28 Secondly, grammatical categories are paradigmatically organised; they form a small closed class of mutually exclusive values, i.e. a speaker has to decide whether s/he wants to use one or the other form in a particular slot. Thirdly, the “meaning” of grammatical categories is relatively abstract; it cannot be easily reduced to referential properties. Like person, which is the grammatical correspondent of (speech act) role deixis, and tense/aspect, the grammatical fallout of time, respect is taken to be the grammatical counterpart to politeness. While the first two categories mentioned are fairly wide-spread among the languages of the world,29 the latter is not. Nevertheless, it obviously occurs in a number of languages, most notably Japanese, Korean, Basque, and Classical Nahuatl.30 One single example from Japanese may suffice: (17a) Taroo T.

ga 

ki-ta come-

(17b) Taroo ga ki-masi-ta T.  come-- ‘Taro came.’ (Shibatani 1990: 375) The sentences in (17) do not differ in their truth-functional referential properties, but in their degree of felicity in a given situation. The point is that the respectindicating affix -masi indicates a certain politeness relationship between the speaker and the addressee.31



 Horst J. Simon

In order to make plausible the claim that German has a comparable category in its pronominal system, I now turn to some syntactic properties of personal pronouns in German.

5.3 “Respect” in Modern Standard German – the grammar of Sie Traditionally, descriptive grammars of German maintain that the polite pronoun of address is simply a re-used instance of a third person plural pronoun: Helbig and Buscha (1981: 251; emphasis added) write in this context: “Die Höflichkeitsform ist für beide Numeri gleich. Sie wird immer groß geschrieben und mit den Formen des Plurals der 3. Person des Personalpronomens gebildet.” Quite similar to Helbig and Buscha, Eisenberg explains: Sprecher und Adressat sind in der normalen Äußerungssituation anwesend, deshalb gibt es keinerlei Schwierigkeiten bei der Referenzfixierung der Personalpronomina der 1. und 2. Ps. Dies hat zur Konsequenz, daß ich, du, wir, ihr sowie das unpersönliche Personalpronomen man (das nur als Subjekt vorkommt) weitgehend funktional äquivalent sind, wenn nur die Äußerungssituation genügend Hinweise auf das jeweils Gemeinte gibt. [...] Nur so ist es auch möglich, daß Pronomina der 1., 2. und 3. PS. im Sg und im Pl sozusagen semantisch abweichend als Höflichkeitsformen oder sonstwie an soziale Rollen gebunden zur Referenz auf den Adressaten verwendet werden. Der Variabilität von Anredeformen sind kaum Grenzen gesetzt (Eisenberg 1999: 171; emphasis added).

What these descriptions amount to are analyses of the following kind: Ihren (18) Sie hab-en Jhren Aufsatz .3. [→ you] have-3. .3. [→ your] article abgegeben. submit. + a pragmatic rule: “usage of 3rd ps pl forms in addressee-deixis conveys politeness.” ‘You have submitted your article.’ This view maintains that a speaker takes a form which is specified for third person plural from the lexicon and uses it in a sentence where it can only be interpreted as being in reference to the addressee. The very fact of not using the basic second person singular in such a situation confers an additional, special meaning to the utterance. Via the application of a pragmatic rule, the pronoun is therefore understood to convey a sense of politeness. Under such an analysis, because we deal with one and the same pronoun, albeit in two different utterance types, the syntax of polite

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German 

pronominal address in Contemporary German should not differ in any way from that in reference to others, i.e. “third persons”. This is, however, not the case.32 The first piece of evidence comes from the internal structure of pronominal DPs. The phrases in (19a) are all well-formed, while those in (19b) are not: (19a) ich Idiot .1. idiot ‘I idiot’ wir Berliner .1. Berliners ‘we Berliners’ (19b) * er Idiot .3.. idiot ‘he idiot’

du Idiot .2. idiot ‘youSG idiot’ ihr Finnen .2.. Finns ‘youPL Finns’

Sie Idiot .2.. idiot ‘youSG.HON idiot’ Sie Amerikanerinnen .2.. AmericansFEM ‘youPL.HON Americans’

* sie Idiotin * sie Idioten .3.. idiotFEM .3. idiots ‘she idiot’ ‘they idiots’

The pronoun of address Sie patterns with ich, du, wir, and ihr in combination with nominal complements in structures like (19a). In striking contrast, the third person plural pronoun sie disallows such a combination and therefore patterns with its singular counterparts er and sie (19b).33 Thus, Sie behaves like a typical first or second person pronoun, in contrast to sie, which is like all third person pronouns.34 Similarly, relative clause formation shows a marked contrast according to person distinctions. The most common type of relative clause structure is one where the relativised DP in the matrix clause consists either of a phrase containing a fulllexical noun (20a) or one with a third person pronoun: (20a) Mein Freund, der Bücher sammelt, besitzt fünf Ausgaben der Bible. ‘My friend, who collects books, owns five editions of the Bible.’ (20b) Er, der Bücher sammelt, besitzt fünf Ausgaben der Bible. ‘He, who collects books, owns five editions of the Bible.’ In both cases, the relativiser in the subordinate clause is simply a relative pronoun which agrees in number and gender with the matrix DP (der, die, das, die or welcher, welche, welches, welche – the choice between the d- and the w-forms depends largely on stylistic considerations). If the relativiser takes the subject position in the subordinate clause, the finite verb is specified for “third person” because of agreement. In cases where the matrix DP is a first or second person pronoun, a “copy” of it shows up immediately after the relativiser in the subordinate clause, possibly to allow for first or second person agreement on the verb (Canisius 1994a):35

 Horst J. Simon

(21a) Ich, der/die ich Bücher sammle, besitze fünf Ausgaben der Bible. ‘I, who collect books, own five editions of the Bible. (21b) Du, der/die Bücher sammelst, besitzst fünf Ausgaben der Bible. ‘YouSG, who collect books, own five editions of the Bible.’ (21c) Wir, die wir Bücher sammeln, besitzen fünf Ausgaben der Bible. ‘We, who collect books, own five editions of the Bible.’ (21d) Ihr, die ihr Bücher sammelt, besitzt fünf Ausgaben der Bible. ‘YouPL, who collect books, own five editions of the Bible.’ The structures in (21) have been interpreted as indicative of an “analytic relative pronoun” which is integrated into a person-differentiated paradigm of relativisers (Harweg 1984, Canisius 1994a). Viewed from the perspective taken in this paper, it is not surprising that polite Sie should pattern after type (21). Indeed, the polite version of (21b) also involves a copy of Sie (22a), but the third person plural version of (20b) does not, viz. (22b): (22a) Sie, der/die Sie Bücher sammeln, besitzen fünf Ausgaben der Bible. ‘YouSG.HON, who collect books, own five editions of the Bible. (22b) Sie, die Bücher sammeln, besitzen fünf Ausgaben der Bible. ‘They, who collect books, own five editions of the Bible. The d-part of the analytic relative pronoun in (21a), (21b), and (22a) varies according to the sex of the referent, i.e. speaker or addressee, respectively. In this context, Listen (1999: 145) points out that “if the addressee is a singular male, the relative pronoun can only be felicitous as masculine singular der”, cf. (23a) in contrast to (23b), whereas the relativiser of a third person plural pronoun is of course invariably die.36 (23a) Sie, der Sie Bücher sammeln, besitzen fünf Ausgaben der Bible. ‘YouSG.HON → [+male], who collect books, own five editions of the Bible. (23b) * Sie, die Sie Bücher sammeln, besitzen fünf Ausgaben der Bible. ‘YouSG.HON → [+male], who collect books, own five editions of the Bible. (23b) is only acceptable when addressing a female person. In addition to the two patterns discussed thus far (complex DPs and relative clauses), a few other grammatical structures exist with a difference between polite Sie and third person plural sie; however, here the data are less clear, and the differences are more subtle. Therefore I restrict myself to one more item, viz. reflexivisation, inspired by an observation originally made by Thun (1997).

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German 

(24a) Und Siei haben die Worte des Redners gehört und auf Siei bezogen. ‘And youHON have heard the speaker’s words and have taken them as referring to yourself.’; literally: ‘... referring to youHON’ (24b) Und Siei haben die Worte des Redners gehört und auf sichi bezogen. ‘And youSG.HON have heard the speaker’s words and have taken them as referring to yourself.’ (24c) * Und siei haben die Worte des Redners gehört und auf siei bezogen. ‘And they have heard the speaker’s words and have taken them as referring to themselves.’; literally: ‘... referring to them’ (24d) Und siei haben die Worte des Redners gehört und auf sichi bezogen. ‘And they have heard the speaker’s words and have taken them as referring to themselves.’ The distribution that emerges from (24) is as follows: intending co-reference between the two pronominal slots, in this type of construction both the personal pronoun Sie and the corresponding reflexive pronoun sich are admissible in the italicised position, without any obvious difference in meaning ((24a) and (24b)). When referring to a group of non-speech-act-participants (the third person plural variant), however, the simple personal pronoun will not suffice (24c), and the reflexive is obligatory (24d).37 This means that, yet again, polite Sie can be used where third person plural sie cannot. The data collected in this section support the view that contrary to what grammars traditionally contend, the polite pronoun of address Sie in Modern Standard German is not simply identical with the third person plural pronoun. Diachronically the former may be derived from the latter, but synchronically the two pronouns differ in their syntactic properties: Sie behaves like a second person pronoun, even if it does not look like one. Taking this observation seriously, one has to say that Sie (as well as its case variants, of course) should be allotted a place of its own in the paradigm of personal pronouns. Thus it comes to stand next to du. The category that differentiates between Sie and du is then the category of “respect”. Given this interpretation of the pronominal system, one can elegantly arrive at a new understanding of seemingly non-agreeing verb forms that have hitherto escaped proper description. Although the subject in (25) undoubtedly is singular, the verb exhibits an -en-ending, which is usually taken to indicate plurality. (25) Werden die Dame schon bedient? lit.: ‘Are the lady served already?’, i.e. ‘Are you being served, Madam?’ Although less widespread in Germany than in Austria and often restricted to certain registers,38 (25) is acceptable as a form of very polite bound address for most speakers of German (it is comparable, albeit not in the verb form, to the cases discussed

 Horst J. Simon

at the beginning of Section 4). Substitution of die Dame ‘the lady’ by the noun phrase die Frau ‘the woman’ renders it unacceptable, however. Similarly der Herr ‘the gentleman’ is appropriate, but der Mann ‘the man’ is not; even worse are der Kerl ‘the bloke’ and der Hurensohn ‘the son of a bitch’. The solution to this puzzle is quite simply that in the construction type (25), the noun that occupies the subject position must be inherently marked for [+honorative]. It then triggers subjectverb-agreement in the category of respect. Under such a view, the verbal ending only looks like a plural ending, but in reality it is a respect inflection.39 Again, this type of construction is not unheard of in the languages of the world (e.g. Turkish, Lewis 1967: 26, 247; and Persian, Boyle 1966: 57). The mechanism of honorativeassignment is comparable to the one in (26) where the plural-marking on the verb is obligatory, although there is no morphological plural-marking on any element of the subject DP. The agreeing feature is contributed by an inherent semantic feature of a lexeme – in this case, the inherent plurality of the numeral (Wiese 1997: 297f.):40 (26) Auf der Weide stehen dreizehn Stück infiziertes Vieh. ‘In the pasture there are thirteen head of infected cattle.’ The explanation of (25) in terms of respect agreement entails that the differences in the verbal endings after du and Sie can generally be attributed to the respect distinction, since this is the only category according to which du and Sie are opposed. Hence, one can say that the domain of the grammatical category “respect” in Modern Standard German are pronouns of address and finite verbs.41 To summarise the grammatical argumentation, the pronominal and verbal paradigms of Modern Standard German contain a categorial distinction unrecognised by grammarians until now: the grammatical category “respect”, which opens up a new paradigmatic cell. Abstracting away from case, the categories of person, number, gender, and respect therefore structure the Modern Standard German pronominal paradigm in the following way:42

1 2 3

singular

plural

ich

wir

du er/der sie/die

Figure 3.

Sie es/das

ihr

Sie sie/die

Pronominal paradigm of Modern Standard German.

In this section I attempted to show that there are some syntactic arguments which allow us to distinguish between Sie and sie. Therefore, Sie comes to stand in grammatical opposition to du. The question now arises whether there are any

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German 

arguments which show that the grammatically induced du-Sie-dichotomy of Modern Standard German is in any respect other than syntax different from the du-ir-dichotomy of Middle High German as presented in Section 3. In terms of usage rules, the Middle High German opposition was indeed different from the one in Modern Standard German. Recall that in Middle High German the boundary between du- and ir-usage was not impermeable. Under appropriate circumstances, speakers would shift temporarily from one form to the other and back. In contrast, speakers of Modern Standard German do not shift easily, and most importantly, they never shift back.43 For any given speaker-addressee-dyad, either du or Sie is to be used. Which one of the two is employed is a matter of rapidly changing customs to be analysed by sociolinguistics. In principle, only two precisely defined types of (long-term, in fact “eternal”) shifts occur: first, that of adults using Sie towards an adolescent instead of former du to the child (from a certain age onwards, say sixteen). What changes here is the societal status of the addressee (from child to full member of the speech community) – a change in personality, so to speak. Secondly, adults using Sie with each other can – at a given moment – decide that the nature of their relationship has changed and that it is now more appropriate to use the more intimate form of address du. The fact that this shift from Sie to du is not one which is done off-handedly can be seen in the fact that native speakers of German used to have a ritual for this kind of shift: Expressive shifts in the running course of conversations are apparently rare. In general the formal is unmarked and a move to the use of the informal between any two people must be achieved through an explicit invitation from the senior member of the duo and, at least among men, formally ratified by the ritual of Bruderschaft. Colleagues who have been addressing each other as Sie may, on the invitation of the senior, adjourn to a Weinstube (no other beverage than wine will do) and with arms interlinked drink a ceremonial toast. After which, reciprocal du is mandatory, together with other forms of address associated with that level of intimacy such as the use of the first name (Mühlhäusler and Harré 1990: 142f.).

Even if this ceremony is somewhat out-dated and no longer widespread among the younger generation, the basic point is still valid. People do change their pronominal address, but only once. Then they stick to du, and it would be highly unusual if they ever reversed the shift. It is probably not coincidental that, judging from the literary evidence, the MHG-type variability survived well into the nineteenth century. Only after the breakdown of the highly complex system V did the opposition become grammaticalised. Pronominal address in German began as the optional application of politeness strategies, moved through several stages of semi-open multi-value

 Horst J. Simon

systems, and then – concomitant to the reduction to a two-value distinction – it changed its status and opened up a real grammatical opposition. Such a development of early expansion and later reduction is typical of grammaticalisation processes.

5.3

“Respect” in Bavarian – morphological surface differentiations

Before I finally interpret this finding and put it into a broader context, I will provide further and even clearer evidence for the existence of “respect” as a grammatical category in a modern dialect of German, viz. Bavarian. Here, respect shows up even in surface forms in various places in the grammar.44 Many contemporary dialects of German still exhibit older systems of pronominal address (cf. Grober-Glück 1994 for an overview). For instance, in Switzerland and the South-West of Germany a high degree of polite second person plural forms (ihr or morpho-phonological variants thereof) can be found,45 and some areas of Northern Germany show third person singular forms. In the following section, I discuss data from Bavarian, more precisely Central Bavarian from the Austro-German borderland along the Danube (incidentally the very same area that the Nibelungenlied presumably comes from). Judging from published material concerning this dialect, nothing spectacular should arise. The standard descriptive grammar maintains: Die Form Sie der höflichen Anrede [...] hat zwar die Bedeutung der 2. Person Einzahl, aber die Form der dritten Mehrzahl. Ihre enklitische Behandlung hinterm Verbum etc. ist im Prinzip dieselbe wie die des kleingeschriebenen sie (Merkle 1996: 130f.; emphasis added).

It seems that the Bavarian system is highly comparable to Modern Standard German in that it uses a form phonologically identical to the third person plural as a pronoun of polite address.46 On closer inspection, however, this turns out to be incorrect. The forms for polite address (second person singular honorative) and for third person plural show striking surface differentiations, not only in pronouns but also in verb forms and even some other minor inflected forms. What is true in the previously quoted description is that the postverbal clitic form (phonologically: /s/) does not distinguish the two pronouns in question, and the unmarked form of the personal pronoun in Bavarian is the clitic.47 However, under certain conditions – e.g., contrastive stress and the like – Bavarian uses a set of tonal forms:48 (27a) San Síe des are you.. that ‘Is that you on the photograph?’

auf on

dem the

Foto? photograph

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German 

(27b) San(d) sé des auf dem Foto? are they. that on the photograph ‘Is that them on the photograph (and not the other ones)?’ (27c) San(d) dé des auf dem Foto? are they. that on the photograph ‘Is that them on the photograph (and not the other ones)?’ In Bavarian there is an even stronger tendency than in Modern Standard German to use the d-forms as third person pronouns (cf. note 34), which would make the distinction between the two pronouns even more pronounced. But in any case, the two types of pronoun (honorative-address in (27a), i.e. /si:/, and third person plural in (27b) and (27c), i.e. /se:/ or /de:/) differ sharply in their phonological form. A second contrast occurs in the case system: the honorative pronoun neutralises all non-nominative cases to Eana, for instance accusative (28) and reflexive (29): (28a) Aber i kenn but I know.1. ‘But I don’t know you.’

Eana .2...

(28b) Aber i kenn=s but I know.1.=.3... ‘But I don’t know them.’ (29a) Ham=S have.2..=.2.... ‘Have you cut yourself?’ (29b) Ham=se se have.3.=.3... .3. ‘Have they cut themselves?’

ned.  ned. 

Eana .2..

gschnittn? cut.

gschnittn? cut.

At least the contrast between (28a) and (28b) is fairly widespread in German nonstandard speech (Behaghel 1923: 325, fn.). There even seems to be a good functional motivation for this; as early as the eighteenth century, a writer observed: Zu merken ist, daß ein Frauenzimmer von etwas gutem Stande es übel deuten würde, wenn man im Discurse mit ihr im Accusativ das Sie von ihrer Person gebrauchen wollte. Man darf nicht sagen: Mamsell, ich habe Sie gestern gesehen, sondern: ich habe Ihnen gestern gesehen. Das Sie im Accusativ ist nur für Mädchen und Weiber von geringerm Stande. Z. B. Jungfer Köchinn, ich habe Sie gestern gesehen (Zaupser 1789: 7).

 Horst J. Simon

Against the background of address system V (from Figure 1), it is understandable that speakers were reluctant to use an accusative form Sie (third person plural) when they wanted to be polite since this form is phonologically identical to the accusative sie (third person singular feminine). Because there is no object agreement in German, the addressees could not disambiguate the forms by looking at verbal inflection. Therefore, the two pronouns (third person plural and third person singular feminine) were easily confused. In order to avoid being misunderstood as less polite than intended, speakers therefore replaced the ambiguous form with another one from the paradigm. Similar reflections might explain the contrast between (29a) and (29b). A partial case paradigm of Bavarian is given in Figure 4:

Bav.: case

2.SG.HON

nom.

Sie, -S

se, -s

acc.

Eana

se, -s

dat.

Eana

ea(na), (-na)

refl.

Eana

se

Figure 4.

3.PL

Case paradigm for Bavarian (excerpt).

Almost all forms in the two columns are contrastive. Once again, taking into account the d-forms would yield even stronger distinctions. In Bavarian, the morphological surface distinctions are not restricted to personal pronouns. Many regional varieties of Bavarian (Wiesinger 1989: 45–50 and map 7) retain the old -(e)nt-ending on verbs in the indicative present (30a), but in polite address they lose their dental (30b): (30a) Heid laufand=s guad, de today run.3.=3.. well the ‘Today they’re running well, the boys.’

Buam. boys

(30b) Heid laufan=S guad, Herr today run.2..=2... well Mr. ‘Today you’re running well, Mr. Beckenbauer.’

Beckenbauer. Beckenbauer

There are some minor instances of person-number-respect-inflection outside the pronominal and verbal system in Bavarian. One such locus of inflection are sentence final particles which are attached to utterances in order to emphasise one’s partner orientation. These particles receive endings – which look strikingly similar to the respective verbal endings – when the utterance is addressed to more than one person or when speaker and addressee are in a Sie-relationship.49

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German 

(31a) Des is a blääds Spui, gäi. That is a silly game .2. ‘That’s a silly game, isn’t it.’ [one addressee] (31b) Des is a blääds Spui, gäi-ts. That is a silly game -2. ‘That’s a silly game, isn’t it.’ [more than one addressee] (31c) Des is a blääds Spui, gäi-nS. That is a silly game -2.. ‘That’s a silly game, isn’t it, sir/ma’am.’ [addressee towards whom Sie is used] One might even go one step further along the lines presented in the present paper and speculate that traditional Bavarian greetings inflect for number and respect: (32a) Griaß-de. hello-2. ‘Hello.’ (32b) Griaß-Eana. hello-2.. ‘Hello, sir/ma’am.’

Griaß-enk. hello-2.

-

Pfiad-de. Pfiad-enk. bye-2. bye-2. ‘Good-bye.’

-

Pfiad-Eana. bye-2.. ‘Good-bye, sir/ma’am.’

The reason is, of course, that these greetings are actually lexicalised phrases comprising old accusative pronouns (‘God may greet you’ and ‘God may take care of you’) which are synchronically not analysable for most, if not all, modern language users. In summary, the Bavarian data discussed in this section replicate in their structure the previous findings concerning Modern Standard German. Bavarian has a similar paradigm to the one in Figure 3.50 There is, however, a significant difference. Although Modern Standard German honorative forms must be allotted paradigm cells of their own due to their typically “second person type” syntactic behaviour, they all look identical to the third person plural forms on the surface. In contrast, the Bavarian forms are distinguishable also in their surface forms. When one looks closely at the surface manifestations, there is no danger of confusing the relevant pronouns synchronically.

. Conclusion – prospects for a theory of language change In the present paper I argued that the German pronouns of address have changed their place in the linguistic system. Whereas the Middle High German contrast between du and ir can be attributed to number-related politeness strategies and

 Horst J. Simon

thus falls into the realm of pragmatics, the Modern Standard German contrast between du and Sie is rooted in the paradigmatic system and must therefore be handled by grammar. German pronominal address, hence, seems to be a paradigm example for Faarlund’s dictum (1989: 71): “Thus today’s syntax may be the product of yesterday’s discourse pragmatics.” At first sight, though, one might be puzzled by the fact that the honorative pronouns in Modern Standard German do not dispose of specialised surface forms of their own. The relation between the categories person, number, and respect can be visualised in the following way:

sie

er, sie Sie

du

Figure 5.

Sie

ihr

ich wir Person-number-respect configuration in Modern Standard German

All forms that mount the vertical plane of the figure (the honorative forms) can be connected to forms already employed in the horizontal plane. Given the diachronic development of the category (all forms originate in a pragmatically induced re-cycling of existing forms), this is not surprising. In fact, that is what one would expect from a grammaticalisation point of view (cf. Diewald 1997: 11). The “secondary” category respect came into being through the metaphorical use of the “primary” categories person and number. Respect formation is, therefore, parasitic on person and number.51 Only later does the category develop forms of its own. This appears to be the case in Bavarian.52 The diachronic development traced in this article seems to fit in very nicely with a recent discussion on evolutionary models of language change. In this area of research, language is considered to be a “complex adaptive system” and historians of language, therefore, try to tie the development of linguistic structures to the reasoning that, e.g., biologists have developed in order to understand the evolution

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German

of species. One element of the argumentation, for instance, in Lass (1997: 305–24) is the concept of “exaptation”, as defined by Gould and Vrba (1982: 6; emphasis original): We suggest that such characters, evolved for other usages (or for no function at all), and later “coopted” for their current role, be called exaptations [...]. They are fit for their current role, hence aptus, but were not designed for it, and are therefore not ad aptus, or pushed toward fitness. They owe their fitness to features present for other reasons, and are therefore fit (aptus) by reason of (ex) their form, or ex aptus.

An example taken from biology would be the phylogenetic development of the ability to fly: originally, proto-birds had feathers for thermoregulatory purposes; growth of feathers along the upper limbs facilitated the catching of prey. With an increase in overall body size, the wings could now enhance stabilisation when gliding; this in turn led over time to the ability to fly. The point is that flight is not a product of a selection process, but rather a coincidental side-effect of some other functional element, thermoregulation. The exaptation of a trait is therefore the systematic application of some other trait leading to an entirely new function. This is exactly what has happened in the diachrony of German pronouns of address. Personal pronouns originally express person and number features. As soon as politeness strategies operate, pronouns become “[p]reaptations”, i.e. “potential, but unrealized, exaptations” (Gould and Vrba 1982: 11). When the new grammatical category “respect” in German evolves, the pronouns are being “exapted”. In Bavarian, there are then secondary adaptations: the pronouns expressing respect features acquire slightly differentiated phonological forms, thereby increasing their fitness to express the distinction in question. In conclusion, due to the intimate interrelation of pragmatic and grammatical characteristics, the best way to understand the diachrony of German pronouns of address is to move to “pragmatics and beyond”.

Appendix The following abbreviations are used in this article: 123 ACC ADDR CG CL

first, second, third person accusative (pronominal) address form Common Germanic clitic





Horst J. Simon

DIM DP FEM FOC HON MASC MHG MSG NEG NEUT NOM OHG PART PAST PL POSS PRON PTCL REFL SG T V

diminutive determiner phrase feminine focus honorative masculine Middle High German Modern Standard German negator neuter nominative Old High German participle past tense plural possessive pronoun personal pronoun particle reflexive pronoun singular “normal” pronoun of address (e.g. Older English thou) “polite” pronoun of address (e.g. Older English you)

Acknowledgment An earlier version of this paper, which incorporates some findings from Simon (in press, a) was presented under the title “On the Rise of a Grammatical Category: ‘Respect’ in German” at the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada (Aug. 12th, 1999). Among the many people with whom I discussed the matters presented in this paper, the following people should be singled out as particularly helpful and encouraging: Annette Fischer, Elvira Glaser, Maria Selig, Heike Wiese, and especially Karin Donhauser. Thanks. – Thanks also to Allison Schmidt for improving my English.

Notes . Naturally, the phonological forms and orthographic representations of the pronouns differ somewhat in the course of time; for present purposes, I abstract away from these variations. The chronological hints at the bottom of the figure should merely be regarded as

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German

rough approximations. As will become clear in the following analysis, under the present approach it is intrinsically impossible and indeed irrelevant to indicate exact datings for the systems; what counts is only the relative chronology of the systems from I to VI. . Of course, around 1800 dieselben was even more polite than Sie, but in contrast to all other forms discussed, it was never a full member of the address paradigm; it always remained marginal to the system (cf. Simon 1997: 273–6). Its marginality can be seen from the fact that it (almost) never occurred at the beginning of a discourse or a turn; it always had to be preceded by some indirect nominal address form functioning as an antecedent (cf. also below Section 4). . According to traditional lore, this is even true of system VI (Modern Standard German); however, I will show in Section 5 below that in this case the common view should be revised. . As long as the “gallantry game” discussed by Keller (1994: 77) is played. . In German, only the Hildebrandslied survives in this tradition. . Here and in the following examples, all addressee-deictic pronouns (and occasionally verbal or nominal forms where relevant) are printed in italics. . These so-called dialogues consist of a list of little more than 100 useful words and phrases in Latin and their Old High German translation equivalent. The list of phrases, which sometimes relate to each other, was probably compiled in order to aid a West Frankish (Romance-speaking) traveller, making his way through German-speaking territories. The text has been edited several times. The most recent edition (Gusmani 1999) contains a useful glossary summarizing earlier literature; in this edition all instances of second person plural pronouns (i.e. ger ‘vos’ and ore ‘vester’) are listed and discussed (Gusmani 1999: 153f., 166f.). I quote the somewhat normalised version of the text in Gusmani’s edition. . Recall that biblical usage is more or less the only residue of thou in Contemporary Standard Englishes (in contrast to the otherwise generalized you, also originally a polite pronoun). . In this article T and V refer to the “normal” (du) and the “polite” pronoun of address (ir), respectively. . But cf. Grosse (1987: 813) for the view that it is often doubtful whether we can today detect the reason behind a particular shift in a historical text. . Cf. Wunderlich (1998) for a summary of theories concerning the authorship of the text and the literary implications of the fact that the text survives in several distinct redactions. Heinzle (1998) discusses the extant manuscripts and their relation to each other; brief codicological descriptions are given in Batts (1971: 801–10). . Printed in Batts (1971: 194–9). A Modern English prose translation of the passage, albeit one which levels out all address variation into you, is in Hatto (1969: 89f.). . Cf. Ehrismann (1903: 215f.) for a general overview of the address usage in all dialogues between Gunther and Siegfried. As nobles, they address each other as ir in the majority of cases, but occasionally they employ du-forms. . Here, T and V refer to du and ir, their inflected forms and corresponding verbal forms in imperatives, respectively; cf. note 9.



 Horst J. Simon . Therefore Lachmann (1878: 84) emendated the form to în ‘into’ in his edition. . Nevertheless, of course, in many cases a possible reason for the substitution can be discerned. . Strictly speaking, one has to take into account that what has come down to us are only (semi-)fictitious texts, but not real-life discourse. Due to the lack of better sources for the period in question, one must tolerate this flaw. . Cf. also Levinson (1979) for a discussion of the idea of implicatures in this respect. . Cf. Kisbye (1965: 435) on Latin in early medieval England, Stone (1984: 54) on sixteenthcentury Polish, or – particularly detailed – Lebsanft (1987) on Old French, to name but a few examples. For examples from the history of English cf. several papers in the present volume. . This period has been treated several times in the literature from a sociolinguistic point of view, often with extensive quotes from original sources; cf. above all Keller (1904/05), Metcalf (1938), Svennung (1958), and Listen (1999). In the context of the present paper, I cannot do justice to the wealth of details presented in these works. Therefore, I extract only a rather abstract line of development which is necessary to understand the Modern Standard German situation. . Nevertheless, in the very same text, one also finds sex-related, and therefore deictically induced gender specification on the pronoun in comparable constructions (cf. the example in Metcalf 1938: 97). . What we have then are second person pronouns with a gender distinction, similar to languages like Arabic or several languages of Papua New Guinea. . In the following text, capitalised 〈Sie〉 is always meant to indicate the addressee-deictic “polite pronoun of address” of Modern Standard German, in contrast to 〈sie〉, which is either group-of-non-speech-act-participants-deictic “third person plural” or occasionally “third person singular feminine”. . Comparable circumstances led to the present-day situation in Standard Italian: here, the polite pronoun is Lei (homonymous with the “third person singular feminine oblique”pronoun), irrespective of the sex of the addressee. It entered the system via anaphora of abstractions such as Vostra Eccellenza. For details concerning the diachronic development and the synchronic dialectal distribution in Italian cf. Grand (1930) and Niculescu (1974). . That this happened more often in requests than in other speech act types, can be regarded as further confirmation of the politeness theories mentioned – requests having a greater face-threatening force than non-requests. . For an analysis of textual evidence and some typological speculations why dieselben nevertheless was used as a polite pronoun for a certain time, cf. Simon (1997, 1998). . A four or five value system like IV or V is rather unique among the world’s address systems. To my knowledge, only in some South East Asian languages do even larger inventories exist. But then, in these languages, personal pronouns do not form a closed class anyway; cf. Cooke (1968). . Although, of course, one has to reckon with cross-categorial neutralisations.

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German

. Though they are not universal; cf. e.g. the cases of Thai for a language lacking person in the strict sense (cf. Cysouw 2001: 11), and Indonesian for a language without tense or aspect (cf. Sneddon 1996: 197ff.). . These and a few other languages are discussed in Haase (1994). Cf. also Agha (1994) and Irvine (1995) for overviews of similar phenomena in a number of other languages. . In certain circumstances, which are determined by sociolinguistic rules, failure to use this affix will result in a highly deviant utterance, bordering on ungrammaticality. [A reviewer notes that this formulation surprisingly sounds as if sociolinguistic deviance and grammatical deviance were (gradual) variants of each other. In fact, this is exactly what is intended here: In languages like Japanese, where “respect” – the marking of sociolinguistic facts – is grammaticalised pervasively throughout the whole morphosyntactic system, it is often undecidable what type of deviance one deals with in a particular case. Speakers of such languages would just say that the sentence is simply impossible in a given situation. Here, maybe in contrast to Standard Average European, grammar and sociolinguistics cannot be disentangled.] . A reviewer points out that many grammarians use the term “Höflichkeitsform” in connection with Sie (cf. also the quotes above) and that they sometimes also mention Sie alongside with third person plural sie when they list personal pronouns. The crucial point is, however, that to the best of my knowledge, none of them mentions the syntactic differences to be discussed now; nor does anyone of them draw any morpho-syntactic conclusions from the separate listing of the Sie-form (cf. also the discussion in note 42). . Occasionally, one does find examples like (i) in literary texts: (i) Er Katzenkopf, Er unvorsichtiger! Läßt man in einer Dame Schlafzimmer den Degen herumliegen? Hat Er keine besseren Gepflogenheiten? ‘HeADDR cat’s head, heADDR incautious one! Does one leave one’s sword lying around in a lady’s bedroom? Doesn’t heADDR have better manners?’ (Der Rosenkavalier 1910, drama; von Hofmannsthal 1979: 13) All occurrences that I have are from the twentieth century portraying in their fictional world eighteenth-century speech habits, i.e. they project modern Sie-usage into a simulation of a period when er still functioned as a pronoun of address. . Another possibility would be to argue that the “real” – the deictic – third person pronouns in German are dér, díe, dás, and díe (in contrast to the anaphoric er etc.). Such a perspective would fit perfectly with recent syntactic theories concerning the grammatical status of pronouns and articles as determiners (cf. the rich literature following Abney 1987). Under this view, the patterning of polite Sie with the deictic pronouns (in contrast to sie) would be even more obvious. . In reality, the data are slightly less clear because some speakers leave out the “resumptive” pronoun even in structures like (21) and let their finite verb become specified for “third person” accordingly: (i) Ich, der Bücher sammelt, ... ‘I, who collects books, ...’



 Horst J. Simon

On the other hand, complex pronouns sometimes occur even with third person forms: (ii) Helmut sagte zu Angela, er, der er von all dem nichts gewußt habe, sei völlig unschuldig. ‘Helmut said to Angela that he, who had not known anything about all that, was totally innocent.’ But all instances of (ii) involve reported speech, quoting an utterance which originally contained a first or second person pronoun; therefore, these special cases have been analysed in terms of logophoricity and do not constitute counter-evidence for the present approach (Canisius 1994a, 1994b). . This piece of the argumentation holds true even for those speakers referred to in the previous note who leave out the pronominal copy in the relative clause. . Nevertheless, as (i) shows, the construction is also acceptable with a personal pronoun in the second slot, but then the interpretation is different; here, the two pronouns cannot be understood as co-referential. (i) Und siei haben die Worte des Redners gehört und auf siek bezogen. ‘And they have heard the speaker’s words and have taken them as referring to somebody else.’; literally: ‘... referring to them’ . Cf. Findreng (1988) for data concerning the extension of this construction in Modern Standard German. . Recall the fact mentioned above that a similar phenomenon – independence of plural (or honorative?) marking on verbs and plurality of the subject – was seen as a factor in the rise of polite Sie. . Without a “numeral+classifier”-construction, Vieh triggers singular verb morphology: Das Vieh ist tot. . In other languages further word classes might be involved, such as adjectives and participles, but never nouns (at least not by showing open agreement); cf. Comrie (1975). . The shaded areas show the new category. In the literature, one occasionally finds paradigms comparable to the one presented, but never is there any clear indication of the grammatical status of the phenomenon. This is most striking in the case of the DudenGrammatik: Here, the paradigm has two columns in the second person and three columns in the third person (neither of these distinctions is explicitly named, though). Immediately below the figure, one learns that the third person singular distinguishes gender. What one should make of the division in the second person remains unclear: it is never mentioned again in this context; instead, the pronoun Sie turns up in the section on third person (!) on the following page (cf. Duden 1995: 325f.). . The temporary shifts that Kretzenbacher (1991: 47–9) mentions are extremely rare and marginal. . For a more detailed analysis of Bavarian “respect” and possible typological consequences cf. Simon (in press, b). . A prominent example is Bernese German (Marti 1985: 96).

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German

. Comparing the syntactic evidence discussed in the previous Section 5.2 is difficult because the relevant structures, e.g. relative clause formation, are fundamentally different in Bavarian. But at least the phrases from (19) show an identical pattern: du Depp, Sie Depp, eß Deppn but * er Depp, se Deppn. . Cf. Weiß (1998: 85 –166) for a detailed study of the syntax of pronominal clitics in the dialect in question. . Here and in the following, bracketing indicates regionally and/or socially differentiated allomorphy. . Andreas H. Jucker informs me that a very similar inflectional distinction exists in his Swiss German dialect. . There is one important difference: in Bavarian, as well as in many other regional varieties of German, a group of addressees is most often referred to with ihr, not with Sie as it is the case in the standard (Merkle 1996: 131). Under my approach this means that the category “respect” is neutralised in the plural – as opposed to Modern Standard German, where number is neutralised in the honorative. On further – cross-linguistically highly unusual – complications concerning Bavarian address towards more than just one addressee cf. Simon (2001). . Such a parasitic morphology seems to be observable in other domains, too; e.g. in Simon (1999) I discuss diminutives in Swahili which sit parasitically on noun class differentiations. . To substantiate this claim, further research into the diachrony of Bavarian address is needed. At the moment it is not clear whether the present-day situation represents an organically grown system or whether one has to reckon with phenomena like code-switching, dialect mixture etc.

References Primary sources Batts, Michael S. (ed.) 1971 Das Nibelungenlied. Paralleldruck der Handschriften A, B und C nebst Lesarten der übrigen Handschriften. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Erdmann, Oskar, and Ludwig Wolff (eds) 1973 Otfrids Evangelienbuch (Altdeutsche Textbibliothek 49). 6th ed. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Gusmani, Roberto 1999 Altdeutsche Gespräche: testo e glossario. Incontri linguistici 22, 129–74. Hatto, A. T. (translator) 1969 The Nibelungenlied. Harmondsworth: Penguin. von Hofmannsthal, Hugo 1979 Dramen V. Operndichtungen (Hugo von Hofmannsthal: Gesammelte Werke in zehn Einzelbänden. Ed. by Bernd Schoeller. 5). Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.





Horst J. Simon

Lachmann, Karl (ed.) 1878 Der Nibelunge Noth und die Klage. 5th ed. Berlin: Reimer.

Secondary sources Abney, Steven Paul 1987 The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics). Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Agha, Asif 1994 Honorification. Annual Review of Anthropology 23, 277–302. Behaghel, Otto 1923 Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. I: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. A. Nomen. Pronomen (Germanische Bibliothek I, I, 10). Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung. Boyle, John Andrew 1966 Grammar of Modern Persian (Porta linguarum orientalium New Series 9). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Braun, Friederike 1988 Terms of Address. Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 50). Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman 1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed). Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 253–76. Canisius, Peter 1994a Relativpronomina, Personalpronomina, Kongruenz. In: Peter Canisius, Clemens-Peter Herbermann, and Gerhard Tschauder (eds). Text und Grammatik. Festschrift für Roland Harweg zum 60. Geburtstag (Bochumer Beiträge zur Semiotik 43). Bochum: Brockmeyer, 133–60. –––––– 1994b Logophorische Pronomina im Deutschen. In: Susanne Beckmann, and Sabine Frilling (eds). Satz - Text - Diskurs. Akten des 27. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Münster 1992. Vol. 1 (Linguistische Arbeiten 312). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 3 – 8. Comrie, Bernard 1975 Polite plurals and predicate agreement. Language 51, 406–18. Cooke, Joseph R. 1968 Pronominal Reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese (University of California Publications in Linguistics 52). Berkeley: University of California Press. Cysouw, Michael Alexander 2001 The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking. Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German

Diewald, Gabriele 1997 Grammatikalisierung. Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen (Germanistische Arbeitshefte 36). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Duden 1995 Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache (Duden 4). Ed. by Günther Drosdowski. 5th ed. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Ehrismann, Gustav 1902 Duzen und Ihrzen im Mittelalter [II]. Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 2, 118– 59. –––––– 1903 Duzen und Ihrzen im Mittelalter [III]. Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 4, 210–48. Eisenberg, Peter 1999 Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik. Vol. 2: Der Satz. Stuttgart and Weimar: J. B. Metzler. Faarlund, Jan Terje 1989 Pragmatics and syntactic change. In: Leiv Egil Breivik, and Ernst Håkon Jahr (eds). Language Change. Contributions to the Study of Its Causes (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 43). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 71–98. Findreng, Ådne 1988 Zum Gebrauch nominaler Anredeformen vom Typus Werden die Dame schon bedient? im heutigen gesprochenen Deutsch. In: John Ole Askedal, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, and Kurt Erich Schöndorf (eds). Gedenkschrift für Ingerid Dal. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 138 – 49. Gedike, Friedrich 1801 Ueber Du und Sie in der deutschen Sprache. In: Friedrich Gedike. Vermischte Schriften. Berlin: J. F. Unger, 101–40. Gould, Stephen Jay, and Elisabeth S. Vrba 1982 Exaptation - a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8, 4–15. Grand, Camille 1930 “Tu, Voi, Lei”. Etude des pronoms allocutoires italiens. Dissertation. Université de Fribourg, Suisse. Ingenbohl: Théodose. Grober-Glück, Gerda 1994 Die Anrede des Bauern und seiner Frau durch das Gesinde in Deutschland um 1930 unter volkskundlichen und soziolinguistischen Aspekten nach Materialien des Atlas der deutschen Volkskunde (Germanistische Arbeiten zu Sprache und Kulturgeschichte 28). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Grosse, Siegfried 1987 Spuren gesprochener Sprache in mittelhochdeutschen Versdichtungen. In: Rolf Bergmann, Heinrich Tiefenbach, and Lothar Voetz (eds). Althochdeutsch. Vol. 1: Grammatik. Glossen und Texte. Heidelberg: Winter, 809–18. Haase, Martin 1994 Respekt: Die Grammatikalisierung von Höflichkeit (Edition Linguistik 3). München and Newcastle: Lincom Europa.



 Horst J. Simon

Harweg, Roland 1984 Relativpronomina als Personalpronomina. In: Werner Besch, Klaus Hufeland, Volker Schupp, and Peter Wiehl (eds). Festschrift für Siegfried Grosse zum 60. Geburtstag (Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik 423). Göppingen: Kümmerle, 45– 62. Head, Brian F. 1978 Respect degrees in pronominal reference. In: Joseph H. Greenberg (ed). Universals of Human Language. Vol. 3: Word Structure. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 151–211. Heinzle, Joachim 1998 The manuscripts of the Nibelungenlied. In: Winder McConnell (ed), 105 –26. Helbig, Gerhard, and Joachim Buscha. 1981 Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie. Irvine, Judith T. 1995 Honorifics. In: Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jan Blommaert (eds). Handbook of Pragmatics 1995. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Keenan, Elinor Ochs 1974 Conversation and Oratory in Vakinankaratra, Madagascar (University Microfilms 74–22, 863). Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Keller, Albrecht 1904/05 Die Formen der Anrede im Frühneuhochdeutschen. Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 6, 129–74. Keller, Rudi 1994 On Language Change. The Invisible Hand in Language. Translated by Brigitte Nerlich. London and New York: Routledge. Kisbye, Torben 1965 Zur Pronominalen Anrede bei Ælfric. Anmerkung zu Th. Finkenstaedts You und Thou. Archiv für das Studium der Neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 116/201, 432 –435. Kretzenbacher, Heinz Leonhard 1991 Vom Sie zum Du - und retour? In: Heinz Leonhard Kretzenbacher, and Wulf Segebrecht. Vom Sie zum Du - mehr als eine neue Konvention? Hamburg and Zürich: Luchterhand Literaturverlag, 9–77. Lass, Roger 1997 Historical Linguistics and Language Change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lebsanft, Franz 1987 Le problème du mélange du “tu” et du “vous” en ancien français. Romania 108, 1–19. Levinson, Stephen C. 1979 Pragmatics and social deixis: Reclaiming the notion of conventional implicature. Berkeley Linguistics Society 5, 206–23.

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German

Lewis, G. L. 1967 Turkish Grammar. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Listen, Paul H. 1999 The Emergence of German Polite Sie. Cognitive and Sociolinguistic Parameters (Berkeley Insights in Linguistics and Semiotics 32). New York: Peter Lang. Marti, Werner 1985 Berndeutsch-Grammatik für die heutige Mundart zwischen Thun und Jura. Bern: Francke. McConnell, Winder (ed) 1998 A Companion to the Nibelungenlied. Columbia, SC: Camden House. Merkle, Ludwig 1996 Bairische Grammatik. 6th ed. München: Hugendubel. Metcalf, George J. 1938 Forms of Address in German (1500 –1800) (Washington University Studies New Series, Language and Literature 7). St. Louis. –––––– 1941 Abstractions as forms of address in fifteenth century German. In: Studies in Honor of John Albrecht Walz. Lancaster, Penn.: The Lancaster Press, 242–55. Mühlhäusler, Peter, and Rom Harré 1990 Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity (Language in Society 15). Oxford and Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. Niculescu, Alessandro 1974 Strutture allocutive pronominali reverenziali in italiano. (Università di Padova. Pubblicazioni della facoltà di lettere e filosofia 52). Firenze: Leo. S. Olschki. Palmer, Nigel F. 1988 Duzen und Ihrzen in Frauenlobs Marienleich und in der mittelhochdeutschen Mariendichtung. In: Wolfram-Studien 10, 87–104. Paul, Hermann, Peter Wiehl, and Siegfried Grosse 1989 Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte A, 2). 23rd ed. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Sayce, Olive 1993 Aspects of pronominal usage in the medieval German lyric. In: John L. Flood, Paul Salmon, Olive Sayce, and Christopher Wells (eds). “Das unsichtbare Band der Sprache”. Studies in German Language and Linguistic History in Memory of Leslie Seiffert (Stuttgarter Arbeiten zur Germanistik 280). Stuttgart: Heinz, 103–25. Shibatani, Masayoshi 1990 The Languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simon, Horst J. 1997 Die Diachronie der deutschen Anredepronomina aus Sicht der Universalienforschung. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 50, 267–81. –––––– 1998 What typologists might be interested to know about the diachrony of the German pronouns of address. In: Jürg Strässler (ed). Tendenzen europäischer



 Horst J. Simon

Linguistik. Akten des 31. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Bern 1996 (Linguistische Arbeiten 381). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 211– 6. –––––– 1999

–––––– 2001

Morphologische ParaSIEten und wo sie herkommen können. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS), Feb. 24th, 1999 in Konstanz. Only you? On the alleged inclusive-exclusive-distinction in the second person plural. Paper presented at ALT IV (4th Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology), July 20th, 2001 in Santa Barbara (CA).

–––––– in press, a Für eine grammatische Kategorie “Respekt” im Deutschen. Synchronie, Diachronie und Typologie der deutschen Anredepronomina. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. –––––– in press b Respekt – die Grammatik der Höflichkeit im Bairischen. In: Stephan Gaisbanes and Hermann Schewinger (eds). [...]. Akten der 8. Bayerisch-österreichischen Dialektologentagung in Linz 2001. Sneddon, James Neil 1996 Indonesian. A Comprehensive Grammar (Routledge Grammars). London and New York: Routledge. Stone, Gerald 1984 Honorific pronominal address in Polish before 1600. Oxford Slavonic Papers 17, 45–56. Svennung, J. 1958 Anredeformen. Vergleichende Forschungen zur indirekten Anrede in der Dritten Person und zum Nominativ für den Vokativ (Skrifter utgivna av K. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Uppsala 42). Uppsala and Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Thun, Harald 1997 Zur Funktionsaufteilung bei den Pronomina des Portugiesischen und Deutschen. In: Helmut Lüdtke, and Jürgen Schmidt-Radefeldt (eds). Linguistica contrastiva. Deutsch versus Portugiesisch -Spanisch-Französisch (Acta Romanica 9). Tübingen: Narr, 105–19. Wegera, Klaus-Peter 1987 Grammatik des Frühneuhochdeutschen. Flexion der Substantive (Grammatik des Frühneuhochdeutschen. Beiträge zur Laut- und Formenlehre 3). Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. Weiß, Helmut 1998 Syntax des Bairischen. Studien zur Grammatik einer natürlichen Sprache (Linguistische Arbeiten 391). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Wiese, Heike 1997 Zahl und Numerale. Eine Untersuchung zur Korrelation konzeptueller und sprachlicher Strukturen (Studia Grammatica 44). Berlin: Akademieverlag.

From pragmatics to grammar: respect in German 

Wiesinger, Peter 1989 Die Flexionsmorphologie des Verbums im Bairischen (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte 523). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Wunderlich, Werner 1998 The authorship of the Nibelungenlied. In: Winder McConnell (ed), 251–77. Zaupser, Andreas Dominikus 1789 Versuch eines baierischen und oberpfälzischen Idiotikons. Nebst grammatikalischen Bemerkungen über diese zwo Mundarten, und einer kleinen Sammlung von Sprüchwörtern und Volksliedern. München: Leutner [reprint: Grafenau: Morsak 1986 (Reihe Reprint 2)].

The system of Czech bound address forms until 1700 Michael Betsch University of Tübingen

.

Introduction

The system of pronominal address in contemporary Czech, as in all Slavonic languages except Polish, corresponds to a very common type of pronominal address: the pronoun of the second person singular (ty) is used for non-distant, and the second person plural (vy) for distant address. This uniformity among the Slavonic languages is, however, a rather modern phenomenon: in different languages, the modern system was the outcome of different evolutions. In an overview of the Slavonic languages, Berger (1998: 314–8) describes a “Western” type of evolution of the address system, which encompassed the West Slavonic languages, Belorussian, Ukrainian, Croatian and Slovene. Most of these languages adopted a system of pronominal address consisting of the second person plural and of forms of indirect address; later, beginning in the eighteenth century, other forms of pronominal address were abolished in these languages (except Polish). On the other hand, Russian and several South Slavonic languages adopted a system of distant pronominal address rather late (during the eighteenth century or later). Here, Czech is seen as representative of the “Western” type. This paper will describe the development of Czech address forms from the emergence of a distinction of address forms marked for respect in the fourteenth century until the end of the seventeenth century. I will use the term “bound address form” for address forms that are syntactically integrated into a sentence; pronouns and nouns may be used as bound address forms. “Indirect address” will be used to designate bound address forms consisting of a noun (and possibly determiners, possessives etc.); cf. Braun (1988: 11–2). The focus of this paper is on the development of the system of bound address forms in this sense. This paper is based upon printed sources of different kinds: works of medieval literature, and historical sources, mainly letters. While there is a considerable

 Michael Betsch

amount of edited historical sources, there is naturally a certain bias in the selection of sources for publication: the interest of historians has focused on the fifteenth century (the Hussite period), and the seventeenth century with the defeated revolution of the Bohemian Estates (1620). Some of the biggest collections are thus formed by the edited correspondence of prominent participants of these historical events, such as Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka, a leading member of the Bohemian nobility in the fifteenth century, or Kateˇrina ze ™erotína, the wife of the prominent Protestant leader Karel ze ™erotína, from the seventeenth century. Besides these collections, there are also numerous editions of materials from the archives of different institutions. For the fourteenth century, we must rely on literary sources, because the earliest Czech letters date only from the end of the fourteenth century.

. Fourteenth century Until the fourteenth century, Czech had only one pronoun of address, the inherited pronoun of the second person singular ty ‘thou’. Even in the first works of literature as the Alexandreis (Vá´nß 1963; Trautmann 1916) or the Dalimil Chronicle (Havránek and Daˇnhelka 1957), both dating from the early fourteenth century, ty was the only pronominal address form and distinction of respect in pronominal address was absent. The first examples of bound address marked for respect come from literary texts of the second half of the fourteenth century. Some of these texts used Tvá Milost ‘Thy Grace’ as a marked form of address in some instances. The ‘Life of St. Catherine’ (™ivot svaté Kateˇriny) has examples where address by Tvá Milost serves to emphasize the subordination of the speaker (St. Catherine) to the addressee – a queen (1), or a hermit (2) who teaches her the Christian faith. (1) Tvá mnˇe Milost jmá kázati ... Thy me Grace has to command ... ‘Thy Grace has to command me’ (Hrabák and Vá´nß 1959: 190, verse 2493)1 (2) Dnes, co´ mˇe tvá milost zuˇcí, to chci uˇciniti jistˇe ... Today, what me Thy Grace teaches, that I will do surely ... ‘Today, what Thy Grace will teach me, I will surely do’ (Hrabák and Vá´nß 1959: 145, verses 922–3) The Czech version of the late antique novel ‘Apollon, king of Tyrus’ (O Apolonovi) has several examples for Tvá Milost used as an address to kings:

The system of Czech bound address forms until 1700 

The governor Stragul greets his king Apollon and proceeds to tell him about the (presumed) death of his daughter. (3) A iakz˙ nas twa milost widi, ... And as us Thy Grace sees, ... ‘And as Thy Grace sees us,’ (Lori• 1903: 425, line 525) Apollon’s daughter Tarsya visits her father (without either of them recognising the other) and tries to initiate a conversation: (4) Anebo slys˙ mudrost jednu odemne, aby mie twa milost privc˙ila. Or hear riddle one from me, that- me Thy Grace teach. ‘Or hear a riddle from me, that Thy Grace might teach me.’ (Lori• 1903: 428, lines 597– 8) In the romance ‘Duke Ernest’ (Vévoda Arno•t), the hero’s mother Adli≠ka addresses the emperor with Tvá Milost, as she asks his mercy for her son; the use of Tvá Milost is thus motivated by the rank of the addressee as well as by the intentions of the speaker. (5) Bych mohla natwe milostı zwiedietı ... That-I- can of Thy Grace learn ‘That I might learn from Thy Grace...’ (Lori• 1903: 177, verse 1253) (6) Gednohot zada natwe milostı / A tak prosy twe ctnostı, One he claims of Thy Grace / And so asks thy virtue ‘He [Arno•t] claims only one thing from Thy Grace and appeals to thy virtue’ (Lori• 1903: 177, verse 1253) In the epic ‘Tristram and Izalda’, (Tristram a Izalda), an adaptation of several German versions of the Tristan story, Tvá milost is used in several instances in address to a king, or to the heroes of the epic, Tristram and Izalda. (7) Králi, jest-li tˇreba mne tvéj milosti, chci rád poslú´iti k King, if needs me Thy Grace, I will gladly serve to tvéj libosti thy pleasure ‘King, if Thy Grace needs me, I will gladly serve thy pleasure.’ (Bamborschke 1968: 12)

 Michael Betsch

(8) a tedt’ jest poslal prsten Tvéj milosti.” Tu jí povˇedˇe pod and now has sent a ring Thy Grace. Then her told under tajemností secret ‘And now he has sent a ring to Thy Grace. Then he told her secretly ...’ (Bamborschke 1968: 450) As in this example, Tvá milost was sometimes used in a rhyme with other abstract nouns in -ost; this might in some occasions be an additional motivation for the use of this address form. The literary texts of the fourteenth century cited above mostly had Tvá milost ‘Thy Grace’; occasionally, other abstract nouns could also be used for address. The dedication of Ondˇrej z Dubé’s book on Bohemian Law ‘Bohemian Land Laws’ (Práva zemská ˇceská) (¨áda 1930) to King Wenceslas IV, dating from c. 1395–1402, contains one single address with Tvá velebnost ‘Thy Majesty’ (9) at the beginning of the dedicatory formula; the other instances of address throughout the book are with simple pronominal ty. (9) ... slu´bu svú poní´enú a hotovú ku poslu•enství ... service - humble and ready to obedience tvé velebnosti Thy Majesty ‘[I offer] my humble and ready service to Thy Majesty’ (¨áda 1930: 115) Although Tvá Milost is attested in many literary texts from the second half of the fourteenth century, it was still a marked form and its use in these texts was limited to few instances of address. Some works do not contain Tvá Milost at all, such as the Legend of St. Prokop (Hrabák and Vá´nß 1959); in other texts its use is very limited, as in ‘Tandariu•’ (Bamborschke 1982), which has only one single instance of Tvá Milost (this one addressed to King Artus). Even in those works that contain several instances of Tvá Milost, as ‘Tristram a Izalda’, it remained rather rare; the index to Bamborschke (1968, 1969) cites twelve instances of address with Tvá Milost in this text of 8931 lines. Where it was used, it was either pragmatically motivated – it expressed submission to the addressee, or respect for his/her rank – or it might also occasionally be motivated by rhyme or verse, as in (7), where it rhymes with other abstract nouns. Several of these literary works (Tandariu•, Tristram a Izalda, Duke Ernest) are adaptations of German texts, see Bamborschke (1968, 1982); but despite this relation, the address system of the Czech texts is not dependent upon the German texts. German medieval literature used a system of pronominal address consisting

The system of Czech bound address forms until 1700 

of the pronouns of the second person singular (du) and plural (ir), and ir was used frequently and more or less consistently. (See Simon, this volume.) The Czech texts have predominantly ty ‘thou’; Tvá milost was used as a form marked for respect, but its use was restricted to few cases.

. Fifteenth century During the fifteenth century, the use of Tvá Milost continued and it is attested in letters. In the beginning, it was only used in letters addressed to kings, e.g. two letters to King Wenceslas IV dating from 1396 and 1400 (Václavek 1949: 29 –30); but soon its use spread to addressees that belonged to the very high nobility, such as some members of the Ro´mberk family. (According to Fiedlerová et al. (1977: 61–2), the oldest instance of address with Milost to an addressee other than a king comes from a letter to Jindˇrich z Ro´mberka from 1411.) The correspondence of Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka, a leading member of the high nobility of Bohemia, from the years 1418 –1462 (Ryne•ová 1929, 1932, 1937; Ryne•ová and Pelikán 1954) shows numerous examples of address with Tvá Milost in letters. For instance, Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka was addressed with Tvá Milost by the chancellor of King Frederick III, Ka•par §lik (10), to whom he used simple ty in his answer (Ryne•ová 1937: 115 – 6). urozenß pane (10) Slu´bu svú vzkazuji TMti, Service - I recommend to Thy Grace, highborn lord milß! beloved! nyní poslala pˇrepis tˇech tajdinkóv ... Jako´ mi TMt As me Thy Grace now sent copy these negotiations ... ‘I recommend my service to Thy Grace before, my highborn and beloved lord! Thy Grace has sent me now a copy of these negotiations ...’ (Ka•par §lik to Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka, 6 July 1446, Ryne•ová 1937: 113– 4) In the fifteenth century, another mode of expressing respect in address was introduced, namely the use of pronouns and verbal forms of the second person plural (vy ‘you’ etc.). In an address with abstract nouns such as milost, this might also lead to a shift from the possessive pronoun of the second person singular (Tvá Milost ‘Thy Grace’) to the corresponding plural pronoun (Va•e Milost ‘Your Grace’). In writing, Tvá Milost and Va•e Milost were often abbreviated (TMt or VMt). Address with vy and Va•e Milost is attested as early as 1421 in a letter to Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka by the city of ¨eské Budˇejovice:

 Michael Betsch

(11) Va•emu jsme listu dobˇre rozumeli... a vy ste Your we have letter well understood... and you have k tomu povolili... that consented… VMt dobˇre vie, ´e... Your Grace well knows, that... ‘We have well understood your letter...and you consented ...Your Grace knows well, that...’ (City of ¨eské Budˇejovice to Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka 24 Jan. 1421, Ryne•ová 1929: 35) During the fifteenth century, there were thus four forms of bound address: the pronouns ty and vy and the combinations of possessive pronouns with abstract nouns (mostly milost ‘Grace’): Tvá Milost and Va•e Milost; three of them (vy, Tvá Milost and Va•e Milost) were marked forms of respect. In one letter more than one address form might be used, and different combinations were possible. Tvá Milost might be mixed with ty, and Va•e Milost with vy. A letter from the city of Tábor to Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka mixed Tvá Milost and vy (12); other letters used Tvá Milost and Va•e Milost (13). (12) Jako´t’ sme s Tvú Milostí rokovati mˇeli, vzkázal si nám ... As we with Thy Grace to treat had, told hast thou us ... Proto´ jako´ dávno s na•imi vyslanßmi k vám s vámi zóstáno jest... Thus as long with our envoys to you with you agreed is... ‘Thou hast told us that we had to treat with Thy Grace, ... Because for a long time we have agreed with you by our envoys ...’ (City of Tábor to Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka, 9 May 1442, Ryne•ová 1937: 145) psali i po (13) A jako´ jsme byli VMti And as we have had Your Grace written and through Janovi Pra´ákovi Jan Pra´ák vzkázali,... a tak nás tß´ Jan zpravil, told ... and so us the said Jan told, mienila ... ´e by TMt that  Thy Grace wants ... ‘And as we wrote to Your Grace and told through Jan Pra´ák ...and so told us the said Jan that Thy Grace wanted ...’ (City of Tábor to Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka, 9 May 1438, Ryne•ová 1932: 15)

The system of Czech bound address forms until 1700

There are even letters that mix Tvá Milost, Va•e Milost and vy, as a letter from Jan z ™ampachu na Náchodˇe to Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka of 23 Nov. 1450, (Ryne•ová and Pelikán 1954: 300–1). In many letters there is thus a considerable amount of mixing between the different address forms. This would indicate that there was not yet a fixed pattern of usage of address forms. On the other hand, the letters received by Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka from some senders show a fairly consistent address usage, which seems to reflect the different status relationships involved. Several members of the high nobility or high officials used TMt consistently, for instance the royal chancellor Ka•par §lik z Holiˇce (see (10); 13 letters from the years 1445–1448). In letters from the city of ¨eské Budˇejovice, we can observe a clear preference for VMt. Of 42 letters examined (from the years 1433–1448), all letters contain VMt; 7 letters also have instances of TMt, 14 letters also have vy, and 4 letters also have TMt and vy; VMt is thus present in all letters from the city of ¨eské Budˇejovice, and it is the only bound address form in a great part of the letters. We may conclude that the different address forms corresponded to different status relationships between the respective senders and addressees: The status difference between the citizens of ¨eské Budˇejovice and Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka was greater than between Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka and other members of the high nobility, and thus VMt (with the plural possessive pronoun) expressed a greater difference in status than TMt (with the singular possessive pronoun). This conforms to the crosslinguistic observations made by Head (1978: 190), who stated that “the non-singular typically indicates a higher degree of respect toward the referent, or greater social distance between him and other participants in the speech act, than does the singular.” Oldˇrich himself used ty to almost all addressees (e.g. Ka•par §lik z Holiˇce, see (10)), with the exception of King (later Emperor) Sigismund (1368–1437; King of Bohemia 1420, 1436–1437), whom he treated with TMt (e.g. Ryne•ová 1929: 113, 5 Dec. 1425) or VMt (e.g. Ryne•ová 1929: 199-200, 15–25 June 1436).2 Most senders of Czech letters treated Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka with one or several of the respect forms described earlier, but received ty in turn; thus most of the address relationships documented in his correspondence were asymmetric. Only between some very high members of the nobility there are symmetric address relationships: Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka exchanged ty with Ale• ze §ternberka a z Holic (Ryne•ová 1932: 52–3, 24 Jan. 1440; 1932: 53) and with the Supreme Burgrave Menhart z Hradce (Ryne•ová 1932: 134, 25 Dec. 1441; 1937: 112, 5 July 1446). The use of the “respect” forms during the fifteenth century seems thus to have been generally asymmetric;3 they marked primarily a difference in social status, not respect for the addressee’s status as such, and they were used primarily towards addressees with superior status.



 Michael Betsch

A variation between different address forms similar to that in letters can also be observed in the treatise Spravovna ‘On Governing’, written by Magister Pavel ™idek for King George of Podebrady (Jiˇrí z Podˇebrad) in 1470. ™idek’s text used predominantly abstract address nouns with the plural possessive pronoun (often Va•e Jasnost ‘Your Excellency’, as (15)), but in some instances switched to constructions with a singular possessive pronoun (14). (14) A bude-li pán Buoh Tvú Velebnost milovati, vyvedet’ And if will the Lord God Thy Majesty love, will lead out z ní of it Tvú Jasnost a dá prohlédnúti a skru•ené srdce. Thy Excellency and will give understanding and contrite heart. ‘And if the Lord will love Thy Majesty, he will lead Thy Excellency out and give understanding and a contrite heart ...’ (Tobolka 1908: 64, lines 38–40) (15) Pakli tˇech vˇeci nehledáte do sebe, tehdy zavˇre pán But if these things you not seek in , then excludes the Lord Buoh God Va•i Jasnost od sebe a tiem viec , Your Excellency from  and the more, cˇím víc zatvrdí se srdce Va•e proti ... the more hardens  heart your against ... ‘But if you do not seek these things in yourself, then the Lord will exclude Your Excellency from himself and your heart will get harder and harder against ...’ (Tobolka 1908: 64, lines 40–1)

. Sixteenth century In letters of the sixteenth century, ty, vy and Va•e Milost are attested. Of these address forms, ty was still much used, it was not yet as much restricted to addressees of low status as in the next century. For example, the secretary of the city council of Kutná Hora used ty in a letter to the judge of the town of Tˇrebe•ovice. (16) A proto´e ctí a vˇerou jest zavázán, aby And because by honour and faith is obliged, that- se pˇred  before

The system of Czech bound address forms until 1700

Tebú stavˇel tuto nedˇeli najdˇrív pˇrí•tí, ... ´ádaje mne, abych Thee present this Sunday soonest coming, ... asking me, that- I se k Tobˇe i jinßm pánuom kon•eluom pˇrimluvil ...  to Thee and other lords councillors intercede ... ‘And because he is obliged by his honour and faith to appear before Thee this next sunday, ... asking me to intercede with Thee and other honourable councillors ...’ (Mistr Pavel, council scribe in Kutná Hora, to the judge of Tˇrebe•ovice, 5 March 1529, Nováˇcek 1894: 4) Even in letters between members of the nobility, there are cases of variation between vy and ty. In a letter to Václav Ko´ateckß z Kolovrat, Vilém z Pern•teina used mostly forms of vy, and verb forms of the second person plural, but occasionally also singular verb forms. Such variations show that vy was not yet fully conventionalized. (17) Napomínání toto, které´ mi ráˇcí• cˇiniti, není Admonishment that, which me thou pleasest to make, not-is toliko pˇrátelské, ... je sobˇe od Vás pˇrijímám ... only friendly, ... it  from you I accept ... ‘The admonishment, that Thou pleasest to make me, is not only friendly ...I accept it from you’ (Vilém z Pern•teina to Václav Ko´ateckß z Kolovrat, 18 March 1520, Václavek 1949: 121–2) There are numerous examples of the use of vy in letters during the sixteenth century. It was used in letters between nobles, e.g. Zdenˇek Lev z Ro´mitála used it in a letter to Petr z Ro´mberka: (18) By•te se That--you  toho bych that I- pˇrál. Raˇcte vˇedˇeti, wish. Please to know, pˇri•el, a come, and ji´ vˇcera také already yesterday also poslal, … sent. …

dobˇre well vám you ´e tento that this

mˇeli a zdrávi byli, have and well are, vˇernˇe truly vá• posel ... ke mnˇe jest your messenger ... to me is

sem k vám posla I have to you messenger

svého -



 Michael Betsch

‘I would like to wish you faithfully that you should be well and healthy. Please know that this messenger of yours came to me, and that I already yesterday sent out my messenger to you, …’ (Zdenˇek Lev z Ro´mitála to Petr z Ro´mberka, 28 Sept. 1521, Václavek 1949: 111–2) Nobles of high status were also often treated with VMt. At the end of the century, Václav Budovec z Budova (Glücklich 1908) used VMt in his letters to other nobles (letters to addressees with high status, as Petr Vok z Ro´mberka or Jiˇrí ze §vamberka, between 1585 and 1611) or vy (e.g. to Jiˇrí Homut z Harasova, 1610–1612, Glücklich 1908: 102). Institutions, such as important cities, might also be addressed with VMt. The rector of Prague University and the city (the city council) of Kutná Hora addressed each other with VMt or (less often) with vy in their mutual correspondence during the sixteenth century (see Nováˇcek 1894). In the second half of the sixteenth century, the noun pán ‘lord’ began to be used as a bound address form (indirect address). This new usage is first attested in the manuscript grammar of Jan Blahoslav from 1571 (¨ejka et al. 1991). Blahoslav viewed this as a mode of address that had been recently introduced into Czech following German usage; according to his remarks, address with pán seems to have been used by the lesser nobility to their equals (he ascribes this address usage to the rytíˇri ‘knights’, as opposed to the higher nobility, the páni ‘lords’: ¨ejka et al. 1991: 256). (19) ... jsa za nˇetco ´ádán, dobrß cˇlovˇek rytíˇrskß dí sobˇe rovnému (on mní ´e uctivˇe, ale bude pochlebenství nového formou): Já to po•li pánu ... Proˇc by neˇrekl ji´ aspoˇn podlé zvyklého vobizovaní: Já vám to po•li? (¨ejka et al. 1991: 256) ‘If asked for something, a good man of knightly status will say to his equal (he thinks it is respectful, but it is a form of new flattery): I will send this to the lord. ... Why shouldn’t he say at least after the current vy-address: I will send this to you?’ Blahoslav thus criticized this mode of address and contrasted it with the vyaddress, which he saw as an older and current form (although he also expressed a mild criticism of vy-address in another place in his grammar: ¨ejka et al. 1991: 243). However, according to his remarks, pán address must already have been fairly current at least in some circles, and these speakers would have perceived vy as less polite than pán. Although it thus seems to have been quite current in speech as early as 1571, in written communication, pán is first attested in business letters from the seventeenth century.

The system of Czech bound address forms until 1700

This form of distant address is very similar to the distant address of contemporary Polish (cf. Stone 1981); here, indirect address with the nouns pan/pani (‘lord’, ‘lady’) is the current type of distant address, and these nouns can be regarded as having been pronominalized to some extent (cf. the discussion in Kie£kiewicz-Janowiak 1992: 14–23). However, we should regard these two instances of pán/pan-address as phenomena that arose independently. In Czech, pán was used as a bound address form from the late sixteenth century; it originated shortly after the introduction of a similar type of bound address in German, and in an environment (the nobility) where an intense language contact with German can be supposed; we may see it as a phenomenon borrowed from German. During the eighteenth century, pán-address was gradually replaced by the use of the pronoun of the third person singular on/ona ‘he/she’ (Betsch 2000: 168–9); a similar change had taken place earlier in German. In Polish, by contrast, the use of pan as a bound address form began in the late eighteenth century, as shown by the data on late eighteenth century plays in Kie£kiewicz-Janowiak (1992: 62–72); it developed from older forms of indirect address which involved titles (wasza mi£osc´, waszmosc´), combined with the noun pan (Kie£kiewicz-Janowiak 1992: 60–1). Polish pan-address can thus hardly have been borrowed from Czech (or German), because it emerged in Polish only at a time when pán (Czech) or der Herr (German) had almost disappeared from usage.

. Seventeenth century 5.1

Official or business correspondence

An overview of address usage in official correspondence in the first half of the seventeenth century can be drawn from the copy-book of the Jesuit college of St. Clement in the Old Town (Staré Mˇesto) of Prague (Schulz 1899). It contains 247 drafts of letters written by the rectors and procurators of the college between 1628 and 1632. The letters deal with diverse matters of the college, such as debts owed to the college or administration of possessions of the college (e.g. villages), problems regarding serfs (marriage and transfer of serfs), etc. The senders of the letters are always high representatives of the Jesuit college, but the addressees are socially very diverse, ranging from the highest aristocracy to village elders or craftsmen. Thus, this copy-book represents a wide range of patterns of address usage. The letters use the following forms of bound address: ty, vy, pán, Va•e Milost (VMt). If a letter is addressed to more than one addressee or an institution, the address forms used are vy, páni, and Va•e Milost. Vy as an address to several addressees corresponds to singular address with ty or vy; páni, the plural of pán,



 Michael Betsch

was used primarily in letters addressed to town or city councils. For some addressees of the higher nobility, VMt was combined with the title of prince (Kní´e) or count (Hrabˇe), yielding VHMt or VKnMt. Va•e Milost (abbreviated to VMt) was used with singular or plural inflections. (Syntactically, it was always combined with verbal forms of the second person plural). The grammatical number corresponds to the number of addressees (single or several) in most cases; however, in some letters a single addressee received VMt with plural inflections, or several addressees received VMt with singular inflection. Table 1. Address forms in letters of the Jesuit college 1628–1632. ty vy pán páni Va•e Milost

village judges, a shipwright minor officials, estate administrators, scribes (several addressees) village inhabitants, citizens, horse traders higher officials, some (probably minor) nobles (several addressees) cities, towns many noble addressees, high officials (several addressees) cities of Prague-New Town, Plzeˇn, Litomˇerˇice and Kutná Hora, governors of the Bohemian kingdom

Other sources of the seventeenth century demonstrate similar usage of address pronouns. Kateˇrina z ™erotína addressed her servants or subordinates partly with ty, as housekeepers (•afáˇrka, 1 Aug. 1631, Dvorskß 1894: 94), scribes (d˚uchodní písaˇr, 29 April 1633, Dvorskß 1894: 201), administrators (a purkrabí, 7 Dec. 1631, Dvorskß 1894: 152–3) and partly with vy, e.g. administrators (hejtman, 1 Dec. 1631, Dvorskß 1894: 145–6).4 Address with pán was used in several contexts. The abbot of Zbraslav addressed an administrator of another monastery with pán: (20) Netajím toho pánu, kterák ... jistou zprávu danou I don’t conceal that to the lord, how ... certain information received mám, ´e z jisté v˚ule a poruˇcení, ano i pˇri pˇrítomnosti I have, that of firm will and order, even and in presence pánˇe ... of the lord ... ‘I do not conceal to the lord, how ... I have certain information, that with the firm will and order, even in presence of the lord’ (Abbot of Zbraslav monastery to an administrator of the Order of the Knights of the Cross, 18 Jan. 1648, Tadra 1904: 367–8)

The system of Czech bound address forms until 1700 

At the end of the century, the president of the Court of the Royal Chamber used pán in a letter to members of the court admonishing them to participate regularly in the court’s sessions. This letter contains not only indirect address with the noun pán, but also a third person possessive pronoun (here jeho ‘his’), which is even used without an antecedent pán. (21) ... v pˇríˇcinˇe nepilnosti jeho v frequentirování královského soudu ... concerning negligence his in frequenting royal court komorního chamber ... Proˇce´ já ... pánu to v známost uvozuji ... For which reason I ... the lord that into knowledge bring a jeho, ... and him, ... horlivˇe a dostateˇcnˇe napomínám. eagerly and sufficiently admonish ‘... concerning his negligence in attending the court of the Royal Chamber ... For this reason I communicate that to the lord and admonish him eagerly and sufficiently’ (President of the Court of the Royal Chamber to two of its noble members, 22 Oct. 1695, Schulz 1908: 89)

5.2 Family letters There are several edited collections of private letters of Bohemian nobles from the seventeenth century. These private letters show an address usage that is mainly dependent upon the status of the addressee; they demonstrate a colloquial form of Va•e Milost, and possible modes of expressing confidential relationships by means of address. Numerous letters of nobles from the seventeenth century use a contracted form of Va•e Milost, namely Va•nost. This must be seen as a new pronoun, as it could not be segmented into an abstract noun Milost etc. and a possessive pronoun; in this respect it is similar to such new address pronouns as Spanish usted < vuestra merced. There was a corresponding possessive pronoun va•nostin. Address with Va•nost is regularly attested in the letters of Sylvie ¨ernínová to her husband Heˇrman ¨ernín (Tischner 1909) from the years 1635–1651. In the family letters between Zuzana ¨ernínová and her son Humprecht Jan ¨ernín (Kalista 1941), the mother Zuzana ¨ernínová always addressed her son with ty; the son used Va•nost in his early letters (22), in later letters he generally wrote V. M., but sometimes also used Va•nost, and often the possessive pronoun Va•nostin (23).

 Michael Betsch

(22) Psaní va•nostiné jsem pˇrijal ... Z odeslanßch koláˇcu˚ a taky Letter of Va•nost I have received ... For sent cakes and also suchßho ovoce Va•nosti hrubˇe velice dˇekuji. dried fruit Va•nost very much I thank. ‘I received your (Va•nost) letter ...for the cakes and also the dried fruits I thank you (Va•nost) very much.’ (H. J. ¨ernín to his mother, 19 March 1638, Kalista 1941: 39) (23) V.M. milostivé psaní jak mnˇe hrubˇe vzáctnß jest, jsouce Your Grace’s graceful letter how me very rare is, being znamení milosti a zdraví va•nostiného ... sign grace- and well-being- of Va•nost ‘How very precious Your Grace’s gracious letter is for me, as it is a sign of your (Va•nost) grace and well-being ...’ (H. J. ¨ernín to his mother, 23 July 1647, Kalista 1941: 180) Even in letters where VMt or similar abbreviations, instead of Va•e Milost, are used as address forms, often the possessive pronoun va•nostin is used. This can be seen in (23), or in numerous letters from Kateˇrina z ™erotína (Dvorskß 1894, 1895), like the following letter to her brother Adam z Vald•teina: (24) ... ´e aspoˇn skrze psaní o VMti vím, jak ... that at least through letter about Your Grace I know, how se s  with VMtí dˇeje. ... o mnohejch tˇe´kostech a Your Grace it happens. ... about many hardnesses and nepˇríle´itostech va•nostinejch ... troubles of Va•nost ... ‘...that I know at least through a letter how Your Grace are ... about your (Va•nost) many hardnesses and troubles’ (K. z ™erotína to A. z Vald•teina, 10 Dec. 1633, Dvorskß 1895: 302–4) From the numerous letters that contain the abbreviation VMt (or similar abbreviations) and the possessive pronoun va•nostin we may suppose that often the abbreviation VMt corresponds to spoken Va•nost. In one case there is even an abbreviation VMtina (letter to E. z Kounic, 5 Dec. 1631, Dvorskß 1894: 149–51), which must be read as a form of va•nostin, since it cannot be derived from Va•e Milost. We may view Va•nost as a colloquial form corresponding to more formal Va•e Milost; the abbreviations VMt, V. M. or similar cannot be unambiguously related to one of these forms.

The system of Czech bound address forms until 1700 

Generally, in the correspondence of Bohemian nobles from the seventeenth century, address pronouns were used according to the social status of the addressee. Children received ty from their parents (like H. J. ¨ernín); similarly, Kateˇrina z ™erotína addressed the grandson of her husband, Karel Bruntálskß z Vrbna, with ty (e.g. Dvorskß 1894: 81–2). Adult nobles, even very close relatives such as parents or husbands, received a pronominal address corresponding to the social standing: VMt or Va•nost in the case of Humprecht ¨ernín’s mother and Sylvie ¨ernínová’s husband; Kateˇrina z ™erotína addressed some of her relatives with VMt, some with vy, probably according to the addressee’s rank. For example, she addressed her half-brother Pertold Bohubud z Lipého with vy (e.g. in a letter of 30 June 1631, Dvorskß 1894: 78–9), and her brother Adam z Vald•teina (who held the office of Supreme Burgrave (nejvy••í purkrabí) with VMt (e.g. in a letter from 10. Dec. 1633, Dvorskß 1894: 302–4). Beside the address forms already mentioned, there were some more peripheral variants of address. Some letters between nobles used Tvá Milost/TMt, see examples (25) and (26): (25) ... z tˇech pˇríˇcin od Tvé Milosti dolo´enejch ... because of these reasons by Thy Grace explained ‘because of the reasons Thy Grace explained’ (Vilém Slavata to Jaroslav Boˇrita z Martinic, 21 Jan. 1634, Václavek 1949: 174) na stokráte dˇekuji (26) a TMti and Thy Grace a hundred times I thank ‘I thank Thy Grace a hundred times’ (Count Ale• Vratislav z Mitrovic to Count Václav Holickß ze §ternberka, 18 Feb. 1663, Tobolka 1898: 54) This address form is documented in some cases where we might assume a close relationship between sender and addressee: Vilém Slavata (25) was a close political ally to Jaroslav Boˇrita z Martinic (they had both been victims of the defenestration of 1618), and Ale• Vratislav z Mitrovic (26) acted as an intermediary for Václav Holickß ze §ternberka in negotiations with the court. Address with Tvá Milost/TMt was also used by Eli•ka ™erotínská to her older cousin Kateˇrina z ™erotína (Václavek 1949: 142–4, 15 Nov. 1620). Tvá Milost/TMt was not necessarily used symmetrically (Kateˇrina z ™erotína addressed her younger cousin with ty in her letters, e.g. Dvorskß 1894: 63, 24 May 1631), and a writer might use other forms than Tvá Milost towards the same addressee: Vilém Slavata used Va•e Milost (V. Mt.) in another letter to J. Boˇrita z Martinic from the same year (Václavek 1949: 175–6); here, the letter with Tvá Milost is less formal (the writer avoided

 Michael Betsch

elaborate syntactic means such as participles), and it treated a more sensitive theme, namely Slavata’s criticism of the taxation policy. Probably Tvá Milost/TMt is best interpreted as some kind of a compromise form which allowed some closeness to be conveyed by avoiding the most status-emphasizing form Va•e Milost, while at the same time still showing due respect for the addressee’s status. Overall, it is quite rare in our sources from the seventeenth century. The letters from the archbishop of Prague, M.F. Sobek z Bílenberka, to Count Václav Holickß ze §ternberka, dating from 1668–1674 (Tobolka 1898: 79–129), present another type of address. While the first letters (e.g. 6 Aug 1668, Tobolka 1898: 79–80) conformed to the usual etiquette and used V.M. as the address form, the following letters very soon became quite confidential both in form and content. The writer asked about the well-being of Count §ternberk’s family, complained about his illnesses, and communicated different news. In these letters the writer most often chose to avoid bound address forms altogether, or used highly individualized forms of indirect address. An example is provided in (27); the avoidance of address forms is evident by the thanks for the congratulations, where other letters would almost obligatorily have some reference to the addressee (e.g. VMti ‘of Your Grace’, see (22) or (23)). Apparently, the writer intended to avoid the statusmarked V. M., which would have been too formal; but the high status of the addressee would have made the use of other conventionalized address forms problematic (although Sobek z Bílenberka held a very high office and had been ennobled, he did not himself come from the high nobility). (27) Vysoce urozenß hrabˇe. M˚uj nejlaskavˇej•í pane syne. High born count. My most beloved lord son. Dˇekuji pˇeknˇe I thank well za ten milej vin•. for that nice congratulation. ‘Highborn Count, my most beloved Lord son. I thank you very much for that nice congratulation.’ (M.F. Sobek z Bílenberka to Count Václav Holickß ze §ternberka, 24 March 1670, Tobolka 1898: 92)

. Conclusion We may summarize the development of the system of bound address forms in Czech between 1300 and 1700 as follows (cf. figure 1):

The system of Czech bound address forms until 1700

✜ ✜

✜ ✜

✏✏ ✏✏ TMt PP PP

VMt

❅ ❅

VMt ˇ Vasnost

TMt

´ pan

ty  

  ty

1300

Figure 1.

✦ vy ✦✦ ✦✦

1400

1500

1600

1700

Address forms in Czech 1300–1700.

(TMt = Tvá Milost, VMt = Va•e Milost) Until the fourteenth century, there was only one bound address form, the pronoun of the second person singular ty. During the fourteenth and fifteenth century, two modes of expressing respect by bound address were introduced: first the use of abstract nouns in combination with possessive pronouns (mostly milost ‘Grace’), later the use of plural forms (pronominal and verbal) of the second person. This pluralization was also extended to the combination of abstract nouns and possessive pronouns (Tvá Milost ‘Thy Grace’ → Va•e Milost ‘Your Grace’). In the sixteenth century, the noun pán ‘lord’ began to be used as a bound address form. Through the contraction of Va•e Milost ‘Your Grace’, a new pronoun Va•nost was created. Several modes of expression of respect in address have close parallels in German and were most probably borrowed in contact with German: abstract nouns were in use in German from the fourteenth century (coming from the usage of Latin chancelleries) (Metcalf 1938: 45); the second person plural was in use from the middle ages. The noun Herr ‘lord’ (corresponding to pán) was used as a bound address form since the sixteenth century, and it became quite important towards the end of the sixteenth century (Metcalf 1938: 59). Unlike the situation in German, where indirect address was introduced after a long period with second person plural address, indirect address in Czech appeared almost simultaneously with second person plural address (actually even earlier); this may be ascribed to the fact that these address modes were borrowed from a system which already possessed several levels of address for addressees with different social status (Berger 1998: 315).



 Michael Betsch

However, the importance of the factor of borrowing is limited insofar as the methods of expressing respect by bound address that were borrowed are typologically common and thus the borrowing of these methods may have been favored. The use of plural forms is cross-linguistically the most widely used linguistic means for expressing respect by pronouns (Head 1978: 190), and the use of nouns (which tend to become pronominalized or to acquire pronominal features) as well as their combination with possessives is attested in numerous languages (Head 1978: 184–7). The example of Czech medieval literature shows an address system markedly different from the contemporary German system, even if the method of using abstract forms with possessives like Tvá Milost itself was due to German influence; those texts that are adaptations of German texts demonstrate that their authors were aware of the different address systems. The same observation can be made about the letters of Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka (fifteenth century), where address usage in Czech and German letters is markedly different (see fn. 3). After the introduction of new address forms in the fourteenth and fifteenth century, there were long periods with considerable variation between different address forms (see e.g. (12), (13), (17)), before the norms became conventionalized. At the end of the seventeenth century, the Czech address system had developed into a system with a considerable number of bound address forms; these formed a rich hierarchy and their use was primarily dependent upon the status of the addressee or the status relation between speaker/writer and addressee. The relative status of the address forms was similar to that in other languages where forms of the second person plural and address nouns are used simultaneously: indirect (nominal) address normally stands higher in the hierarchy than second person plural (see Head 1978: 190); this was also true for German (see Listen 1999 and Simon, this volume). The following century was marked first by a continuation of German influence: Address with the noun pán was gradually replaced by the anaphoric pronoun (on ‘he’ etc.). The beginnings of this process can be seen in example (21), and in the same way the analogous pronoun had earlier replaced the noun Herr in German address (Metcalf 1938: 64, 82f.). The use of Va•e Milost / Va•nost declined, and the anaphoric pronoun of the third person plural oni was introduced as a new address pronoun with the highest status around the middle of the eighteenth century (in German, the pronoun of the third person plural had become conventionalized as an address pronoun around the beginning of the eighteenth century, see Simon, this volume). During the eighteenth century, the Czech pronominal address system was thus coming very close to the German system. During the National Revival, beginning at the end of the eighteenth century, a new norm of modern literary Czech language was created; this norm had only vy as the allegedly traditional national polite pronoun of address, and as this new norm became widely accepted, the old address system was confined to the substandard (Betsch

The system of Czech bound address forms until 1700 

2000). Today, Czech pronominal address uses only the pronouns of the second person singular and plural (like French, and most other Slavonic languages except Polish); some traces of the older address system subsist in the substandard, or are used in literary works as stylistic devices.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments on a first version of the manuscript, and Sam Featherston for his help with correcting my English. All remaining errors or inconsistencies are, of course, my own.

Notes . All emphasis in examples has been added. . Later letters of Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka to other kings were not written in Czech. . By way of contrast, the German correspondence of Oldˇrich z Ro´mberka shows some instances of symmetric pronominal distant address (ir), e.g. a letter from Oldˇrich to count Johannes von Schaumburg (Dec. 1445, Ryne•ová 1937: 62) and a letter from count Johannes von Schaumburg to Oldˇrich (23.7.1446, Ryne•ová 1937: 125–6). . The titles of hejtman ‘captain’ or purkrabí ‘burgrave’ could designate offices of different status. They were part of the titles of high officials (the Nejvy••í purkrabí ‘Supreme Burgrave’, or the Krajskß hejtman ‘District Captain’); but they were also used for members of the administration of private feudal possessions, as in this case.

References Bamborschke, Ulrich (ed.) 1968 Das altˇcechische Tristan-Epos unter Beifügung der mhd. Paralleltexte herausgegeben und übersetzt mit Einleitung und Wortregister. Teil II. Texte. Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz. –––––– 1969 Das altˇcechische Tristan-Epos unter Beifügung der mhd. Paralleltexte herausgegeben und übersetzt mit Einleitung und Wortregister. Teil I. Einleitung. Wiesbaden: Otto Harassowitz. –––––– 1982 Der altˇcechische Tandariu• nach den 3 überlieferten Handschriften mit Einleitung und Wortregister. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Berger, Tilman 1998 Äußere Einflüsse und interne Faktoren bei der Herausbildung der slavischen Anredesysteme. Die Welt der Slaven 43, 307–22.

 Michael Betsch

Betsch, Michael 2000 Diskontinuität und Tradition im System der tschechischen Anredepronomina (1700 –1850) (Slavistische Beiträge 389). München: Otto Sagner Verlag. Braun, Friederike 1988 Terms of Address. Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 50). Berlin, New York, and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. ¨áda, Franti•ek (ed.) 1930 Nejvy••ího sudího Království ˇceského Ondˇreje z Dubé Práva zemská ˇceská (Historickß archiv 48). Praha: ¨eská akademie vˇed a umˇení. ¨ejka, Mirek, Du•an §losar, and Jana Nechutová (eds) 1991 Gramatika ˇceská Jana Blahoslava. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita. Dvorskß, Franti•ek (ed.) 1894 Listy Kateˇriny z ˇ™erotína rozené z Vald•tejna. I. Dopisy z roku 1631 a 1633 (Historickß archiv 3). Praha: ¨eská akademie Císaˇre Franti•ka Josefa pro vˇedy, slovesnost a umˇení. –––––– 1895 Listy Kateˇriny z ˇ™erotína rozené z Vald•tejna. II. Dopisy z roku 1634 a 1635 (Historickß archiv 7). Praha: ¨eská akademie Císaˇre Franti•ka Josefa pro vˇedy, slovesnost a umˇení. Fiedlerová, Alena, et al. 1977 Ze staroˇceské terminologie sociálních vztah˚u (pán). Slovo a slovesnost 38, 53– 64. Glücklich, Julius (ed.) 1908 Václava Budovce z Budova korrespondence z let 1579 –1619 (Historickß archiv 30). Praha: ¨eská akademie Císaˇre Franti•ka Josefa pro vˇedy, slovesnost a umˇení. Havránek, Bohuslav, and Jiˇrí Daˇnhelka (eds) 1957 Nejstar•í ˇceská rßmovaná kronika tak ˇreˇceného Dalimila. Praha: Nakladatelství ¨eskoslovenské Akademie vˇed. Head, Brian F. 1978 Respect degrees in pronominal reference. In: Joseph Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith Moravcsik (eds). Universals of Human Language. Volume 3: Word Structures. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 151–211. Hrabák, Josef, and Václav Vá´nß (eds) 1959 Dvˇe legendy z doby Karlovy. Legenda o svatém Prokopu. ™ivot svaté Kateˇriny. Praha: Nakladatelství ¨eskoslovenské akademie vˇed. Kalista, Zdenˇek (ed.) 1941 Korespondence Zuzany ¨ernínové z Harasova z jejím synem Humprechtem Janem ¨ernínem z Chudenic. Praha: Melantrich. Kie£kiewicz-Janowiak, Agnieszka 1992 A Socio-Historical Study in Address: Polish and English (Bamberger Beiträge zur Englischen Sprachwissenschaft 30). Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, New York, and Paris: Peter Lang.

The system of Czech bound address forms until 1700 

Listen, Paul 1999

The Emergence of German Polite Sie. Cognitive and Sociolinguistic Parameters (Berkeley Insights in Linguistics and Semiotics 32). New York: Peter Lang. Lori•, Jan (ed.) 1903 Sborník hrabˇete Baworowského. Pˇrepsal a k tisku upravil Jan Lori• (Sbírka pramen˚uv ku poznání literárního ´ivota v ¨echách, na Moravˇe a v Slezsku. Skupina I. Rada I., 6). Praha: ¨eská akademie Císaˇre Franti•ka Josefa pro vˇedy, slovesnost a umˇení. Metcalf, George 1938 Forms of Address in German (1500–1800) (Washington University Studies. New Series, Language and Literature 7). St. Louis, Missouri. Nováˇcek , Vojtˇech J. (ed.) 1894 Listáˇr k dˇejinám •kolství kutnohorského (1520 –1623) (Historickß archiv 5). Praha: ¨eská akademie Císaˇre Franti•ka Josefa pro vˇedy, slovesnost a umˇení. Ryne•ová , Bla´ena (ed.) 1929 Listáˇr a listináˇr Oldˇricha z Ro´mberka. Vol. 1. Praha. –––––– 1932 Listáˇr a listináˇr Oldˇricha z Ro´mberka. Vol. 2. Praha. –––––– 1937 Listáˇr a listináˇr Oldˇricha z Ro´mberka. Vol. 3. Praha. Ryne•ová, Bla´ena and Josef Pelikán (eds.) –––––– 1954 Listáˇr a listináˇr Oldˇricha z Ro´mberka. Vol. 4. Praha. Schulz, Václav (ed.) 1899 Listáˇr kolleje Jesuitské u sv. Klimenta na Starém Mˇestˇe pra´ském z let 1628 –1632 (Historickß archiv 16). Praha: ¨eská akademie Císaˇre Franti•ka Josefa pro vˇedy, slovesnost a umˇení. –––––– 1908 Pˇríspˇevky k dˇejinám soudu komorního království ¨eského z let 1627–1783 (Historickß archiv 34). Praha: ¨eská akademie Císaˇre Franti•ka Josefa pro vˇedy, slovesnost a umˇení. Stone, Gerald 1981 Pronominal Address in Polish. International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 23, 55 –76. –––––– 1989 Formy adresatywne j˛ezyka polskiego w osiemnastym wieku. Je˛zyk Polski 69, 135–42. Tadra, Ferdinand (ed.) 1904 Listy klá•tera Zbraslavského (Historickß archiv 23). Praha: ¨eská akademie Císaˇre Franti•ka Josefa pro vˇedy, slovesnost a umˇení. Tischner, Franti•ek (ed.) 1909 Dopisy Sylvie hrab. ¨ernínové, rozené Caretto–Millesimové, s chotˇem jejím Heˇrmanem ¨ernínem z Chudenic z let 1635 –1651. Vestník Královské cˇeské spoleˇcnosti nauk. Tˇrída filosoficko–jazykozpytná. Roˇcník 1908, Praha.

 Michael Betsch

Tobolka, Zdenˇek V. (ed.) 1898 Korrespondence hrabˇete Václava Jiˇrího Holického ze §ternberka (Historickß archiv 14). Praha: ¨eská akademie Císaˇre Franti•ka Josefa pro vˇedy, slovesnost a umˇení. –––––– 1908 M. Pavla ™idka Spravovna (Historickß archiv 33). Praha: ¨eská akademie Císaˇre Franti•ka Josefa pro vˇedy, slovesnost a umˇení. Trautmann, Reinhold (ed.) 1916 Die alttschechische Alexandreis mit Einleitung und Glossar. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung. Václavek, Bedˇrich (ed.) 1949 ¨eskß listáˇr. 296 cˇeskßch list˚u z •estí století. Praha: Melantrich. Vá´nß , Václav (ed.) 1963 Alexandreida. K vydání pˇripravil Václav Vá´nß. Úvodní studii napsal Franti•ek §vejkovskß. Praha: Nakladatelství ¨eskoslovenské akademie vˇed.

Family first Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century Minna Nevala University of Helsinki

.

Introduction

In this article I will study address and subscription formulae1 in nuclear family letters, i.e. in letters written by either spouses to each other, parents to their children and vice versa, or siblings to each other. By address formulae I mean the salutational forms used at the beginning of a letter, and they are oriented towards the recipient. Subscription formulae, on the other hand, are used to close a letter, and they reflect more the image the writer has of him/herself in the relationship with the recipient. Examples (1a) and (1b) present various types of address formulae, whereas (2a) and (2b) show examples of subscription formulae.2 (1a) Myn owne dere souereyn lady, I recomaund me to yow and thank yow of the gret chere ©at ye mad me here [...] (PASTON: 1465, John Paston 1, 140) (1b) Mine own sweet Thomken, I have no longer ago than the last night written such a large volume in praise of thy kindness to me [...] (THYNNE: 1604, Maria Thynne, 32) (2a) [...] as the Lord knowith, who send you hellth, in hast. By your lovyng wife, that was naver thus werye with wrytyng, Sabyne Johnson (JOHNSON: 1545, Sabine Johnson, 468) (2b) [...] and so farewell: agayne and agayn: Friday: 25 of Iune 1624/

 Minna Nevala

thy most louinge Mother euer Katherine Paston (PASTONK: 1624, Katherine Paston, 72) My theoretical basis is Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory, more closely the concepts of positive politeness and negative politeness. One of my main purposes is to study the diachronic dimension: how the increase in positive politeness (often referred to in the literature; see e.g. Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 1995) is shown in familiar address and subscription formulae in the course of time. Within this development, I will concentrate more closely on the role which each member has in the family. For example, who are more likely to start using more positive terms first: spouses to each other or parents to their children? This introduces another point: what influence do the power relations within the family have on the use of formulae? Do those members of the family who have more relative power use more positive politeness forms? My other interests lie in the social dimension. Since my material for the present study primarily comes from informants belonging to the gentry and merchants,3 I will also study family letters from royalty in order to see if there are any differences in address between the higher and lower social ranks. In this article, I will first briefly discuss how the family was perceived in Late Middle and Early Modern England from a social perspective. I will continue by presenting my theoretical basis and the material of both address and subscription formulae, from both the gentry (including merchants) and royalty. I will then conclude by discussing the possible changes in the degree of positive politeness compared to negative politeness by answering the questions raised in this introduction.

. Early families The term “nuclear family” used in this study has the same meaning today as it had centuries earlier. Although other kin relations could be very important, people were obligated, morally and otherwise, to the small group which consisted of members of the immediate family: parents, spouses, children and siblings.4 Family life was influenced by “religion, literature, law, custom and a variety of exterior social pressures” (Houlbrooke 1984: 18). What these pressures meant is that the basic functions of the family were primarily governed by social status, which then had consequences for one’s material wealth and livelihood in general. The closeness and intimacy between the family members varied according to what could be called the internal power structure within the family. Even though spouses had a much closer relationship than parents and children, hus-

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence 

bands usually had the final say in all matters concerning family morals, finance or social relations. As Stone (1979: 73) notes, the level of patriarchy was so high that the other members of the family were constantly struggling to gain approval from the head of the family, who exercised total control. Men were primarily obligated to their families, and their authority as rulers over their wives and children originated from the Bible. This was further reinforced by the common law of England which emphasised the husband’s power and authority. The growth of patriarchy was also later encouraged by royal intervention: e.g. in 1609 James I informed his subjects that “Kings are compared to fathers in families” (Stone 1979: 110). This naturally led to women being defined only by their relationship to a man, either a father or a husband. As wives, they were expected to honour and obey their husbands, and to produce and raise children. As Hufton (1993: 29) notes, the role of the wife was to be a helpmate and a mother. In addition to being subordinate, an ideal woman was considered to be pious, and silent. However, this was only the case in public. In private, most women had a dual role in marriage, so that they worked as partners with their husbands. As O’Day (1994: 141) writes, well-born women were entrusted with household and financial management, whereas wives from the lower ranks did everything from tending livestock to growing vegetables. In the end though, it was up to each married couple to decide what kind of relationship they wanted to have (Wrightson 1982: 92). Obedience was also expected of servants – and children. Financially, the daughters and younger sons of gentlefolk were in an unequal position compared to the eldest son in the family. This could also lead to a remote relationship between two siblings. Stone (1979: 71) notes further that the younger children were also “inevitably downwardly mobile” in that unless they either inherited their mother’s property, married someone of equal or higher rank, or made their own fortunes in some occupation, they did not have much chance of maintaining the social level they were born into. In addition to children’s duty to obey their parents, mothers and fathers also had obligations to their offspring. All parental affection, as well as obligation, was held to be “natural, strong and deeply implanted” (Houlbrooke 1984: 21). Since procreation was the first purpose of marriage, parents were expected to raise and take care of their children, providing them with resources to help with such things as their education and marriage. Among the higher ranks, parents had a much greater influence on their children’s choice of a marriage partner. Since property and power were predominant, the arranging of children’s marriages continued until the late seventeenth century. Houlbrooke (1984: 32–4) has noted that the later social “relaxation” brought on by humanists also affected family life. The new ideology celebrated familial love, as well as general optimism about human character and human

 Minna Nevala

potential. Furthermore, women’s natural inferiority was challenged, and female, as well as male, learning was strongly encouraged. Expressions of individual feelings of affection were also thought of as something that could strengthen the marital bond between a husband and a wife. Children were thought of as “morally neutral and apt to learn” (Houlbrooke 1984: 32), and so one of the primary tasks of parents was to protect their offspring from bad influences, their duties ranging from maternal breastfeeding to close involvement in the child’s education. This also showed in letters and forms of address. Medieval letters had emphasised the distance and power differences between superior and inferior within the family. The reformationist ideology, on the other hand, particularly encouraged spouses to use more intimate and affectionate style in their private correspondence, as well as in speech. Although some Puritan moralists, such as William Gouge in his manual Of Domesticall Duties (1622), heavily insisted that such “demeaning endearments” (Stone 1979: 139) as sweetheart, love or joy should be avoided, primarily by women, it could clearly be seen that such terms of address were a spreading trend. In the next sections, I will analyse on the basis of my material what form these trends took.

. Theory, method and material

. On previous studies of address formulae Politeness theory has been widely used for studies of address in the literature. Brown and Gilman (1989), for example, have applied it to Shakespeare’s four major tragedies.5 Plays were chosen because they provide good information on colloquial speech of the Shakespeare era. The basis for the study is the notions of power, distance and ranking of a face-threatening act (FTA), which are the dimensions of contrast in the minimally contrasted dyads Brown and Gilman set out to search for in the plays. When such a pair is found, the two speeches are scored for politeness. Brown and Gilman discuss deference in the tragedies by dividing e.g. names and titles into separate categories and scoring them on a scale from −1 to +2. The categories include names with honorific adjectives (e.g. valiant Othello), unadorned titles (e.g. sir, madam) and adorned titles (e.g. gentle lady). The first and the second are scored with one point, and the third with two points. Christian names alone form a neutral category, and therefore score no points for deference (except for royalty). Points are then added up, which means that positively polite and negatively polite terms are combined to make up a total score. In addition to Brown and Gilman, Kopytko (1993) has studied Shakespeare’s plays following the politeness theory. One of his aims for the study is to

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence

show that Brown and Levinson’s social variables are inadequate. He proposes that some other variables should be added (e.g. cunning, importance, intimacy). Expanding the scope to the realisation of all the politeness strategies in general, Kopytko leaves forms of address almost completely aside in his study. He only mentions them when discussing strategies 1 and 4 (“notice, attend to H[earer]” and “use in-group identity markers”). Acts of deference are realised, however, by address forms which are in many instances also in Shakespeare’s texts, and so ignoring them leaves examples of strategy 5 (“seek agreement”) somewhat obscure and unexplained. Brown and Levinson’s concepts of positive politeness and negative politeness have been the basis for analyses of address formulae in literary as well as in non-literary texts. In addition to studies of address used in trials (see e.g. Hope 1993; Nevalainen 1994; Walker 2000 and this volume), private letters have proved fruitful material for this purpose. In their article on salutational forms of address in personal correspondence, Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1995)6 make a thorough pragmatic survey of both diachronic trends and social differences, studying the increase in positive politeness strategies. They acknowledge the method introduced by Brown and Gilman, but conclude, however, that because of the structure of the address formulae in letters, using quantitative methods like scoring causes problems in the analysis. In their opinion, the additive models introduced by previous scholars could only show “shifts in the structural complexity of address form noun phrases (1995: 590). Therefore, they suggest that a qualitative approach should be used instead.

. Politeness in the family In Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, positive politeness mainly means emphasising what people have in common by minimising the distance between them, whereas negative politeness means the avoidance of invading one’s privacy by increasing the distance between the speaker and the hearer. Both positive and negative politeness include different strategies, which are governed by social variables. The most prominent ones for my purposes are distance and relative power. Within the data of letter writers, distance correlates with a scale from a close nuclear family relationship to a possibly very distant relationship outside kin relations. Brown and Levinson’s definition of relative power in a relationship is based on the degree to which “one person can impose their plans and evaluations at the expense of other people’s” (Holmes 1995: 17). Power in my data correlates with the power situation between the members of a family. For example, a parent is usually considered superior to a child, or, a husband to his wife.



 Minna Nevala

It is not surprising that relative power is a more dominant factor than social distance in the choice of address forms from one family member to another. Although the distance between family members may be close, it does not mean that every member is equal in power to others. Those who have more power, i.e. husbands and parents, are more likely to use more positive politeness in their address forms than those who have less power within the family, i.e. wives and children. Inferiority in power, by contrast, naturally increases the use of negative politeness towards a superior recipient. Holmes (1995: 15) has also noticed how speakers are usually positively polite to family members with whom they get on well. She notes, however, that the superiority in power that for example an older child has over a younger child (or a male over a female) is culturally constructed (1995: 17). In general, high power tends to attract deferential behaviour, mainly because the need to avoid offending people with more power is so great that we strive to express it even in the way we speak to (or address) them. Watts (1991: 58) also points out that traditionally power can be seen as being tied to collective interests, in a way that it regulates people’s behaviour for the purpose of serving the group’s, in this case, the family’s, interests. Power is then based on the assumption that, for example, social groups, social classes and social roles in general are identified as regulating how a person fits into society as a member and as a functional human being.

. Correspondence and scales My data comes from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC).7 It includes many collections of family letters from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century, and so provides a large amount of authentic material to study how family members expressed their views on their mutual relationship through the use of address.8 Concerning the gentry, I have not included every possible family letter in the CEEC, since my purpose has been to take approximately the same number of letters from each century. Every family letter from royalty in the CEEC, however, has been included, mostly because there are so few examples. The exact figures of the letters and writers used are presented below in Table 1 according to the time span. For the purposes of a closer and clearer analysis of the address formulae, I have created a scale of politeness, based on the idea of the politeness continuum in Raumolin-Brunberg (1996; based on Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 1995), presented in Figure 1. A similar continuum from positive to negative politeness can be constructed for family correspondence. As in Figure 1, the scales in the present study are organised between the positive and negative politeness poles, and the address and subscription formulae of

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence

Table 1. The material: The letters by the gentry (G) and royalty (R) 15th century G R number of writers number of letters: total WH HW FS SF MS SM FD DF MD DM BB BSi SiB SiSi

16th century G R

17th century G R

Total G

R

26

3

37

6

55

4

118

13

332

2

321

12

392

78

1,045

92

71 10 37 34

1

1

184 117 79 98 93 80 13 11 4 9 309 24 21 3

1

5 8 7

44 94 10 41 60 38 5 4 4 5 58 20 7 2

69 13 32 23 33 37

1 1

1 124

3 127 4 14 1

1

9

5 24 1 2

4 30 2

6 25 2 3

4 30 11

the letters are placed in the following classes (see Table 1): wife to husband, husband to wife, father to son, son to father, mother to son, son to mother, father to daughter, daughter to father, mother to daughter, daughter to mother, brother to brother, brother to sister, sister to brother and sister to sister (abbreviated as WH, HW, FS, SF, MS, SM, FD, DF, MD, DM, BB, BSi, SiB, SiSi, respectively). I have selected only some of the most typical constructions of the forms of address used at the beginning and the end of the letters in Figures 3 to 8, since it would be Negative |

¬

Honorific titles (lord) Adjectives worshipful honoured

Figure 1.

¬ Other titles (captain)

Family (brother)

Positive | Terms of endearment (sweetheart) Nicknames (Will) kind loving

The politeness continuum (after Raumolin-Brunberg 1996: 171)



 Minna Nevala

impossible to include the entire variety in the scales for presentational reasons. I will, however, list more examples in the following section. The terms in the positive side of the scale include nicknames, first names and kinship terms with positive politeness modifiers (adjectives denoting positive qualities), whereas the forms in the negative side include status term and kinship term combinations, kinship term with negative politeness modifiers (adjectives), titles and honorifics. An address formula may also be placed on the negative side although its modifier expresses positive qualities, but is used with a status term or a title. The placing of the forms on the scale, following the criteria presented in Figure 2, has not been made by calculating any particular values to the different

Positive end →

“Neutral” →

term of endearment, nickname my own, sweetheart, Thomken

(intensifier +) modifier (expr. positive qualities) + FN my dear John

(intensifier (right)) + modifier (expr. positive qualities (good)/love) + kinship term right welbeloved son my very good father

FN

(intensifier +) modifier (expr. positive qualities) + kinship term my dearest father

kinship term (+ FN/LN)

John

(my) father, mother

brother Edmond, father Stonor Negative end ←

← (poss. pr./intensifier right +) modifier (expr. neg. pol.) + modifier (expr. pos. qual.) + kinship term right reverend and my most tender and kind mother

Figure 2.

(possessive pronoun +) kinship term

intensifier right + modifier (expr. negative politeness) + kinship term

status term (+ last name)

right worshipful husband, right reverend and worshipful father

good Madam, Mr Thynne

(modifier expressing positive qualities +) status term + kinship term mine own good lady and sister

(intensifier/modifier +) honorific term

The placing of the address formulae on the scale

right worshipful sir, your lordship

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence

parts of the form, but by analysing the approximate weight of the address form on the whole.9 The quantification system used by Brown and Gilman cannot be applied here, mainly because of the multitude of the so-called mixed forms in the data (i.e. forms that include parts denoting both positive and negative politeness). One of the main reasons for avoiding strict quantification of the politeness values is also the varying amount of existing material from the different familial relationships: some classes may be clearly less well represented (if represented at all) compared to others in one century, and analysing them other than qualitatively would most probably lead to skewed results in the analysis.

. Address and subscription formulae: The gentry

. The fifteenth century Typical examples from the fifteenth century are placed in the politeness scale shown in Figure 3.10 Starting with data from spouses, we can note that there is already a rich variety of different address forms used when writing to one’s wife or husband in the Late Middle English period. Women often start their letters with forms either denoting negative politeness like right worshipful husband, right reverend and worshipful sir or positive politeness like right entirely and best beloved husband. They also use positive politeness – and more intimate terms – as in formulae like dear husband and my own sweetheart. The closing forms range from the simple your own and your servant to your faint housewife at this time and your groaning wife.11 Men, on the other hand, do not use a wide range of terms when addressing their wives. They may open their letters with my own dear sovereign lady or with an even longer form my own lady and mistress and before God my true wife. At the end, they rely on simplicity, e.g. forms like your true and trusty husband, your own or even simply the writer’s signature.12 In parent – child correspondence, fathers use only the son’s first name at the beginning of the letter, and end with the form your father or their signature. Mothers, on the other hand, address their sons by using forms like my beloved son or right welbeloved son. They also often open their letters by simply writing son or the son’s name, especially when the recipient is one of the younger sons. Their closing formulae are as short: only the term your mother or the writer’s signature is used. Children, on the other hand, use more diverse forms. Sons address their fathers with negative politeness as in my right reverend and worshipful father or right worshipful sir, whereas their mothers are addressed with mixed forms from right reverend and my most tender and kind mother to most worshipful and my right special good mother. Both sons and daughters end their letters with terms denoting



 Minna Nevala

inferiority: your son and lowly servant, your humblest servant and your humble daughter are commonly used. The fact that the children of the family are not in an equal position is clearly shown in the use of address forms. Elder brothers are addressed as right worshipful brother, my most reverend and worshipful brother or even right worshipful sir, whereas younger brothers receive only forms like brother or right welbeloved brother. The closing formulae are not that indicative of the internal power structure, since simple terms like your (poor) brother and your, or only the writer’s signature are mostly used.

. The sixteenth century The politeness scale showing forms of address from this century is presented in Figure 4. The examples from this century indicate how spouses’ mutual relationship can affect the use of address forms. Some women begin their letters with rather neutral terms like my lord or Mr + last name (henceforth LN). They end, however, by using more positively polite forms like your (assured) loving wife and your humble true and loving wife during life. Wives in a closer (and perhaps more loving) marriage use opening forms like mine own sweetheart or good mine own, and closing terms such as your loving and true wife and long formulae like by her that is more yours than her own, which had much rather die with you there than live here. The address forms in men’s letters do not differ much from those of women’s: madam or good madam is used at the beginning of the letter, whereas the closing formula is most often straightforward like your assured loving husband. There are always exceptions, as in Edward Alleyn’s letters to his wife, where he begins by addressing her as my good sweetheart and loving mouse and my good sweet mouse. There seems to be some evidence of a difference between the address forms used by the first wife and those used by the second one, when writing to the husband. For example, in the Plumpton family correspondence Sir Robert’s first wife Agnes uses the term right worshipful sir in the opening of her letters and ends with your wife. Sir Robert’s second wife, Isabel, however, addresses her husband with plain sir, and then ends with the form your bedfellow. This is most probably a result of an age difference, but shows, nevertheless, a change in politeness strategies towards increased positive politeness. Moving on to parents, the address forms in fathers’ letters to their sons are often very simple and short. They begin neutrally with terms like son, son + first name (henceforth FN), or FN only. Daughters are addressed with formulae like my dearly beloved daughter and mine own good daughter (or even with forms like those which Thomas More uses in the body of the letter to his daughter Margaret, my dear child and her nickname Megge). The same level of positive politeness can be

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence

seen at the end of the letter: your (loving) father is the most commonly used subscription form there. Although there are also some examples from the positive end of the scale, sons are usually more formal when addressing their fathers. The terms Sir and your Lordship are used as opening formulae, and letters usually end with your obedient son. Daughters, on the other hand, may use more intimate terms to their fathers, such as my very good father or most dear father. Obedience is also mentioned here: forms like your loving and obedient daughter during life are common. Children’s way of addressing their mothers does not differ greatly from that of addressing their fathers. Both sons and daughters use forms like mother and my very good mother as an opening formula and end by writing your obedient daughter and yours obeying you and ever obedient son. In letters between siblings, the eldest son of the family is not necessarily distinguished from the other brothers and sisters by the use of address forms. The most usual terms for all brothers include brother and my very good brother, whereas sisters are addressed as sister + FN and good sister. Formulae expressing closeness are also common at the end of the letter: your loving brother/sister, your most loving brother to command, or even your very loving brother affectionate to do you service are used. There seems to be some difference, however, when writing to a half-brother. For example, in letters from an illegitimate son to an elder legitimate “brother”, the younger son uses forms like sir and your good mastership and good brotherhood as an opening formula and your servant as a closing one. In this case, the address forms convey the same amount of negative politeness as those used to an elder brother in the fifteenth century.

4.3 The seventeenth century From the examples in Figure 5 we can see that this century presents us with the closest and most affectionate address forms between spouses so far. Wives begin their letters with forms like dear heart, most dear sweetheart, my most dear husband, or, as Maria Thynne addresses her husband, Thomas, using a term of endearment, mine own sweet Thomken. They end the letters by using formulae such as thine and only thine,13 your everloving wife (till death), your loving though not deserving wife and your ever faithful and loving wife. Husbands use even more endearing terms: they open their letters with endeared, dearest and my dear beyond all expression. When closing the letter, men tend to express their emotions even further. Closing forms range from thy affectionate and faithful husband/servant, thine assuredly/eternally/sincerely/truly/inalterably and yours and none but yours to as much as possibly thine and thine ever more in the highest degree of affection.



 Minna Nevala

Fathers in the seventeenth century do not, however, differ much from those in the previous periods, since they also address their children as son and daughter and end your loving father or your everloving father. Mothers seem to follow this closely: they mostly use terms (good) son and (dear) daughter, often with FN, or simply FN at the beginning of their letters. Also the address forms at the end of their letters present us with no new forms: your (truly) loving mother and your assured loving mother prevail. This “intimacy” does not, however, necessarily appear in letters written from children to their parents. Although mothers receive forms like loving and kind mother and dear mother from their sons, fathers are more commonly addressed with honoured father or honoured Sir. Daughters begin their letters to fathers by using dear father or good father, but even though the formula dear mother exists, they may address their mothers also with the more negative form madam (especially used in letters to stepmothers). The closing formulae do not differ markedly from each other, and so terms like your obedient and most truly affectionate daughter, your dutyful daughter to command, your ever dutyful son till death and your most obedient son appear in the letters. Brothers and sisters continue using forms such as loving brother, dearest brother, dear sister and brother/sister + FN at the beginning of the letter. Also the formulae at the end of the letter express closeness, and include your (truly/very/assured) loving brother/sister, your everloving brother to serve you/to command, your truly loving and truly affectionate brother, your affectionate sister, your loving brother and willing to please you in all things, as well as phrases like yours if his own and in all service to be commanded.

. Comparing social differences: The royalty In order to examine whether the increase in positive politeness also occurs in family letters from representatives of other social ranks, I have looked at how the royalty’s use of address differs from that of the gentry. The politeness scale from the fifteenth century is shown in Figure 6, the scale from the sixteenth century in Figure 7, and the scale from the seventeenth century in Figure 8. I will present a brief account of their contents in the following sections, comparing them with the formulae found in the family letters of the gentry.

5.1 The fifteenth century Unfortunately, the material from the fifteenth century is extremely scarce: the data on royal family correspondence include only two relationships. It is possible, however, to

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence 

see some indication of the influence of internal power relations, both from inferior to superior and superior to inferior. The recipients’ royal status is well recognised in address, which can be seen particularly in formulae used from parent to child. In the first of the two cases found in the material, sons, Edward IV (still Earl of Marche) and Earl of Rutland, address their father Richard Duke of York by using the highly negative formula right high and right mighty prince, our full redouted and right noble lord and father. Their closing formula corresponds to that of the gentry: your humble sons is used. In the parent – child relationship, however, the mother, Margaret Beaufort, begins her letter to her son Henry VIII by recognising his royal status, but also by expressing her affection, and she uses the mixed form my own sweet and most dear king and all my worldly joy. The form is more negative than that of the gentry, which can also be seen at the end of the letter: your faithful true beadwoman and humble mother.

. The sixteenth century In this century, Catherine Parr addresses her husband with a similar degree of negative politeness as her gentry counterparts, using the form my lord. Letters to her spouse end with the more positive formula your humble true and loving wife. Margaret Queen of Scotland’s letters to her father Henry VII also correspond to those of the gentry: the opening formula my most dear lord and father is used together with the closing your humble daughter. Differences, however, appear in letters written from son to mother and sister to brother. When writing to his mother, Edward VI uses the more negative opening formula most honourable and entirely beloved mother, and the more positive closing formula your loving son. Sisters (Margaret of Scotland and Mary of France) writing to their brother Henry VIII open with forms on the same level of negative politeness as the gentry, but also address him with positive forms like dearest brother and my most kind and loving brother. Positive closing formulae include your loving sister, but negative politeness appears in letters from both Princess Elizabeth and Princess Mary to their brother Edward VI in formulae such as Your Majesty’s most humble sister to command.

. The seventeenth century In royal family correspondence a father – son relationship matches that of the gentry, but here daughters like Elizabeth of Bohemia open their letters to their fathers (in this case James I) by using negative politeness, as in most gracious and sovereign and dear father and in plain sir. A mother – son relationship corresponds to that of the gentry on the mother’s part, but the son (e.g. Charles II) seems to use only the negative politeness formulae, such as the opening madam and the closing Your

 Minna Nevala

Majesty’s most humble and most obedient son and servant. In letters between siblings, superiority in power is usually recognised, as in younger brothers’ letters to elder brothers (the form sir) or sisters’ letters to brothers (the mixed form worthy Prince and my dearest brother), although positive politeness formulae may also appear. Accordingly, brothers address their sisters with positive opening forms like my only dear sister and my dearest + nickname (NN) and with closing formulae such as your loving brother to serve you and entirely yours.

. Discussion . General trends One of my purposes when studying address forms in family correspondence has been to see how positive and negative politeness change in the course of time. What seems to be clear is that positive politeness increases especially in letters between spouses. Furthermore, husbands and wives begin to use more positive forms sooner than others. This can also be seen in the scales: the positive end is better represented than the negative end, and there is a general movement towards the positive end over the centuries covered. When writing to their children, fathers and mothers use relatively similar address formulae from one century to the next. The forms become simpler, but the degree of positive politeness does not noticeably change. Children writing to their parents also tend to simplify their address forms in the course of time, as well as increase the amount of positive politeness. The forms which daughters write to their fathers and sons to their mothers are, however, more positive than the other way around: a father – son relationship seems to be more formal than that between a mother and a son. The address forms used between brothers and sisters do not change that much either, especially from the sixteenth century onwards. Perhaps one of the major changes is again the simplification of the forms and so the indication of relative equality in power. In the seventeenth century elder brothers are not necessarily addressed with terms denoting as much negative politeness as two centuries earlier. Comparing the results of the royalty and the gentry, we can clearly see that the gradual increase in positive politeness has not originated from royal letter writers. When it comes to the spread of positive politeness in both address and subscription formulae, the representatives of the highest level in the social hierarchy tend to drag a century or two behind the gentry. Whereas the gentry seem to have moved towards using more positive politeness as early as in the sixteenth century, royalty seem to be still in transition between the negative and positive politeness usage in the seventeenth century.

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence

. Power status as an influential factor If we return to the other purposes of this study, it indeed seems that the spread of positive politeness is somewhat slower in letters written from a family member of less relative power to a member of more power, at least from a child to a parent. Similarly, the use of positive politeness does not necessarily extend as far in their letters as it does in those written by family members of more power. Children, for example, may use more positive forms at the beginning of their letters, but end with terms of negative politeness that express their true position in the relationship: obedience and duty. Superiority in power is still very much recognised in royal family correspondence in the seventeenth century, even in letters between siblings, and so the same kind of closeness from royal daughter to father or son to mother as in the gentry does not occur. The results also show that in royal families social power may override relative power: a mother to a king may have to use more deferential address formulae when writing to her son than a gentry mother would when writing to her offspring. There is also evidence of differences in the use of address of what could be called “genetic” and “adopted” family members. By “genetic” I mean biological children, siblings or parents, whereas by “adopted” I mean step-children, stepparents or half-siblings. If the writer is a family inferior writing to a family superior, the formulae used tend to be more negative, for example in letters from step-children to their step-parents, than in letters from biological children to their parents. The same can be seen in letters between family equals: whereas a brother may usually address his (elder) brother with more positive terms, a step- or halfbrother may have to use negative politeness in his letters. This may naturally depend on how long the writer has been a member of the family, or whether a child shares one parent with the rest of the children or not, etc.

. Opening vs. closing formulae In addition to looking at the increase in positive politeness in general, I have also followed the change from negative to positive politeness comparing the address and subscription formulae with each other. The results indicate that the use of formulae denoting positive politeness usually starts from subscription: when it comes to closing a letter, a writer tends to use terms expressing the true family relationship between the recipient and him/herself. This can already be seen in family letters as early as the fifteenth century, which may naturally cause contradictions between the opening and the closing formulae, especially in letters to family equals: beginning with right worshipful brother and ending with your loving sister is rather common. There is, however, proof of quite the opposite in letters to family superiors: the positive formula dear father may be used at the beginning, but the negative your dutyful daughter to command at the end.14



 Minna Nevala

It seems that social differences concerning power status can also be detected when looking at differences between the use of opening and closing formulae. In gentry letters, variants of positive address formulae (i.e. variants on the positive side of the politeness scale) increase from the sixteenth century onwards, whereas different negative formulae (i.e. variants on the negative side of the scale) somewhat decrease. In royal correspondence the number of both positive variants and negative variants increases to some extent. It can also be noted that looking at both subscription formulae of positive politeness and those of negative politeness alone, the number of different variants of positive forms in the gentry correspondence increases from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century, whereas the number of negative variants stays approximately the same during this period. In royal family letters, however, the same phenomenon happens with closing as with opening formulae: the number of both positive and negative variants increases from the earliest to the latest letters. The use of the address pronoun thou is naturally restricted to the body and the closing of the letter. It is mostly used in letters between spouses, or from a superior in power to an inferior. It is also relatively rare and used only by a few particular writers in each century. It seems that in subscriptions thou works on the same level of positive politeness as you: writers tend to sign their full names (i.e. FN + LN) after a closing formula including thou, exactly as they do after a formula including you. It would seem that if thou in subscriptions was to be considered more positively polite than you, it would most probably be shown by the use of, for example, only FN (or even NN) in letter signatures. This introduces a further point: did the use of address and subscription formulae change from a fixed model into a matter of personal choice in the course of time? Judging from the material, it seems that at least in later nuclear family letters the manner in which the sender addresses the recipient was negotiable, something that might be agreed upon. After all, the controversy between the social conventions and one’s own private customs was a topic of discussion as early as the sixteenth century, as can be seen in the following two excerpts from the Johnson letters (a merchant couple with aspirations to gentility, and hence to the terms “master” and “mistress”): (3) Farewell and goodnyght, wif. I had almoest sayd good wyf, but that it were synne to lye, as ye knowe; nevertheles my hope is that old fachons wil be lefte, and then if I wil not saie good wyf I shal be wourthie to be called lyar. (JOHNSON: 1545, John Johnson, 482) (4) In moest loving wise, welbeloved husbond (master I shold saye, because yet doyth becom me baetter to call you master than you to call me mystres), your letter of 15 of this present I have receyved this day, [...] (JOHNSON: 1545, Sabine Johnson, 515)

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence 

.

Conclusion

The study of address formulae and pronouns of address used in Late Middle and Early Modern English greatly benefits from access to material of authentic usage, such as private correspondence. The best informants are those who used those forms to actual addressees and thus gave us the chance to get an indication of how politeness functioned in everyday relations. Although letters are usually edited from the correspondence of the members of the upper ranks, mainly because of the small amount of surviving material from lower ranks or because of lack of interest in it, they clearly show the overall increase in positive politeness and closeness between nuclear family members in the course of time. In this article, my purpose has been to study how politeness can be shown in address and subscription formulae in nuclear family correspondence; how the scope of politeness changes from negative use towards more positive attitudes from one century to the next; what kind of differences there may be between families of different ranks, and how this is realised; and lastly, how the differences in internal power relations affect the choice of opening and closing formulae. The results from this study may be challenged by further material, either literary or authentic, but it is most likely that the general trends, including the development of more positive and intimate expressions of family relations, will prevail.

Notes . In this study I have taken into account only the forms used at the beginning and at the end of letters, not those used in the middle. The main reason for this is that the address forms in the body of the letter tend to follow closely the opening formulae. With my limited material, there would be no significant difference concerning what the analysis of opening address formulae has already shown in reference to the increase of positive politeness. . In the direct quotations of all the numbered examples, the language is original, unless they have been taken from a collection like THYNNE, in which the spelling has already been modernised by the editor. The reference to the collections in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC) below each example shows the name of the collection, the year in which the letter was written, the name of the writer and the page of the edition from which the letter was taken. To separate it from the rest of the quotation, the address or subscription formula itself is in italics. . Here the gentry means both the gentry proper and the nobility. Merchants have been included in this study in order to be able to cover the entire time span sufficiently: their family letters provide the material that is lacking from the gentry in the fifteenth century. Merchants’ letters could also be included because these particular writers belonged to the wealthiest merchant families, and so it could be argued that they were “socially close” to the representatives from the lower gentry.

 Minna Nevala . It must be noted that servants generally lived within the same household, as did other kinsfolk apart from nuclear family members. The employment of servants was closely associated with social status: the highest ranks were found in the biggest households, whereas the smallest households were more likely to represent the lowest ranks (see e.g. Houlbrooke 1984: 24). . Bentivoglio’s (this volume) study on pronouns of address in Spanish letters from the sixteenth century is based on Brown and Gilman’s concepts of power and solidarity (presented earlier in their joint article from 1960; for the exact reference, see Bentivoglio’s article). . This study of address formulae is based on an earlier and more limited version of the CEEC than the present one (see also Raumolin-Brunberg 1996). As the corpus has been expanded, the number of different variants of formulae has somewhat increased. . The CEEC has been compiled by the Sociolinguistics and Language History team at the Department of English, University of Helsinki (members are at present Professor Terttu Nevalainen, Dr Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Dr Arja Nurmi, Dr Minna Palander-Collin, myself, and two research assistants, Mikko Laitinen and Anni Vuorinen). In its present version (1998), the corpus consists of 2.7 million words in 96 letter collections from around 1410 to 1681. A supplement consisting of letter material reaching to the eighteenth century is currently under compilation. More information on the corpus can be found from the website http://www.eng.helsinki.fi/varieng/team2, or Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1996). A sampler corpus (CEECS) is available on the second ICAME CD-ROM. . The collections used in this study are as follows: BACON, BETTS, CELY, CLIFFORD, CORNWALLIS, FERRAR, FLEMING, GAWDYL, HARVEY, HATTON, HENSLOWE, HOSKYNS, JOHNSON, LISLEH, MARCHALL, MINETTE, MORE, ORIGINAL1, ORIGINAL2, ORIGINAL3, OXINDEN, PASTON, PASTONK, PLUMPTON, ROYAL2, STONOR, THYNNE, WILMOT, WYATT. The exact references to each collection in the corpus can be found in both Nurmi (1999) and Palander-Collin (1999). . The criteria are primarily viewed through address formulae alone; the placing of the subscription formulae follows them closely. The closing formulae with adjectives expressing e.g. humbleness or obedience (your humble daughter, your obedient wife) are considered as a negative politeness strategy, whereas those including adjectives expressing positive qualities (e.g. your tender loving father, your faithful brother) are placed at the positive end of the scale. The formula at the end of a letter to a family member almost always includes a kinship term, which means that the adjective used is more decisive of its politeness value on the whole. . In Figures 3 to 8 all subscription formulae are in italics in order to separate them from address formulae. It must also be noted that the subscription formulae used in the scales have not necessarily been taken from the same letters, or even from the same writers, as the address formulae, even though they may be placed at the same point of “politeness value”. . According to the OED, in the fifteenth century groaning also had the meaning “a lyingin”, which in turn means “being in childbed”. This must be the correct interpretation in this case as well, since the writer (Margaret Paston) has just been telling her husband that she has given birth to a son. For this reason, I have placed the form on the positive/neutral side of the scale rather than the negative one.

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence  . Throughout the period, FN + LN is used as a signature; plain initials or FN alone also appear in a few cases. . This is also one of the examples showing the use of the address pronoun thou. For the purposes of this study, I consider thou to be as positively polite as you (cf. Section 6.3).

SM

MS

SF

FN FS

HW

Figure 3. Address and subscription formulae in gentry correspondence in the fifteenth century (continued)

your father

your true and trusty husband your own

your own

my beloved son right welbeloved son son (+ FN) your mother

my own dear sovereign lady

right reverend and my most tender and kind mother

your humblest servant

most reverend and Right Worshipful worshipful father Sir your son and owly servant

right reverend & worshipful Sir your servant right entirely and best beloved husband your faint housewife your groaning wife my own sweetheart WH

Positive

Appendix

dear husband

Politeness scale |

right worshipful husband

Negative

. It would be interesting to look at how much further in time this kind of trend continues, since it would seem that in a case like this the use of more positively polite subscription formulae is still in process, so to speak. The further development of social differences might also be a phenomenon worth looking into.

Right Worshipful Sir

right worshipful and my most entirely beloved mother your humble daughter

Negative

right welbeloved right worshipful brother brother your poor brother your brother and servant your + FN&LN

Politeness scale |

FN

your loving father

Negative

son (+ FN) your father

your (assured) loving husband

(good) Madam

mine own sweet Right Worshipful good Lord my Lord Sir Mr (+ LN) your obedient wife your humble true and loving wife

Politeness scale |

Figure 4. Address and subscription formulae in gentry correspondence in the sixteenth century (continued)

FS

HW my good sweetheart and loving mouse

your loving wife your bedfellow

WH mine own welbeloved husband/ sweetheart bedfellow

Positive

Figure 3. Address and subscription formulae in gentry correspondence in the fifteenth century

BB

DM

Positive

 Minna Nevala

DM my very good mother

my very good mother

my very good father your loving and obedient daughter

most dear/beloved father

DF

SM

mine own good daughter

my dearly beloved daughter your tender loving father

your most loving son

most loving father

your daughter

mother

Politeness scale |

FD

SF

Positive

Madam my right honourable and singular good Lady your obedient daughter

yours obeying you and ever obedient son

your humblest daughter

Sir Your Lordship your obedient son

Negative

Your Lordship

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence 

Figure 4.

SiSi

SiB

BSi

BB

your most loving sister

your loving sister

your loving brother

your loving brother

my good sister and friend sister (+ LN)

sister (+ FN) good sister your faithful brother

my very good brother brother your most loving brother to command

Politeness scale |

your sister Dame

right worshipful brother

mine own good lady and sister

Sir

Negative

Address and subscription formulae in gentry correspondence in the sixteenth century

Positive

 Minna Nevala

FN

daughter + NN your everloving father

your loving father

thine truly/ sincerely/ assuredly

your truest servant

honoured father honoured Sir your ever dutiful son daughter (+ FN)

son (+ FN)

thy affectionate and faithful husband yours absolutely/entirely

sweet Madam

Negative

Figure 5. Address and subscription formulae in gentry correspondence in the seventeenth century (continued)

FD

SF

FS

endeared/dearest sweetheart (dear +) NN

Politeness scale |

your everloving your ever faithful and loving wife wife

HW

my most dear husband dear + FN

dear heart most dear sweetheart my best + NN

WH

Positive

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence 

dear mother

loving brother dearest brother your very loving brother

dear sister your true affectionate brother

BB

BSi

FN

DM

MD

good son

sister (+ FN) your faithful loving brother

brother (+ FN)

your obedient and most truly affectionate daughter

daughter (+ FN) your assured loving mother

son (+ FN)

Politeness scale |

loving and kind mother dear mother your most affectionate and obedient son

(dear +) FN your loving mother

MS

SM

dear father good father

DF

Positive

Madam your ladyship’s most affectionate daughter

your most obedient son/child

Madam

your dutiful daughter to command

Negative

 Minna Nevala

my dear sister thine ever

your affectionate sister

brother (+ FN)

Politeness scale | Negative

Address and subscription formulae in royal correspondence in the fifteenth century

my own sweet and most dear king and all my worldly joy your faithful true beadwoman and humble mother

MS

Figure 6.

right high and right mighty prince, our full redouted and right noble lord and father your humble sons

Negative

SF

Politeness scale |

Address and subscription formulae in gentry correspondence in the seventeenth century

Positive

Figure 5.

SiSi

SiB

Positive

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence 

Figure 7.

SiB

SM

DF

WH

your loving sister

dearest brother my most kind and loving brother

your loving son my good brother

your humble true and loving wife

Politeness scale |

right excellent, right high and mighty Prince, our dearest and best beloved brother Your Majesty’s most humble sister (to command)

most honourable and entirely beloved mother

my most dear lord and father your humble daughter

my Lord

Negative

Address and subscription formulae in royal correspondence in the sixteenth century

Positive

 Minna Nevala

your affectionate mother your loving mother

son

Figure 8. Address and subscription formulae in royal correspondence in the seventeenth century (continued)

MS

most humble and obedient daughter servant Your Majesty’s most obedient daughter

Sir

most gracious and sovereign and dear father

DF

your loving father

Negative

Sir Your Majesty Your Majesty’s most humble and obedient son and servant Your Majesty’s most dutiful and obedient son

FN

Politeness scale |

SF

FS

Positive

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence 

Figure 8.

SiB my most worthy and dearest brother

your loving brother to serve you

your loving and dutiful brother

good brother

Politeness scale |

worthy Prince and my dearest brother

Your Highness’ most loving brother and obedient servant

Sir Your Highness’ most dutiful

Madam Your Majesty’s most humble and most obedient son and servant

Negative

Address and subscription formulae in royal correspondence in the seventeenth century

your most loving sister

entirely yours

my only dear sister

BSi

my dearest + NN

most loving brother

BB

SM

Positive

 Minna Nevala

Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence

References Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman 1989 Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society 18, 159–212. Holmes, Janet 1995 Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman. Hope, Jonathan 1993 Second person singular pronouns in records of Early Modern ‘spoken’ English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 94/1, 83–100. Houlbrooke, Ralph A. 1984 The English Family 1450–1700. London: Longman. Hufton, Olwen 1993 Women, work, and family. In: Natalie Zemon Davis, and Arlette Farge (eds). A History of Women in the West. Vol. III Renaissance and Enlightenment Paradoxes. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 15–45. Kopytko, Roman 1993 Polite Discourse in Shakespeare’s English. Poznañ: Adam Mickiewicz University Press. Nevala, Minna 1998 By him that loves you: Address forms in letters written to 16th-century social aspirers. In: Antoinette Renouf (ed.). Explorations in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 147–58. –––––– 2001 With out any pregyduce or hindranc: Editing women’s letters from 17th-century Norfolk. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 102/2, 151–171. Nevalainen, Terttu 1994 Ladies and gentlemen: The generalization of titles in Early Modern English. In: Francisco Fernández et al. (eds). English Historical Linguistics 1992 (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 317–27. Nevalainen, Terttu, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 1995 Constraints on politeness: The pragmatics of address formulae in Early English correspondence. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.). Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 541–601. Nevalainen, Terttu, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds.) 1996 Sociolinguistics and Language History. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Nurmi, Arja 1999 A Social History of Periphrastic DO. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki LVI. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.



 Minna Nevala

O’Day, Rosemary 1994 The Family and Family Relationships, 1500 –1900: England, France and the United States of America. London: Macmillan Press. OED = Murray, James A.H. et al. (eds.) 1989 [1961] The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Palander-Collin, Minna 1999 Grammaticalization and Social Embedding: I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki LV. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 1996 Forms of address in early English correspondence. In: Terttu Nevalainen, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds). Sociolinguistics and Language History. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 167–81. Stone, Lawrence 1979 [1977] The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500 –1800. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Walker, Terry 2000 The choice of second person singular pronouns in authentic and constructed dialogue in late sixteenth century English. In: Christian Mair, and Marianne Hundt (eds). Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 33). Amsterdam: Rodopi, 375–84. Watts, Richard J. 1991 Power in Family Discourse (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 63). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Wrightson, Keith 1982 English Society 1580–1680. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Spanish forms of address in the sixteenth century Paola Bentivoglio Universidad Central de Venezuela

.

Introduction

A well-known fact emerges from the diachronic studies of Spanish from the fifteenth century onward: the second-person plural pronoun vos used for respectful address was substituted by a new form, vuestra merced, which finally became present-day usted.1 This linguistic change has been described and studied in different varieties of Peninsular and American Spanish by numerous linguists. Most of these studies, however, base their analysis on written sources such as important literary works or chronicles about the Spanish enterprise in America reporting on discoveries, travels, fighting episodes, etc., where the use of second-person addresses is normally low. This motivated me to look for a different linguistic corpus as a basis for my research. The findings of the German scholar Enrique Otte in the Archivo de Indias in Seville has provided researchers with a unique source of information: a corpus of about six hundred sixteenth-century private letters, written by Andalusian immigrants in the New World to their relatives in Spain, with the purpose of inviting, sometimes convincing them, to abandon their motherland and undertake the long journey to America. These letters constitute an exceptional corpus which allows the study of a vast repertoire of linguistic forms that may be considered representative of a semiformal variety of speech and, in spite of their written form, are the closest ever obtainable approximation to the variety of Spanish spoken by their authors (cf. García Mouton 1999 and Oesterreicher 1996), a perfect example of parlato scritto “spoken written” (De Mauro 1970). In the present article, I will analyze a set of private letters written by people already in the New World to their relatives in Andalusia in the second half of the sixteenth century, with a threefold purpose: i) to examine the use of different address forms according to the relationship between the sender and the recipient;

 Paola Bentivoglio

ii) to determine the pragmatic reasons that motivate the occurrence of only one of the possible forms in some texts or their alternation in others; iii) to establish whether or not the observed use complies with the traditional views expressed by grammarians and other authors who have dealt with the issue of the address forms used in the sixteenth century.

. Previous research In the sixteenth century Spanish people, specifically letter writers in this language, could use four different forms of address which varied from the more formal, vuestra merced, to the lesser one, tú, whereas él and vos occupied intermediate positions. These forms may be represented by the following scale: (1) /scale of formality/ vuestra merced > él/ella > vos > tú The evolution of Spanish address forms has been studied by many authors; among them the most important for the present research are Lapesa (2000),2 Fontanella de Weinberg (1992, 1999), Del Castillo Mathieu (1982), Frago Gracia (1999) and García Mouton (1999). According to Lapesa (2000: 316-8), the use of secondperson plural pronoun vos as a way of respectfully addressing one single person among noble people was widespread in Castilian Spanish from the tenth century on. In the anonymous Cantar de mio Cid (c. 1140), the hero adressses his wife Ximena with vos, and uses tú for young relatives and vassals. Penny (1991: 124), in his book A History of the Spanish Language, illustrates the forms of address found in Old Spanish as follows:

Table 1. Forms of address in Old Spanish

Singular Plural

Non-deferential

Deferential

tú vos

vos vos

Adapted from Penny (1991: 123)

Thus, the alternation between the two forms – vos and tú – existed for a long period of time, their use being determined in accordance with the status of the addressee, with exceptions due to the latinizing influence of the Humanistic literature, in which the use of tú among equals was quite frequent. In time vos became

Spanish forms of address in the sixteenth century 

more and more common, and lost its “original reverential value” (Lapesa 2000: 317) spreading from the upper level to all social levels. The weakening of vos as a respectful address form gave way to the appearance of many other forms (merced ‘grace’, excelencia ‘excellency’, alteza ‘highness’, majestad ‘majesty’, etc.), out of which merced preceded by the possessive vuestra ‘your’ became the more frequently used. The change from the previous system (tú/vos) to the new one (tú/vos/vuestra merced) was pragmatically motivated by the excessive use of vos form that did not reveal any more social and/or status differences. Penny describes the aforementioned change as follows: in later Old Spanish, it is evident that vos has widened its range of reference in such a way that it is used for many social relationships, and thus has lost much of its deferential value. By the fifteenth century, vos has become so close in value to informal tú that new deferential forms of address are experimented with, based on abstract nouns such as merced ‘grace’, señoría ‘lordship’, etc. Although occasional examples as su merced are found, it was vuestra merced that found favour, together with vuestras mercedes, representing an entire new plural deferential category (1991: 124).

The fact that from the end of the fifteenth century on, Spanish became the language of the Spanish Empire in the Old as well as in the New World caused another change, due to the different evolution of Spanish on each side of the Atlantic Ocean: i) in peninsular Spain vos gave way to tú for familiar address, and to vuestra merced (> usted) for respectful address; and ii) in parts of America far from the politically and economically important centers (mainly Mexico and Lima)3 vos was maintained and in the following centuries gave rise to the phenomenon known as voseo, which forms and combinations with the verb became quite different from one country to another.4

. Corpus and methodology I have analyzed a corpus consisting of fifty-two letters written in the second half of the sixteenth century (from 1556 to 1599), which may be considered private documents where intimacy and familiarity are by far more salient than the bureaucratic purposes which motivated them: getting permission from the Spanish Crown for family members still in Spain to reach their relatives in America. The original letters are kept in the Archivo General de Indias, in Seville: Otte 1993 has published them in a contemporary Spanish version intended to be used for historical and not for linguistic studies. However, Francisco Fernández Ruiz, a Spanish linguist who wrote his doctoral dissertation on Andalusian Spanish phonetic

 Paola Bentivoglio

features at the time of the Conquest (Fernández Ruiz 1992), transcribed one hundred of them in a very faithful paleographic version, to which I have had access thanks to his kind generosity. The advantages of the corpus are not limited to the linguistic viewpoint: the writers, who are not fictitious nor famous, become known to us through their letters, many of which – besides the central purpose, i.e. the invitation to go to the New World – provided us with interesting descriptions of the new ways of living, chores and business, dangers of the long trip, as well as moving feelings and concerns towards family members and friends left behind in the Old World. The letters here examined were sent from more than twenty different places in the New World, from Mexico in the North through Central and South America,5 to several destinations in Spain, all of them within Andalusia.6 It is this last characteristic that guarantees the dialectal consistency of the corpus. All the address forms – as well as the related lexical, pronominal and verbs forms – included in the fifty two letters were analyzed independently of their grammatical function. The various forms taken into account are presented in Table 2: Table 2. Spanish forms of address (and related forms) in the second half of the 16th century Forms

2nd person singular

2nd person plural

3rd person singular personal pronoun

3rd person singular nominal form

Address

tú

vos

él/ella

vuestra merced

Verb form

2nd sg.: cantas, comes, dices, etc.

2nd plural: cantáis, coméis, decís, etc.

3rd sg.: canta, come, dice, etc.

3rd sg.: canta, come, dice, etc.

Clitic pronouns

te, ti

os

le, la

le, la

Obliques

contigo ‘with you-sg.’

con/por etc. vos,

con/por, etc. él/ella;

con/por, etc. vuestra merced

Possessive

tu, tuyo/a

vuestro/a

su, suyo/a

su, suyo/a

The use of vos is exemplified in (2), and those of él/ella and of vuestra merced, in (3) and (4), respectively. All the examples are cited exactly according to Fernández Ruiz’s 1992 paleographic transcripts.7 (2) /vos and related forms/8 a.

/Ø/ y me dixieron que estáuades muy flaca y descontenta (letter 635, 1568) ‘and they told me that you were very thin and unhappy’

Spanish forms of address in the sixteenth century

b. /vos, subject/ porque donde bos estáis, yo no haré falta (letter 643, 1583) ‘ because where you are, I will not be missed’ c. /os, object/ así se lo escrive y encarga muncho os trayga (letter 157, 1571) ‘so he writes to him and orders that he brings you here’ d. /vos, oblique/ nj bibiera con tanto desgusto como bibo sin bos (letter 510, 1599) ‘and I wouldn’t live as unhappily as I do without you’ e.

/vuestro, possessive/ reçebí carta vuestra que me enbió Juan Felipe, vuestro vecino (letter 154, 1566) ‘I received your letter that Juan Felipe, your neighbor, sent to me’

(3) /él/ella, subject/9 a. para que lo gaste en lo que él qiziere (letter 426, 1559) ‘so that you spend it on whatever you would like to’ b. avnque toda la culpa dello no la tiene sino ella y su marido (letter 37, 1574) ‘even though only you and your husband have to be blamed for it’ (4) /vuestra merced and related forms/10 a. /Ø/ aquá, uenida que seya, descansará (letter 336, 1581) ‘here, once you have arrived, you will get some rest’ b. /vuestra merced, subject/ V. Merced vendrá a una tierra muy buena (letter 313, 1589) ‘You will come to a very good land’ c. /vuestra merced, le, la, object/ Nuestro [Señor] le trayga a V. Merced a mis ojos que la vean (letter 314, 1589) ‘that Our Lord may bring you before my eyes so that these can see you’ d. /consigo, oblique/ se venga con él y traiga consigo a su hermano (letter 388, 1560) ‘come with him and take your brother with you’ e. /su, possessive/ Dígolo por las quexas de sus cartas, y aún no bastavan sino las demás de sus vezinos … (letter 11, 1564) ‘I say this because of the complaints in your letters, and these were not enough but those of your neighbors’



 Paola Bentivoglio

All the letters were analyzed according to Brown and Gilman’s (1960) dimensions of power and solidarity. These authors state that solidarity “comes into the European pronouns as a means of differentiating address among power equals” (258). It is necessary to recall that in sixteenth-century Spain the upper social levels had already switched from the previously used vos, which had become too commonly widespread, to the more refined vuestra merced (and other even more respectful forms such as vuestra señoría, etc.). During that period, then, people who were equal in terms of power generally used vuestra merced to address each other and vos or tú to address inferiors. The present analysis will show that vos was still frequent among equals at the end of the sixteenth century, provided that the documents analyzed contain samples of less formal language and, moreover, segments high in emotivity. In this last case, the language used may reach such a high degree of spontaneity that we may be tempted to consider it casual speech (Labov 1972).

. Analysis and results The letters I have examined belong to two different groups based on the underlying relationship between senders and recipients: the first group contains thirty-one letters written by husbands to their wives, whereas the second contains twenty-one letters between siblings. I selected these two groups of letters with the purpose of analyzing them according to the dimensions of power and solidarity proposed by Brown and Gilman (1960), given the fact that all senders as well as recipients – husbands and wives, brothers and sisters – could be considered equal in terms of power; solidarity, however, could shift depending on a given situation or a sudden change of feelings. The letters were analyzed in terms of the form of address:11 Letters with consistent use of vos: a total of twenty-three (23); Letters with consistent use of vuestra merced: a total of thirteen (13); Letters with alternation of vos, tú, él/ella and vuestra merced: a total of sixteen (16). The analysis reveals that in a significant proportion of the corpus – twenty-three letters out of fifty-two – the preferred form of address is the more traditional vos, as shown in (2). The twenty-three letters cover the second half of the sixteenth century, from the oldest one written in 1565 to the more recent written in 1599. The thirteen letters where the form vuestra merced is used represent only 25% of the total, but it is worth noting that twelve of them belong to the last part of the century (from 1572 to 1591).

Spanish forms of address in the sixteenth century 

Most important are the letters where different forms of address alternate. This phenomenon, from the point of view of the history of language, shows that of the various forms still coexisting at the end of the sixteenth century vos was widely used among people for symmetrical relations. From a sociopragmatic point of view, the variation can be interpreted in the context of the relationship between senders and recipients. I will examine these letters in more detail dividing them into two groups according to the prevailing form of address: Vos > vuestra merced, él/ella: this group includes eleven letters, written between 1556 and 1594, with second-person forms reaching a total of 348 out of 432 (81%). Vuestra merced, él/ella > vos: this group only includes four letters, written between 1563 and 1591, with second-person forms being rare: only 11 out of 105 (11%).12 The variation between second- and third-person uses is shown in Table 3: Table 3. Distribution of alternating address forms in 16 letters Letter #

Sender

Recipient

Year

# 2nd person

%

# 3rd person

%

Total

212 426 388 8 621 9 17 42 233 37 280 220 483 497 113 127

H B H H H H H H B S B H H B B B

W B W W W W W W B S B W W S B S

1556 1559 1560 1563 1564 1564 1566 1573 1573 1574 1579 1584 1586 1590 1591 1594

44 25 42 4 3 18 58 1 13 21 34 26 40 27 3 5

98 69 88 14 8 95 87 3 93 81 81 81 77 79 19 50

1 11 6 25 35 1 9 32 1 5 8 6 12 34 13 5

2 31 12 86 92 5 13 97 7 19 19 19 23 21 81 50

45 36 48 29 38 19 67 33 14 26 42 32 52 61 16 10

364

64

204

36

568

Total

B = brother; H = husband; S = Sister; W = wife.

The alternation does not appear to be casual, but rather motivated by pragmatic factors, such as a shift on behalf of the writer from one style to another due to specific

 Paola Bentivoglio

situations evoked by the content of the letter: i) from formal to more intimate, i.e. [+ solidarity] as in (5);13 ii) from familiar to more distant, i.e. [– solidarity], as in (6); and iii) from moderate to angry or contemptuous, i.e. [– solidarity], as in (7): (5) /formal > intimate/ a. A mjs señores padres y hermanos y ermanas dará V. Merced mjs besamanos. Nuestro Señor me os dexe uer de mjs ojos antes que yo muera con salud (letter 621, 1564, husband to wife) ‘You will give my regards to my parents and brothers and sisters. That Our Lord allow me to see you with my eyes before I die with health’ b. Suplícole sea seruido de no dilatar el viaje, por amor de Dios, que cierto deseo verle acá y a su mujer y niños, pues avrá de aver flota para el mar[ç]o que uiene, y no se dilate más. A vuestra muger daréys mis vesamanos. Nuestro Señor os me deje uer como yo deseo (letter 113, 1591, brother to brother) ‘I beg you not to postpone the trip, for God’s sake, because I certainly wish to see you here and your wife and children, because there will have to be a fleet coming in the next month of March, and do not wait anymore. Kiss your wife’s hand on my behalf. May Our Lord allow me to see you as I wish’ c.

Dos [hijos] tengo, el vno se dize como yo y nuestro padre, Diego, y una hija que se dize como vos, Juana (letter 497, 1590, brother to sister) ‘I have two children, one named after me and our father, Diego, and a daughter named after you, Juana’

In (5a) the writer, Sebastián Carrera, always uses third-person forms (v. gr., dará V. Merced ‘you will give’) in the letter to his wife Mari, in Seville, and switches only once to the second person (os ‘you’) in the last lines, in the section of greetings. Similarly, in the letter written from Mexico to his brother still in Cádiz, Rodrigo de Vivas uses third-person forms (v. gr., sea servido, ‘be kind’ verle ‘see you’, su mujer ‘your wife’, no se dilate más ‘do not wait anymore’) throughout the letter, but the second person (A vuestra muger daréys ‘to your wife [you] will give’, os ‘you’) in the closing section, reproduced in (5b). Given the similarity between the two letters, we may suppose that these sections were formulae already lexicalized and difficult to be altered even though the writer could efficiently use the newer third-person forms.14 In (5c) Diego Hurtado, writing to his sister Juana, in Seville, starts with second person vos (os escreví ‘I wrote to you’), changes immediately to third-person forms (avrá rreçebido ‘you should have received’, no e tenido carta suya ‘I did not

Spanish forms of address in the sixteenth century 

get a letter from you’, le avizé ‘I warned you’, avía quedado V. merced ‘you had said’, etc.); already in the mid part of the letter, he uses again the second person and finally ends with third-person forms (su hermano, que su bien desea ‘your brother, who wishes you well’). The switch to the more intimate form of address takes place in a segment (see 5c) that fully reveals the tender feelings the brother had for his sister, whose name – Juana – he had given to his own daughter. Examples in (6) show the change from second- to third-person forms: (6) /closeness > distance/ a. os vean mis ojos uenir con la flota como os lo digo, y a mi sobrino Luis Guillén que no os dexe de acompañar, pues la persona que es el que la presente lleua sé que me hará mersed de traeros como yo se lo tengo ya pedido de mersed, e ansí me lo a prometío. Y uenda toda esa hazienda, pues ya tiene el poder mío para ello, y dispóngase que, con la ayuda de Dios, Él lo haga como yo deseo (letter 220, 1584, husband to wife) ‘may my eyes see you come with the fleet as I say to you, and that my nephew Luis Guillén does not keep from escorting you, because I know that the person who is taking this letter will do me the favor to bring you here as I have asked him, and he has promised me so. And sell all that property, as you already have my power to do so, and prepare yourself so that with God’s help, he may do it as I wish’ b. El gram plazer aréis a nuestro padre i a mí i a nuestros ermanos de, em viemdo la prezemte, poner por obra de venir vos a esta tiera adonde rresedimos, porque, venido acá, em compañía nuestra nos olgaremos, i vos [os] qitaréis de trabaxos, i al señor nuestro padre de gram quidado. Allá le embío vm poder para que el señor nuestro tío Diego Martínez dé ese poco que allá tiene mío para su nesesidá i para que lo gaste em lo que él qiziere (letter 426, 1559, brother to brother) ‘You will do a great favor to our father and to me and to our brothers if you, seeing the present letter, will prepare yourself to come to this land where we live, because, once you are here, in our company we will enjoy, and you will not have worries, and neither will our father. I am sending you an authorization so that our uncle Diego Martínez may give you that little money of mine that he has for your necessities and for you to spend on whatever you like’ In (6a and b), vos is the preferred form of address. In (6a) the presence of vuestra merced is sporadic and coincides with what seems to be a final recommendation: for the wife to leave her land it is necessary to sell the property and get ready to leave. From the previous words, loaded with affection and concern about the wife’s

 Paola Bentivoglio

readiness for undertaking the trip, to the following dispositions (venda ‘sell’, tiene ‘has’, dispóngase ‘prepare yourself ’), there is an evident change in the husband’s state of mind, which explains the switch from the second to the third person. The same reason seems to justify the sudden change from second- to third-person forms in (6b): the brother in the New World tries to entice his brother in Spain to join him and their father, appealing to the fact that both – brother and father – would be free of their worries. But the emotion gives way to the practical advice of getting the necessary means for the journey. In this part, the more intimate address form changes to the unusual third-person forms (le ‘to you’, su nesesidá ‘your necessity’, gaste ‘[you] spend’, él qiziere ‘you like’). In the following sections, however, the writer returns to the use of vos until the greeting sections, where the third-person forms appear once more. Examples (7a and b) illustrate the change from a moderate to an angry state of mind: (7) /normal > angry/ a.

Y ansí V. Merced se determine de benjr o dezirme la berdad de lo que piensa azer, porque yo no quería yr a Castilla pobre, porque yo no yré allá sin plata. Y al presente no tengo njnguna gana de yr allá, ansí que del todo se declare conmigo, avnque en partes estoy enojado, que bien sabéys que me dejistes delante de vna mujer que, avnque os biésedes dos leguas de mí, que no se os haría nada (letter 483, 1586, husband to wife) ‘And so you decide to come or else tell me the truth about what you plan to do, because I would not want to go back poor to Castille, because I will not go there without money. And at the moment I do not want to go there, so that you must be clear with me, even though I am angry, because you well know that you told me in front of a woman that, even though you would be two leagues away from me, you would not care’

b. ¿qué me hiziera si tuuiérades media dozena de hijos a quien sustentar, quando siendo vos y vuestro marido ni con eso ni con esotro os pudistes abiar? Yo creo que, avnque os enbíe munchos dineros, no os podréis abiar, porque me dicen que vuestro marido es amigo de traer galas y de trabajar poco […] A vuestro marido no escriuo, pues él no se acuerda descreuir (letter 37, 1574, sister to sister) ‘what would I do if you had half a dozen children to feed, when being only you and your husband you were not able to come neither with one or the other [one and the other refer to the money sent in two occa-

Spanish forms of address in the sixteenth century 

sions]. I believe that, even though I sent you a lot of money, you would not be able to come, because they tell me that your husband loves to be well dressed and to work little […] To your husband I do not write, because he does not remember to write’ Example (7a) is taken from a letter where the husband is expressing the despair caused him by his wife, who apparently does not want to leave Spain and join him in the New World. In this letter, the use of vos outnumbers that of vuestra merced, which is confined to the section cited in (7a), where the husband seems to have found the strength to request a final decision from his wife. It is evident that the man has run out of patience and wants his wife to be sincere: either she decides to leave Spain or she must tell him the reasons why she does not want to do so. It is a turning point in the life of this couple, which is reflected in the shift from the third to the second person, from a more distant but educated vuestra merced to a less distant but somehow threatening vos. This example illustrates quite well the fact that shifting from one address form to another does not have a constant meaning: switching from the third to the second person may well correlate with an increase in tenderness but it may also serve a totally opposite function.15 Example (7b) comes from a letter between two sisters, one in Mexico and the other in Spain: the first one expresses her disappointment about the vanity and laziness of her sister’s husband. In the first section of the letter, a distant but educated third person is used, but then the writer shifts to the second person when she becomes more involved – hence more aggressive without sparing acidic comments on her brother-in-law’s defects – in outlining the causes why her in-laws are not able to travel to the New World as she would like them to do. Thus, from the former use of third-person address, and the thirdperson possessive su, in ella y su marido ‘you and your husband’ in the beginning, the Mexican sister changes to the second person vos and possessive vuestro, in vos y vuestro marido, and keeps the second person use throughout the rest of the letter.16

. Conclusions The analysis shows that vos is highly preferred over the more recent and formal vuestra merced: out of fifty-two letters, twenty-three use only vos; nine use vuestra merced only. This finding, on the one hand, confirms that vos was still largely used, throughout the second half of the sixteenth century, by people who had left Spain only few years before writing the letters analyzed in this study. The corpus of letters I analyzed reveals a state of affairs different from the testimony of some sixteenthcentury authors, who apparently only took into account the address forms used by upper-class people and literary writers as, for example, Fray Antonio de Guevara, who in 1533 wrote:

 Paola Bentivoglio

Como un caballero valeroso y generoso, aunque mal criado, le oyese yo siempre decir a cada uno con quien hablaba, «vos», «vos», y «él», «él», y que nunca decía «merced», díxele yo: «Por mi vida, señor, que pienso muchas veces entre mí que por eso Dios ni el rey nunca os hacen merced; porque jamás llamáis a ninguno merced». Sintió tanto esta palabra que dende en adelante paró el decir «vos», y llamaba a todos «merced» (Guevara 1950: 194). ‘As I always used to hear that a valiant and generous knight, though not well educated, addressed everybody with whom he happened to talk, vos, vos, and he, he, and that he never used to say merced, I told him: “On my life, sir, I often think that for this reason neither God nor the king would do you any favor, because you never call anyone merced”. He resented these words so much that since then he stopped saying vos, and would call everybody merced.’

The present analysis confirms the observations made by Fontanella de Weinberg (1992, 1999), and by García Mouton (1999), both of whom have studied some of the same documents on which the present analysis is based,17 as well as that of Del Castillo Mathieu (1982) and Frago Gracia (1999). The sixteen letters where both forms coexist are particularly illuminating as the switch from the predominant vos to vuestra merced correlates with changes in the author’s attitude towards the recipient. The analysis of the corpus shows that vos is generally used for intimate and more familiar contexts, and vuestra merced for more formal requests, recommendations or even complaints. In some cases though, the shift from vuestra merced to vos may convey an opposite meaning, i.e., a change from a more detached to a less tolerant attitude on behalf of the writer. Examples of this last kind, however, are too few in the data and it is possible that additional analysis of a wider similar corpus could shed light on this problem.

Acknowledgement I thank Rebecca Beke for her friendly assistance in the preparation of this article. I also wish to express my gratitude to three anonymous readers, whose suggestions and remarks have contributed towards improving the text. Needless to say, all remaining errors are mine.

Notes . Vuestra merced underwent a series of phonetic reductions: vuessa merced, vuessarced, vuessansted, vuessasted, vuessasté, as well as the “totally vulgar” forms voarced, voacé, vucé,

Spanish forms of address in the sixteenth century  vuested, vosted, vusted, etc.; the first known example of usted is dated 1621 (Lapesa 2000: 319-20, Pla Cárceles 1923, Penny 1991: 125). . Lapesa’s article, “Personas gramaticales y tratamientos en español” was first published in 1970 by the Revista de Filología Española (71, 107-21). . See Penny (1991: 18-21) for the influence of the Toledo/Madrid linguistic norm, on the one hand, and the Seville norm, on the other, on different varieties of American Spanish. . Rona 1967 and Páez Urdaneta 1981 offer good accounts of the different kinds of voseo existing in contemporary American Spanish. It must be kept in mind that voseo totally disappeared from Peninsular Spanish. . In the New World: Puebla, Querétaro, Veracruz, Zacatecas, Panama, Guatemala, La Habana, Santo Domingo, Cartagena, Guamanga, Río Magdalena, Las Charcas, Quito, Lima, Llerena, Sombrero, Los Reyes, Nombre de Dios,Valle San Jerónimo, La Plata and Valdivia. . In the Old World: Constantina, Córdoba, Dos Hermanas, Jerez de la Frontera, Moguer, Osuna, Ronda, Sanlúcar, Seville and Triana. It is worth mentioning that out of fifty-two letters, thirty-six were sent to Seville. . I have maintained every single symbol used by Fernández Ruiz, except the line number of the original document. . Examples in (2) are taken from letters written by husbands to their wives. . The difference between the use of él/ella and that of vuestra merced can only be observed in the subject form, all others being the same for both address forms. Examples in (3) are taken from letters between siblings. . Examples in (4) are taken from letters written by siblings. . In these letters tú appears only once (letter 127, 1594). For this reason I have not included tú in the present analysis. . Only one letter (127) written in 1594 has exactly the same quantity (5) of both secondand third-person forms and consequently cannot be included in any of the two groups. . In examples (5) to (7), part (a) corresponds to a letter from a husband to his wife, whereas part (b) corresponds to a letter between siblings. . Further study should be carried out focusing mainly on closing sections with special attention to address forms used by writers, as Nevala (in this volume) does in her study on English address and subscription formulae. . These mechanisms are reminiscent of present Venezuelan contexts, where parents scolding their children or pretending to be angry with them address them with usted instead of the normally used tú. Note that in some Venezuelan dialects of the Andean regions, the opposite situation holds: the familiar address form is usted and tú is then used for scolding and keeping the distance. This last use and its diachronic development would be an interesting issue for future research. . Páez Urdaneta (1981: 52) also finds that “VOS aparecerá ocasionalmente en situaciones de enfado, entre hablantes de uno y otro nivel social” ‘vos will appear occasionally in situations of anger, among speakers of both [superior and inferior] social levels.’

 Paola Bentivoglio

Rosenblat (1971: 180) writes some interesting observations on the alternating use of vos and tú in Cervantes’ Don Quijote: he notes that the shift from tú to vos when Don Quijote is adddressing Sancho may be due to “enfado, o para establecer cierta lejanía” ‘anger or in order to establish some distance’, even though he finds that most of the times the shift takes place “sin motivo alguno ostensible” ‘without any obvious reason.’ . These authors have analyzed the letters published by Otte (1993) but not their transcriptions made by Fernández Ruiz (1992), except Frago Gracia (1999), who also utilizes the original documents.

References Brown, Robert, and Albert Gilman 1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass. and New York: MIT Press and J. Wiley & Sons, 253–76. De Mauro, Tullio 1970 Tra Thamus e Teuth. Note sulla norma parlata e scritta, formale e informale nella produzione e realizzazione dei segni linguistici. In: Lingua parlata e lingua scritta (Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani. Bollettino 11). Palermo: Centro di Studi Filologici e Linguistici Siciliani, 167–9. Del Castillo Mathieu, Nicolás 1982 Testimonios del uso de ‘vuestra merced’, ‘vos’ y ‘tú’ en América (1500–1650). Thesaurus XXXVII, 602–44. Fernández Ruiz, Francisco 1992 Fonética del español de América del siglo XVI en cartas de emigrados andaluces a Indias. Vol. II. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla. Fontanella de Weinberg, María Beatriz 1992 El español de América. Madrid: MAPFRE. –––––– 1999 Sistemas pronominales de tratamiento usados en el mundo hispánico. In: Violeta Demonte and Ignacio Bosque (eds). Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Vol. 1. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, 1401–25. Frago Gracia, Juan Antonio 1999 Notas sobre el español antillano del siglo XVI en cartas de emigrados andaluces. In: Morales et al. 1999: 250–62. García Mouton, Pilar 1999 Tratamientos en las cartas de Indias. In: Morales et al. 1999: 263–76. Guevara, Antonio de 1950 [1533] Libro primero de las Epístolas familiares. Madrid: Real Academia Española. Labov, William 1972 Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Spanish forms of address in the sixteenth century

Lapesa, Rafael 2000 Estudios de morfosintaxis histórica del español (Biblioteca románica hispánica. II, Estudios y ensayos 418). Vol. 1. Madrid: Gredos. Morales, Amparo et al. (eds) 1999 Estudios de lingüística hispánica. Homenaje a María Vaquero. San Juan: Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico. Oesterreicher, Wulf 1996 Lo hablado en lo escrito. Reflexiones metodológicas y aproximación a una tipología. In: Thomas Kotschi et al. El español hablado y la cultura oral en España e Hispanoamérica. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 317–40. Otte, Enrique 1993 Cartas privadas de emigrantes a Indias 1540–1616. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Páez Urdaneta, Iraset 1981 Historia y geografía hispanoamericana del voseo. Caracas: La Casa de Bello. Penny, Ralph 1991 The History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pla Cárceles, José 1923 La evolución del tratamiento “vuestra merced”. Revista de Filología Española X, 245–80. Rona, José Pedro 1967 Geografía y morfología del voseo. Porto Alegre: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Rosenblat, Ángel 1971 La lengua del “Quijote”. Madrid: Gredos.



The co-occurrence of nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus Who says thou or you to whom? Ulrich Busse Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg

.

Introduction: review of previous work

It has been argued that the study of the parameters determining the variance between thou and you in Early Modern English, and in Shakespeare’s plays in particular, could be made firmer by incorporating all forms of address. However, to my knowledge, so far nobody has combined the two aspects of pronominal and nominal address in a large-scale study. Earlier monographs such as Byrne (1936), Replogle (1967), and Stoll (1989) focus either on address pronouns or on nominal forms of address. There are, however, a number of works, mostly articles, dealing with this issue on a smaller scale. Scholarly opinion on this matter seems to be divided between those who believe that address pronouns are important in scoring speech for politeness, and those who do not subscribe to this point of view or take a somewhat indifferent stance. Thus, on the one hand, Barber (1981: 284f.) has analysed the collocates of you and thou in King Richard The Third, finding that “throughout the play there is a clear correlation between the vocative expression used and the choice of pronoun”. As an illustration he provides the following table: Table 1. Collocates of you and thou in R31 (Table from Barber 1981: 285) Collocating with:

You

Thou

madam sir brother cousin lady fellow

17 4 5 5 3 0

0 0 0 4 3 4

 Ulrich Busse

Yet the results from a single play do not lead us very far, because the data can be skewed or biased in a certain way, and for this reason he demands “statistical information on such collocations from a larger body of Shakespeare’s plays” (285). B. Busse 2 (1997) basically works along the same lines when she scrutinises vocatives, and to a lesser extent also address pronouns in Hamlet and Much Ado About Nothing as “linguistic indications of attitude in the language of Shakespeare”. For these two plays she also offers statistical data on the use of you and thou in connection with different types of address: Table 2. Thou/you and vocative occurrence in HAM and ADO (Table from B. Busse 1997: 37) HAM

Personal names Titles of respect Terms of endearment Terms of abuse Terms of family relationship Terms of address – soliloquies Generic names Markers of status Mocking terms of address Total

ADO

you

thou

you

thou

27 69 2 0 10 5 0 7 1

24 0 5 2 2 4 1 4 4

14 60 3 0 17 0 1 32 0

15 2 2 4 1 1 0 3 0

121

46

127

28

She finds that throughout the categories there are genre differences as “the number of you forms cooccurring with vocatives is higher in the comedy” (1997: 37) and that you as the unmarked form would have to collocate with more formal forms of address and thou with expressive uses as e.g. in terms of abuse. However, she refutes the sweeping idea that “the vocative determines the form of the pronoun or vice versa” (1997: 38) and rather suggests that “the forms should be investigated individually in the context in which they occur” (1997: 39). On the other hand, the two studies carried out by Brown and Gilman (1989) and by Kopytko (1993) largely leave the address pronouns aside. Brown and Gilman have analysed the four tragedies of Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, and Othello in the theoretical framework of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1987). What they deliberately do not take into account systematically is the interplay between pronominal and nominal forms of address, because in their opinion “thou and you are not very important in scoring speech for politeness” (179). They therefore only deal with a small number of unusual personal pronoun uses.

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus 

Kopytko (1993) in his pragmatic study of eight Shakespearean plays says that “the topic of forms of address in Shakespeare’s plays is so vast that so far it has not received any exhaustive treatment” (52). For reasons of practicability and the assumed futility of the effort to incorporate pronouns for the purposes of his study, he has also decided to neglect them. Mazzon (in this volume) criticises former approaches to this topic as being “either extremely specific, discussing pronoun choices in single plays only, or disappointingly vague”. She goes a step further by analysing pronouns and, marginally, terms of address in their role as markers of socio-affective relationships. She investigates relational pairs such as husband — wife, parent — child, superordinate — subordinate relationships, servant — master relationships, peer relationships, etc. in King Lear, Othello, and Hamlet. For the treatment of nominal forms of address in Chaucer cf. Honegger (this volume).

. Objectives and methodology On the basis of the statistical data above and due to sociolinguistic variables, it can be hypothesised that the address pronouns used together with vocatives mirror the social or relational position expressed by the title to a certain extent. Therefore the more reverential and deferential vocatives, e.g. the titles of respect, should attract a Y pronoun3, and the more intimate vocatives and the terms of abuse should show a preponderance of T forms with an area of overlap in-between. Presumably, there are many cases in which social power is unequally divided and which according to the theory of power semantics and politeness theory should result in giving deference by using negative politeness strategies and, on the other hand, positive politeness should prevail with terms of endearment. Thus, the aim of this paper will be either to validate or to refute the claim made by Brown and Gilman that the pronoun of address mostly follows the status rule and is therefore a predictable obligatory part of speech that “is automatic and ever-present and so does not function to redress an FTA [face threatening act]” (1989: 197). For this purpose the nominal forms of address have been grouped into formal categories (cf. Table 3). The categorisation of address forms basically follows Salmon (1967: 50), who states that “these forms of address [i.e. vocatives] may consist of personal names, terms of family relationship, generic names (man, boy), names of occupations, titles of courtesy, endearments and terms of abuse”.4 The personal names (first names and/or surnames) have been excluded for the reason that they express personal relationships and attitudes towards a special character in a given play or situation and do not occur in the entire corpus and thus do not

 Ulrich Busse

allow for general comparisons. For each of these categories a representative number of address nouns of about six on average has been investigated. In the table below these have been highlighted in italics: Table 3. Categorisation of address forms with illustrative examples Terms of address indicating occupation

Terms of family relationship

Your Grace Your (royal) Highness Your Honour5 Your Ladyship Your Lordship Your Worship6 dame goodman goodwife lady (my) liege lord madam master mistress monsieur sir sire7 sirrah

captain doctor esquire justice knight lieutenant nurse parson …

brother cousin coz daughter father husband mother sister son uncle wife …

Generic terms of address

Terms of endearment

Titles of courtesy

… boy friend gentleman gentlewoman lad maid man woman …

bully chuck heart joy love wag …

Terms of abuse devil dog fool hag knave rascal rogue slave strumpet varlet villain witch …

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus 

. Corpus Study

.

Presentation of data: specimen articles

All in all 1,246 co-occurrences of address pronouns and nominal forms of address have been analysed. These instances cover 36 different address nouns from the six different groups as laid down in Table 3. For each of the address nouns a more or less standardised article structure8 (see specimen articles below) was developed, beginning with setting out the meaning(s) of the term under observation and a quantitative study. Information on the socio-historical background of the address nouns at the turn of the seventeenth century has been taken over from the Shakespeare Lexicon of Schmidt and Sarrazin (1962), the OED (1992), and, where necessary, from special case studies. By means of contingency tables the pronoun alternatives co-occurring with nominal forms of address in an utterance were then further subcategorised according to the three broad genres of Comedy, History and Tragedy in order to find out whether they show a preponderance of either you or thou. In a second qualitative step of the investigation, conspicuous pronoun usage was analysed and illustrated by discourse samples.

..

Specimen article 1: Lady (Titles of courtesy)

The overall ratio of address pronouns co-occurring with lady is as follows. Out of the 138 cases in which pronouns co-occur, there are 109 instances of you and 29 instances of thou. The Comedies have considerably more you forms than the other two genres. Table 4. Co-occurring pronouns with Lady according to genres T pronoun

Y pronoun

combined

Comedies Histories Tragedies

10 10 9

55 19 35

65 29 44

total

29

109

138

Quite unsurprisingly, you has turned out to be the majority form used in conjunction with lady. This shows that you is the default pronoun that is employed either out of respect for the (superior) rank of a woman, or as the neutral form. The OED states that the title is accorded “to all women above a loosely-defined and variable, but usually not very elevated standard of social position. Often used (esp. in ‘this lady’) as a more courteous synonym for ‘woman’, without reference to the status of the person spoken of ”.

 Ulrich Busse

However, a glance at the female characters who are addressed as lady in the corpus, reveals that this title is more often given vocatively to women of distinction. The examples from the opposite end of the social scale are fewer. Example (1) highlights asymmetrical pronoun use and the somewhat unbecoming and ironic use of the title when in The First Part of King Henry The Fourth Prince Henry addresses Mistress Quickly, the hostess of the Boar’s Head Tavern as lady: (1) Hostess: O Jesu, my lord the Prince! Prince: How now, my lady the hostess! what say’st thou to me? Hostess: Marry, my lord, there is a nobleman of the court at door would speak with you. (1H4 2, 4, 284–8)9 Basically, the conspicuous instances of thou + lady can be grouped into two categories; i.e. those conditioned by love and other emotions, especially by suitors in wooing in the sense of: “a woman who is the object of chivalrous devotion; a mistress, ‘lady-love’” (OED) as in (2) and (3), and those showing a benignant social superiority as either from husband to wife as in (4) or from royal father to daughter as in (5). Both uses have in common that they are given by male speakers only: (2) Berowne [to Rosaline]: Here stand I, lady, dart thy skill at me, / Bruise me with scorn, confound me with a flout, […]. My love to thee is sound, sans crack or flaw. (LLL 5, 2, 396–7; 415) (3) Antony [to Cleopatra]: Where hast thou been, my heart? Dost thou hear, lady? If from the field I shall return once more / To kiss these lips, […]. (ANT 3, 13, 172–4) (4) Lady: But hear you, my lord. Hotspur: What say’st thou, my lady? (1H4 2, 3, 73–4) (5) Lear [to Regan]: Of all these bounds, even from this line to this, / With shadowy forests and with champains rich’d / With plenteous rivers and wide-skirted meads, / We make thee lady. (KL 1, 1, 63–6) Sudden changes of feeling vented through pronoun switching are very seldom: (6) Cornwall: Bind him, I say. [Servants bind him.] Regan: Hard, hard. O filthy traitor! Gloucester: Unmerciful lady as you are, I’m none.

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus 

Cornwall: To this chair bind him. Villain, thou shalt find — [Regan plucks his beard.] Gloucester: By the kind gods, ’tis most ignobly done / To pluck me by the beard. Regan: So white, and such a traitor? Gloucester: Naughty lady, / These hairs which thou dost ravish from my chin / Will quicken and accuse thee. (KL 3, 7, 32–9, my emphasis)

..

Specimen article 2: Wife (Terms of family relationship)

Schmidt and Sarrazin (1962) indicate the following sense divisions: (1) any woman of mature age that is or might be married (2) a married woman considered in her relation to her husband Similarly to its relational counterpart husband, wife is not often given as an address, as there are merely eight instances of thou, nine of you, and eleven in which no address pronoun co-occurs.

Table 5. Co-occurring pronouns with Wife according to genres T pronoun

Y pronoun

combined

Comedies Histories Tragedies

1 4 3

3 1 5

4 5 8

total

8

9

17

Corpus evidence illustrates that the term occurs in all social strata, for the range contains examples of husbands calling their spouses wife from all walks of life, practically from sovereigns to brothel owners. The figure of Sly, a drunken tinker in the introduction to The Taming of the Shrew, comically expresses how a respectable couple should, according to decorum, call each other. In so doing, he serves as a persona to emphasise the importance of the correct address in Elizabethan society. But on the other hand, since he is merely under the illusion of being a lord and having a wife (a page dressed as a woman) and attendants, he simultaneously functions as a caricature, because he unwittingly reveals his low social station through his difficulties in coming to terms with his new rank of a lord and the rules of civility:

 Ulrich Busse

(7) Sly: Are you my wife and will not call me husband? My men should call me “lord”; I am your goodman. Page: My husband and my lord, my lord and husband, I am your wife in all obedience. Sly: I know it well. What must I call her? Lord: Madam. Sly: Al’ce madam, or Joan madam? Lord: Madam, and nothing else, so lords call ladies. Sly: Madam wife […]. (SHR, Induction 2, 103–12) In the Comedies, Master Ford normally calls his spouse wife + you, often rather peremptorily in requests (cf. The Merry Wives of Windsor 3, 3, 226; 4, 2, 119). However, when he suspects her of adultery he mock-politely calls her Mistress Ford as in (8). As a reaction to his unreasonable jealousy she also does not respond with husband, but ironically replies: “You use me well, Master Ford, do you?” (The Merry Wives of Windsor 3, 3, 192). When he finally realises his mistake and asks his wife’s pardon, Ford switches to thou as in (9): (8) Ford: Come hither, Mistress Ford, Mistress Ford, the honest woman, the modest wife, the virtuous creature, that hath the jealous fool to her husband! I suspect without cause, mistress, do I? (WIV 4, 2, 129–32) (9) Ford: Pardon me, wife, henceforth do what thou wilt. I rather will suspect the sun with [cold] / Than thee with wantonness. (WIV 4, 4, 6–7) A completely different matrimonial mood is evoked by the dialogue between the Duke and Duchess of York in King Richard the Second when the Duchess receives a scornful thou and dutifully replies with my lord to her husband, she is eventually rebuked by “Peace, foolish woman”: (10) York: Wife, thou art a fool. […] Duchess: What is the matter, my lord? […] York: Peace, foolish woman. (R2 5, 2, 68–80) The discourse between Lord and Lady Northumberland in The Second Part of King Henry the Fourth shows them a caring couple. First, he affectionately thous his wife and she gives him deference by answering with you:

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus 

(11) Northumberland: I pray thee, loving wife, and gentle daughter, / Give even way unto my rough affairs; / Put not you on the visage of the times, / And be like them to Percy troublesome. Lady Northumberland: I have given over, I will speak no more; / Do what you will, your wisdom be your guide. Northumberland: Alas, sweet wife, my honor is at pawn, And but my going, nothing can redeem it. Lady Northumberland: O yet for God’s sake, go not to these wars. (2H4 2, 3, 1–9) That a you does not necessarily imply neutrality or even politeness can be shown by the order that the sick King Edward gives to Queen Elizabeth in King Richard The Third: (12) King Edward: Madam, yourself is not exempt from this; / Nor you, son Dorset; Buckingham, nor you; / You have been factious one against the other. Wife, love Lord Hastings, let him kiss your hand, / And what you do, do it unfeignedly. (R3 2, 1, 18–22) From the set of Tragedies, Romeo and Juliet is a play to furnish extensive use of wife. Normally, Capulet addresses his wife as wife + you (cf. 3, 4, 15; 3, 5, 137; 141) only when he firmly sets the wedding day for Juliet and takes matters into his own hands as in (13) he switches to thou: (13) Capulet: Tush, I will stir about, / And all things shall be well, I warrant thee, wife; / Go thou to Juliet, help to deck up her. I’ll not to bed tonight; let me alone, I’ll play the huswife for this once. (ROM 4, 2, 39–43) All the preceding examples of wife amply illustrate that the use of co-occurring pronouns is variable and does not strictly correspond to a fixed pattern, except that normally the wives deferentially say you to their husbands, but that the latter employ pronouns according to the demands of the pragmatic factors of the situation. But a wife may also vary between thou and you when addressing her husband, for instance: “Lady Percy addresses Hotspur almost always in dialogue with you: but in the higher style of earnest appeal in I Hen. IV. ii. 3. 43–67, and in the familiar ‘I’ll break thy little finger, Harry,’ ib. 90, she uses thou throughout. In the high Roman style, Brutus and Portia use you” (Abbott 1870: 154).

 Ulrich Busse

..

Specimen article 3: Rogue (Terms of abuse)

For rogue Schmidt and Sarrazin (1962) give the following sense divisions: a term of reproach, = rascal, knave Used in pity and tenderness […]. In this case even a fem[ale]. “Alas, poor rogue, I think, [i’ faith], she loves me” (Othello 4, 1, 111). Rogue has a total frequency of 79 tokens (13 verse; 66 prose). The distribution of address pronouns looks like this: there are nine instances of T pronouns and 27 cases of Y pronouns.

Table 6. Co-occurring pronouns with Rogue according to genres T pronoun

Y pronoun

combined

10

Comedies Histories Tragedies

1 3 5

10 12 5

11 15 10

total

9

27

36

Despite the fact that rogue also collocates with negative epithets like bastardly, blue-bottle, damnable both-sides, finical, glass-gazing, honeyseed (a blunder for homicide), mechanical salt-butter, mouldy superserviceable. It shows a higher rate of you than rascal. However, the two terms of reproach run parallel in that both abound in exclamatives and imperatives. The cases in which rogue collocates with positive adjectives like sweet little and poor rogue hereditary are fewer. As the above contingency table proves (chi-squared = 5.013 > 0.10 with 2 df), pronoun use is obviously tied up with the genres, as the Comedies again show the highest ratio of you. Pronoun use is also linked to the different meanings of the term. In their competition in misanthropy, Timon and Apemantus slander each other bitterly with abusive vocatives. In example (14) rogue is employed in the sense of “a dishonest, unprincipled person; a rascal” (OED) and co-occurs with a reproachful thou: (14) Timon: Away, thou issue of a mangy dog! Choler does kill me that thou art alive; I swound to see thee. Apemantus: Would thou wouldst burst! Timon: Away, thou tedious rogue! I am sorry I shall lose a stone by thee. [Throws a stone at him.] Apemantus: Beast!

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus 

Timon: Slave! Apemantus: Toad! Timon: Rogue, rogue, rogue! I am sick of this false world, and will love nought / But even the mere necessities upon’t. (TIM 4, 3, 366–76) This sense sharply contrasts with: “one who is of a mischievous disposition. Common as a playful term of reproof or reproach, and freq.[uently] used as a term of endearment by 17th c. dramatists” (OED) as illustrated by example (15): (15) Falstaff: A rascal! to brave me? Doll: Ah, you sweet little rogue, you! Alas, poor, ape, how thou sweat’st! Come let me wipe thy face. Come on, you whoreson chops. Ah, rogue! i’ faith, I love thee. Thou art as valorous as Hector of Troy, worth five of Agamemnon, and ten times better than the Nine Worthies. Ah, villain! (2H4 2, 4, 215–21) Similar to rascal, rogue also shows pronoun switching in an utterance: (16) Pistol: Didst not thou share? Hadst thou not fifteen pence? Falstaff: Reason, you rogue, reason; think’st thou I’ll endanger my soul gratis? At a word, hang no more about me, I am no gibbet for you. (WIV 2, 2, 14–7, my emphasis) In addition to these, rogue is also “applied abusively to servants” (OED); this sense predominates in the Comedies and, furthermore, in this sense you usually appears as a pronoun as shown in (17) and (18): (17) Berowne [to Moth, page to Armado]: Is this your perfectness? Be gone, you rogue! (LLL 5, 2, 174) (18) Petruchio [to servant(s)]: Off with my boots, you rogues! You villains, when? […] / Out, you rogue, you pluck my foot awry. / Take that, and mend the plucking [off] the other. [Strikes him.] (SHR 4, 1, 144–8) The two terms rascal and rogue show parallels to each other in that both can be used as a term for serious reproach and even contempt but also in a more light-hearted way. The preponderance of you in relation with rogue is mainly brought about by the frequent employment as an abusive term for servants in the Comedies.

 Ulrich Busse

. Presentation of statistical data for each group of address nouns and summary On the basis of the contingency tables above, a ratio for the co-occurring pronouns has been computed in order to categorise the address nouns as “you words” or as “thou words” by dividing the number of you forms through the number of thou forms and then taking the logarithm [log (Y : T)].11

..

Titles of courtesy

The following graph shows the “youfulness” of the vocatives in declining order:

Graph 1. Titles of courtesy

The diagram illustrates that all the titles of courtesy have a huge surplus of Y pronouns. This result was to be expected on the basis of the extant secondary literature. However, the above terms also show a gradient of “youfulness”. Out of the titles investigated, liege is the title that shows the least variation in the use of cooccurring pronouns at all, the T pronouns being outnumbered by Y pronouns at a ratio of 1 : 27. This almost exclusive use of Y pronouns can be attributed to the exposed social rank of the persons who are addressed in this way. The address (my) liege, often preceded by honorific adjectives is reserved to the sovereign, which implies that all his subjects from the queen to commoners have to give deference. The same also holds true for sir, which beside lord is the most frequent form of address in Shakespeare’s plays. It has a total frequency of 2,613 tokens. A sample of 20 plays with 1,233 tokens of sir yielded only 28 instances of thou. As the case was so clear, a context-based investigation was considered too unwieldy and too poor in result. In this case it is rather more illuminating to investigate the social rank and the circumstances under which a character is addressed as sir, either seri-

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus 

ously, ironically, etc. (cf. also Grannis 1990: 113f.). Rudanko (1993: 168) also draws attention to the use of sir in terms of nastiness: while it is usually a feature of negative politeness, “indicating deference, it may under certain circumstances become a marker of disrespect, not of respect”. Williams (1992: 92) provides a convincing explanation why T pronouns do not occur in the company of titles like master or sir. Before the distinction between you and thou became fully operational in the fourteenth century “a speaker who addressed a single person as Master or sir would not use you to that person, because the grammatically correct form would have been thou. And in a situation that called for a plain first name (e.g., Hob), the speaker would of course have used the same thou.” In the course of time the use of a respectful title almost automatically triggered the usage of the polite pronoun you, and as you was gaining ground against thou, titles like “sir and Master were increasingly used to address speakers at all social levels, so would the use of the respectful you increase, particularly because respectful titles eventually ‘conditioned’ the form of the pronoun.” Williams claims that the correlation between you and sir finally became so strong that despite the fact that “in a context previously colored by thou there appeared a sir, that sir momentarily elicited a following you, but once past that sir, the text would then return to thou” (Williams 1992: 92). The second scene in the first act of The First Part of King Henry The Fourth is an impressive case in point. The pronoun of rapport between Falstaff and the Prince of Wales has been thou throughout when the following dialogue takes place: (19) Falstaff: But, Hal, I prithee trouble me no more with vanity; I would to God thou and I knew where a commodity of good names were to be bought. An old lord of the council rated me the other day in the street about you, sir, but I marked him not, […] . Prince: Thou didst well, for wisdom cries out in the streets, and no man regards it. Falstaff: O, thou hast damnable iteration, and art indeed able to corrupt a saint. (1H4 1, 2, 81–91, my emphasis) In comparison to liege, lord and sir, monsieur is a fairly infrequent title of courtesy that is almost exclusively given to foreigners. Probably due to their foreignness, or, in the case of the fairies in Midsummer Night’s Dream and Caliban in The Tempest rather their outlandishness, and the resulting social distance, you is the pronoun that co-occurs without exception. Out of the four female titles of courtesy (mistress, lady, dame, and goodwife), mistress is the one that attracts the most Y forms. This result is slightly surprising

 Ulrich Busse

because the term covers a broader social spectrum than lady. The range of mistress reaches from queen to bawd. This not withstanding, the ratio of you : thou is 12 : 1. From this we can conclude that mistress as a title of courtesy is applied to almost any woman irrespective of her social rank and as a consequence of this, you as a pronoun has moved down the social ladder and has become the default pronoun in conjunction with mistress. In contrast to this, lady is still a little more restricted in its usage, as it is usually given as address only to women of some social standing. The examples pertaining to women of a lower social rank are fewer and can also imply an ironic stance. The instances of lady + thou fall into the two categories of wooing and courting and those exposing male social superiority from husband to wife or from father to daughter. As a title of courtesy, dame is almost negligible. Although de jure it still was a courtesy title for a knight’s wife at the beginning of the seventeenth century, it had undergone a broadening of meaning accompanied by pejoration, as it could be used almost as a contemptuous address to scolding women. This precarious state is also borne out by the use of co-occurring pronouns: the three T pronouns and the five Y pronouns are well balanced. Goodwife is even rarer, for it only appears twice in the entire corpus as an address for middle-class women and is not accompanied by personal pronouns. Its male counterpart, goodman is also not frequent. The ratio of you : thou is 5 : 1. The instances in the corpus indicate that the term is not only the usual form of address among middle-class neighbours, but that it is also used from above with an ironic or slightly patronising attitude. The most problematic title in this set is sirrah, because when given to grownups it usually expresses contempt, a reprimand, or some other negative attitude. Despite these facts it is usually treated as a title of courtesy, perhaps for its connection to sir.12 These usually negative emotions on the part of the speaker notwithstanding, you clearly predominates as a co-occurring address pronoun, with a ratio of more than 3 : 1. This use of pronouns probably justifies its inclusion in the category of courtesy titles, because in comparison to the terms of abuse (cf. 3.2.6) it shows a marked difference in the use of co-occurring pronouns.

..

Terms of address indicating occupation

According to Stoll (1989: 167f.) in Elizabethan drama all occupational titles, viz. “Berufs-, Amts- und Funktionsbezeichnungen”, have the prime function of additional information for the spectators. Within a given play, they are usually directed at the carrier of a function that is essential to drive the plot forward. In terms of politeness theory “the professional or occupational titles […] are not far from the negative extreme” (Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg 1995: 557). Kopytko

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus 

Graph 2. Terms of address indicating occupation

(1993: 53) states that “titles such as captain, general or lieutenant only count as deferential when used by a person of lower social rank”. If the preceding six forms of address indicating occupation constitute a valid sample for the different walks of life in the medical profession, the army, the lower clergy and gentry, and in domestic service, as depicted in Shakespeare’s plays, the first observation that comes to mind when this set is compared to the titles of courtesy is that all these forms of address are not very frequent. This is due to the fact that the characters representing these professions only appear in a limited number of plays for specific, and often slightly comic purposes, at least in the case of esquire, which is not used as an address at all, and also to a certain degree of justice when it pertains to Master Shallow. Apart from the nurse in Romeo and Juliet, who is almost exclusively addressed as thou, either as a menial from above, or confidentially by Juliet, and which can be explained by the relatively small social distance that exists between mistress and confidante, all the other vocatives indicating occupation fall into a different category. They show a greater social distance and appear in emotionally and psychologically “neutral” situations. As a result of this, you prevails as a co-occurring pronoun. Thus, with the only exception of nurse, all the other vocatives doctor, justice, lieutenant and parson can be classified as “you words”. Depending on the majority form of normal rapport between interlocutors, the other pronoun in the dyad, i.e. you in the case of nurse and thou in all the other cases, is employed to signal a deviation from the “norm” which can be induced by the situation, the message, or momentary shifts in (mutual) attitude.

 Ulrich Busse

..

Terms of family relationship

Graph 3. Terms of family relationship

All the terms of relationship have in common that they exhibit a higher degree of Y pronouns than T pronouns. However, as the graph above documents, they can be arranged on a sliding scale reaching from brother and sister at the one end to husband and wife at the other. Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1995: 557) say that “the choice of a relational noun, which indeed kinship terms and some status nouns are, implies the existence of a reciprocal relationship, which may either be one of power, and hence of negative politeness ( father/child, master/servant), or may express positive reciprocity only (sweetheart).” Brother and sister show the highest degree of co-occurrence with you; the normal pronoun of rapport between siblings being you. Structurally, there are genre differences in the use of thou. In both cases, but even more markedly with brother, there are hardly any tokens of thou to be found in the Comedies. In the other genres, the pronoun thou is reserved for situations of deep emotions such as grief and joy or wooing and pleading, often in keynote speeches. The result that sister has turned out to be the most “youful” of the relational nouns differs from the findings of Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg’s (1995) investigation of the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, in which “it appears that sisters never receive as many deferential forms of address as their brothers” (565). However, they admit that evidence for this in their corpus is scanty. Nevala (in this volume) reports that in letters from the sixteenth century “the most usual

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus 

terms for all brothers include brother and my very good brother, whereas sisters are addressed as sister + FN and good sister.” Mazzon (in this volume) also admits that in her corpus of Shakespearean plays examples illustrating pronoun use between siblings are scarce, but that between siblings a predominance of Y forms is to be observed, especially from sister to brother. Cousin is by far the most versatile expression from this set of vocatives because a number of close relatives (first cousins), more distant social equals and also inlaws can be addressed with it. Cousin also shows that thou hardly ever occurs in the Comedies, and in the Histories and Tragedies its use is practically limited to The Third Part of King Henry The Sixth and Titus Andronicus, both of which are early plays.13 In comparison to the full form, abbreviated coz shows a slightly lesser degree of co-occurring you. Very often, positive feelings are indicated by positive adjectives such as dear, gentle, pretty and sweet. Compared to the terms above, husband and wife are used much less often in direct address. Thus, the scarcity of tokens forbids any genre-specific considerations of their distribution. As the use of co-occurring pronouns is almost balanced, both terms allow for what Calvo (1992) has called “negotiable personalities” which can vary from situation to situation. This hypothesis is supported by the many pronoun switches. On the other hand, this result runs counter to the claim made by power semantics about unequal relationships and to the findings of Finkenstaedt (1963: 120), who claims that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries husbands so frequently and regularly address their wives with thou, but receive a you that this pronoun usage can truly be called a “marriage pronoun” (120). Finkenstaedt, though, did not concentrate on literary sources. Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1995: 565–8) also stress that the relationship between husband and wife was not an equal one, but add that it was, nonetheless, not as predictable as might be expected. In her study of address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence, Nevala (in this volume) mentions that from the sixteenth century onwards the mutual relationship between spouses can affect their use of address forms and that both husbands and wives use neutral or endearing terms. She comes to the conclusion that the use of the address pronoun thou is restricted to the body and closing of letters and that it is mostly used in letters between spouses and by superiors (in this volume, chapter 6.3). As regards pronoun use between husband and wife, Mazzon (in this volume) finds a “numerical predominance of Y, especially from husband to wife” (cf. also her appendix, Table 1).

..

Generic terms of address

In this group, boy and lad share a number of similarities. Boy is typically given as an address to a male child by fathers, and more seldom by mothers. In these

 Ulrich Busse

Graph 4. Generic terms of address

cases, the pronoun used is normally the intimate thou. Greater social distance between the speaker and the person addressed as boy is expressed by the choice of you. In those cases in which boy is said in contempt, thou also co-occurs as a pronoun, excepting the few instances in which boy is preceded by mock-polite formal titles such as Sir or goodman. Although lad and boy share some sense properties and pragmatic features, in that both are given by a senior person to a younger one, lad is often said by a master to his boy-servant. In this social set-up thou co-occurs as a pronoun, and the direction of pronoun use is asymmetrical Y → T. However, Falstaff makes it a symmetrical T ↔ T one, when he addresses the Prince of Wales as lad and boy. In terms of frequency, boy is far more numerous than lad. Friend shows an equilibrium of pronoun use. It can neither be regarded as a typical “thou word” nor as a “you word”. It stands halfway between gentleman and gentlewoman on the one hand, and boy and lad on the other. Although two major uses can be distinguished, viz. as an address to intimate associates and to subordinates, pronoun use does not really differ despite the differences in intimacy and social distance. Whether the thous are intended to mean honest affection, condescension, impatience, irritation etc. has to be inferred from the situational context. Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1995: 570) have found that “apart from members of the nuclear family, it is between close friends that we find the least social distance (D) and its component affect (personal liking) at its greatest”.

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus

In the Shakespeare Corpus, gentleman performs a number of different functions, as the array of senses outlined in Schmidt and Sarrazin amply documents. On many occasions characters profess that they belong to the social class of gentlemen, and many interlocutors who meet with strangers interrogate them about their rank with questions: “Are you/art thou a gentleman?” This practice underlines the importance of being genteel and as its communicative manifestation the correct address. A failure to do so is met with resentment: “I am a gentleman, sir,” replies Conrade in Much Ado About Nothing 4, 2, 13 when he is inappropriately addressed by Dogberry as sirrah. On the other hand, Dogberry’s answer underlines his limited acquaintance with the requirements of social decorum, for he says: “Write down Master Gentleman Conrade.” The adjectives that co-occur with gentleman also emphasise its social prestige because the epithets describe superior character traits, behaviour or manners. The distribution of gentleman among genres shows that the term predominates in the Comedies. As regards pronoun use, you prevails, especially between persons who are not well known to each other. In addition to social distance, appearance, e.g. clothing, is also an important factor influencing vocative address and pronoun choice, as there are “poor but worthy” gentlemen (Cymbeline 1, 1, 7). In comparison to the ubiquitous gentleman, its female counterpart gentlewoman plays only a marginal role, as it is very infrequent. The term is mostly used in the Comedies. It co-occurs exclusively with you, but its scarcity does not really allow for generalisations. However, its usage documents that the term had serious applications for women of social standing, and could also be given ironically to women of a lower social position such as the Hostess and Doll Tearsheet in The Second Part of King Henry The Fourth.

..

Terms of endearment

All in all, the terms indicating endearment and affection are fairly infrequent in the corpus. Out of the five vocatives investigated, love is the most numerous and, in terms of pronoun usage, the most variable, because unlike the other terms it shows considerable vacillation. What they all share is the fact that they are all “thou words”, because the ratio of pronouns is clearly in favour of thou. However, the gradient of “thoufulness” indicates important differences. The terms clearly differ in their semantic and pragmatic range, viz. to whom they can be given. Joy and chuck are used for both men and women. Both are said to loved spouses, children, and chuck also to associates. Love clearly differs from these, for it is used among lovers, although usually not mutually as men more often address women in this way than the other way around. Stoll (1989) also finds that unlike men, women use less often positive or negative emotional address and also first names. She attributes this to the often marginal roles of the



 Ulrich Busse

Graph 5. Terms of endearment

female characters in the plays, and more generally to the social role of women in Elizabethan society (224f.). Bully and wag, on the other hand, are only given by men to men as verbal expressions of male friendship and indicate familiarity in the sense of close fellowor comradeship or perhaps even bonhomie. Both terms have in common that they practically occur only in a limited number of plays, i.e. the “Falstaff plays” (The Merry Wives of Windsor, The First Part of King Henry the Fourth) and are thus instantiations of “Elizabethan colloquial English”, as Salmon (1967) puts it in the title of her article. As a corollary of this, it is by no means surprising that out of this set bully and wag are the words that show the highest degree of co-occurring thou, because in terms of Brown and Gilman’s power and solidarity semantics they fulfil the criteria of nearness, intimacy and sympathy for reciprocal T pronouns.

..

Terms of abuse

In comparison to the terms of endearment, the abusive vocatives are much more frequent. However, if the female terms are contrasted with the male ones, then the latter are again far more numerous.14 Hag is very infrequent as an abusive address for a woman. The term is exclusively used by male speakers for women who are viewed as vicious or malicious. Apart from The Merry Wives of Windsor, where you is the majority form (165 T pronouns : 773 Y pronouns), the co-occurring thou indicates deep contempt. The same also holds true for witch, except that in the sense of ‘sorceress’ the three witches in Macbeth address each other as witch, but otherwise it is only used by

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus 

Graph 6. Terms of abuse

male speakers. With hag it has in common that both terms are used extremely contemptibly, which is also confirmed by pronoun usage. Strumpet is even more marginal than hag and witch. Practically the only play in which the term plays a role is Othello. There are more T pronouns than Y pronouns, but due to its general infrequency no further conclusions should be drawn from that. As far as the male terms of abuse are concerned, villain is the most frequent one and seems to have been prototypical. In contrast to rascal and rogue, which are both often used by Falstaff, he never uses villain. Concerning pronoun use, villain is a typical “thou word”. The few cases of you can be relegated to intersocial and/or situational factors. Varlet is also a very clear-cut case of pronoun use, as it co-occurs exclusively with thou. Compared to the other terms of reproof for men it is usually applied less opprobriously and is the least frequent of all. Knave, rascal and rogue show similarities, for all three can also be used less abusively or even as terms of endearment. When used endearingly or compassionately, thou appears more often. In the case of knave its functions of abuse or endearment are signalled by either negative or positive adjectives and only less obviously by pronouns, because in both cases thou appears, although it has to be interpreted differently as either a sign of compassion or reproof. However, when masters chide their servants as knaves, they usually address them by you. Regarding pronoun use, rascal presents a mixed picture, as the overall ratio is almost balanced. On closer inspection it becomes apparent that it can also be

 Ulrich Busse

applied less seriously, yet as a contemptive term of serious reproach thou is always the co-occurring pronoun. In the other cases pronoun use varies while the discourse participants remain the same. This implies that it depends on the situation. The same basically also holds true for rogue, with the only difference being that the ratio of you is even higher. This is mainly due to its being used in the Comedies as an abusive vocative for servants who do not carry out services in accord with their masters’ wants and are reproved as you (negative adj.) rogue.

. Summary and conclusion Numerical evidence from the use of address pronouns and co-occurring nominal forms of address tells us that there is indeed a strong correlation between the nominal form of address and the address pronoun, because a log-linear regression can be established. Graph 7 below shows all the groups of vocatives together in order of decreasing use of you:

Graph 7. Vocative categories ranked according to co-occurring pronouns considered in the aggregate15

This is to say that the address nouns can be placed along a scale of politeness ranging from negative politeness or deference at the one end, as represented (in declining order of “youfulness”) by the titles of honour and courtesy, occupational titles and expressions of family relationship, which all co-occur with far more Y forms than T forms, to the generic terms of address, the terms of abuse and, at the far end of positive politeness, the terms of endearment as the most “thouful” ones.

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus

From a bird’s-eye view, these results are in accord with Brown and Gilman’s “power and solidarity semantics” and also with the claim of politeness theory that most address nouns can be placed at various points along the politeness scale.16 Thus far Brown and Gilman (1989) and also Kopytko (1993), who have largely omitted the address pronouns, seem to be justified for doing so. However, on closer inspection, there are quite a number of cases and not only a small residue, as Brown and Gilman claim, which run counter to the rules of power and solidarity semantics, as, for instance, when masters chide their servants as you rascal or you rogue. These cases can be regarded as the odd ones out, as Brown and Gilman (1989: 178) do in the extension of their original theory within the framework of politeness theory, but to assign “complications to context” in my opinion and also in that of Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg means missing an important factor, because “it seems to us that the variability of placement needs special emphasis, since the interpretation of the use of a given term depends on the context” (1995: 557). Mazzon (1995: 25) is also of the opinion that the “hasty dismissal of the issue [of pronoun use] is oversimplistic” for the reasons that “precisely because the pronoun is ‘an obligatory aspect of speech’, its politeness value can never be overlooked; the choice of a pronoun rather than another could in itself constitute an FTA […].” In assuming a constellation of factors that apply or do not apply, Brown and Gilman’s model is too rigid, because in my opinion for meaningful pronoun choices there is an overlap and often also a clash of permanent, or relatively stable social factors, temporary attitudes, shifts in feeling, etc. In addition to that, those vocatives which showed a mixed pronoun use, illustrate that there is ample room for social negotiation, as Calvo (1992) put it. Furthermore, in addition to these socio-pragmatic constraints the study has revealed that the literary genre also affects pronoun use to a statistically significant degree. Graph 8 illustrates the distribution of pronouns according to genre:

Graph 8. Aggregate pronoun score for the Comedies, Histories and Tragedies



 Ulrich Busse

Thus, on the corpus level, irrespective of the six vocative categories, it is the genre of Comedy that exhibits the highest degree of Y forms with a ratio of 31.40% T forms and 68.60% Y forms. Compared to this, the Histories and Tragedies show a much higher incidence of T forms with 46.40% T forms and 53.60% Y forms in the Histories, and 48.50% T forms and 51.50% Y forms in the Tragedies. Although we should not believe that Shakespeare had any reason to present inauthentic language, it must be emphasised that some of the pronoun choices may have been made for the sake of rhyme and metre, the requirements of genre, plot or a particular scene, to achieve a certain dramatic effect, etc. In addition to this, with reference to the Histories, Replogle (1967) points out that Shakespeare became more skilful in his artistic ability to depict the address forms used by the nobility: It seems evident that Shakespeare’s knowledge of the usage of the forms of address among the nobility increased after the writing of the early history plays. In the Henry VI plays the English nobiles majores use an unwonted degree of familiarity […]. Since such inappropriate forms are not used in Shakespeare’s later history plays, for example I and II Henry IV, it would seem that in the intervening years the dramatist acquired a better knowledge of the usages of noblemen (145f.).

The paper has shown how Shakespeare uses both nominal and pronominal address in his plays and that a correlation between these categories in terms of variable rules can be established. However, it has also proved that pronoun use is not fully predictable, because on the micro level of analysis apart from intersocial relationships other factors have to be taken into account. Obviously, Shakespeare must have been well aware of the social conventions of the day, and he surely exploited them skilfully for dramatic purposes. Nonetheless, on the basis of this investigation we can only construct a “social grammar” of Shakespeare, but we should not conclude that the language of drama with its carefully constructed speeches bore any close resemblance to real people talking, because it is not always possible to take such renditions at their face value.17

Notes . For the sigils used to refer to Shakespeare’s works see the list of abbreviations in the appendix. . No relation of mine. B. Busse is a doctoral student at Osnabrück University. . The terms Y pronoun and T pronoun incorporate the address pronouns you and thou, their variant case forms and respective compounds such as yourself and thyself.

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus  . Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1995: 555) use the following categories: (1) Words denoting kinship and family ties, (2) names, both first and surnames, (3) words denoting social status, (4) professional titles and (5) “address phrases which contain no nominal headword at all, like the formal trusty and well-beloved and the deferential right worshipful.” . For comic purposes these styles can also be used incongruously as e.g. in TMP when Caliban tries to flatter Stephano by addressing him: “How does thy honor? Let me lick thy shoe” (3, 2, 23); cf. also Replogle (1967: 140f.). . Your Grace and all the other styles are fixed expressions that always co-occur with your, excepting cases as in note 5. For this reason they can be omitted from the study because there is basically no choice of pronouns to be made. . Sire can also be excluded because on the authority of Schmidt and Sarrazin (1962) it has the meaning ‘father’, occurs only in verse and is never used as an address. . For a full-scale treatment showing all the articles for the 36 address nouns see Busse (2002: 99–186). . If not indicated otherwise, all quotations from Shakespeare’s plays and line references are based on the Riverside Shakespeare (1997). . There is one further case of thou in a letter (TN 3, 4, 162). . An even ratio of you and thou tokens results in a logarithm of 0. A logarithm of +1 indicates that the you forms are ten times more frequent than the thou forms, and a logarithm of −1 shows that the T forms are ten times as frequent as the Y forms. For the sake of graphic clearness, these results were then multiplied by 1,000 in the graphs below that show the vocatives arranged in decreasing order of “youfulness”. . The OED gives the following explanation: “[f. sir n. The additional syllable had probably no definite origin, though explained by Minsheu as the interj. ah or ha.].” . For the use of cousin in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence cf. Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1995: 572f.). . Stoll simply says that for women and girls minion, strumpet, harlot, witch and hag are very frequent and gives a number of unassorted citations for them (1989: 219). However, corpus evidence reveals that abusive vocatives for females are in fact scanty.  The second column for the address forms indicating occupation gives the score for all terms excepting nurse. If nurse — the only form to make use of T pronouns — is considered alongside the others, the score drops to 176. . Nevala (this volume; figure 1) presents a similar continuum based on Raumolin-Brunberg (1996: 171) ranging from negative politeness (honorific terms and endearments) via other titles and family to positive politeness represented by nicknames. . See also Barber (1997: 22, 31) when he discusses social variation and the differences between written and spoken language in Early Modern English. On the basis of depositions and his own work on Marlowe, Hope (1994: 148) comes to the conclusion that “Shakespeare’s

 Ulrich Busse

dramatic usage, if it bears any relation to ‘real’ Early Modern [English] usage at all, preserves modes of usage which have long disappeared from everyday speech.” On the relationship between the language of drama and the social conventions of the day see also Stein (in this volume, section 2.3)

Appendix: Abbreviations Sigils used for reference to Shakespeare’s plays (following the conventions of citation in Marvin Spevack’s concordances 1968–1980) ADO ANT AWW AYL COR CYM ERR 1H4 2H4 H5 1H6 2H6 3H6 H8 HAM JC JN LLL KL MAC MM MND MV OTH PER R2 R3 ROM SHR TGV TIM TIT TMP

Much Ado About Nothing Antony and Cleopatra All’s Well That Ends Well As You Like It Coriolanus Cymbeline The Comedy of Errors The First Part of King Henry The Fourth The Second Part of King Henry The Fourth King Henry The Fifth The First Part of King Henry The Sixth The Second Part of King Henry The Sixth The Third Part of King Henry The Sixth King Henry The Eighth Hamlet Julius Caesar King John Love’s Labor’s Lost King Lear Macbeth Measure for Measure A Midsummer Night’s Dream The Merchant of Venice Othello Pericles King Richard The Second King Richard The Third Romeo and Juliet The Taming of the Shrew The Two Gentlemen of Verona Timon of Athens Titus Andronicus The Tempest

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus 

TN TNK TRO WIV WT

Twelfth Night The Two Noble Kinsmen Troilus and Cressida The Merry Wives of Windsor The Winter’s Tale

References Primary sources (corpus) Riverside Shakespeare = G. Blakemore Evans (ed.) with the assistance of J. J. M. Tobin The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Secondary sources Abbott, Edwin A. 1870 A Shakespearian Grammar: An Attempt to Illustrate Some of the Differences between Elizabethan and Modern English. London: Macmillan [repr. 1972, New York: Haskell]. Barber, Charles 1981 ‘You’ and ‘thou’ in Shakespeare’s Richard III. Leeds Studies in English New Series 12, 273–89. –––––– 1997 Early Modern English. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Roger W., and Albert Gilman 1989 Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society 18, 159 –212. Busse, Beatrix 1997 Linguistic indications of attitude in the language of Shakespeare. Unpublished state examination thesis, University of Osnabrück. Busse, Ulrich 2002 Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-syntactic variability of second-person pronouns (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Byrne, Geraldine 1936 Shakespeare’s Use of the Pronoun of Address; Its Significance in Characterization and Motivation. Ph.D. thesis, Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C. [repr. 1970, New York: Haskell]. Calvo, Clara 1992 Pronouns of address and social negotiation in As you Like it. Language and Literature 1, 5–27.

 Ulrich Busse

Finkenstaedt, Thomas 1963 You and Thou: Studien zur Anrede im Englischen (mit einem Exkurs über die Anrede im Deutschen). Berlin: de Gruyter. Grannis, Oliver 1990 The social relevance of grammatical choice in Shakespeare. Deutsche Shakespeare-Gesellschaft West, Jahrbuch 1990, 105–18. Hope, Jonathan 1994 The use of thou and you in Early Modern spoken English: evidence from depositions in the Durham ecclesiastical court records. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.). Studies in Early Modern English (Topics in English Linguistics 13). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 141–51. Kopytko, Roman 1993 Polite Discourse in Shakespeare’s English. Poznañ: Adam Mickiewicz University Press. Mazzon, Gabriella 1995 Pronouns and terms of address in Shakespearean English: a socio-affective marking system in transition. VIEWS — Vienna Working Papers 4, 20–42 [revised version in this volume]. Nevalainen, Terttu, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg 1995 Constraints on politeness: The pragmatics of address formulae in Early English Correspondence. In: Andreas H. Jucker (ed.). Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 541–601. OED = J. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner (eds) 1992 The Oxford English Dictionary on Compact Disc. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 1996 Forms of address in early English correspondence. In: Terttu Nevalainen and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds). Sociolinguistics and Language History. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 167–81. Replogle, Carol A. H. 1967 Shakespeare’s use of the forms of address. Ph. D. thesis, Brandeis University, Mass. [University Microfilms International]. Rudanko, Juhani M. 1993 Pragmatic Approaches to Shakespeare: Essays on Othello, Coriolanus and Timon of Athens. Lanham: University Press of America. Salmon, Vivian 1967 Elizabethan colloquial English in the Falstaff plays. Leeds Studies in English 1, 37–70. [repr. in: Vivian Salmon and Edwina Burness (eds). 1987. A Reader in the Language of Shakespearean Drama (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 37–70.] Schmidt, Alexander, and Gregor Sarrazin 1962 Shakespeare-Lexicon: A Complete Dictionary of All the English Words, Phrases and Constructions in the Works of the Poet. 2 vols. 5th unchanged ed. [1st ed. vol. 1: 1874, vol. 2: 1875]. Berlin: de Gruyter.

Nominal and pronominal address forms in the Shakespeare Corpus 

Spevack, Marvin 1968– 80 A Complete and Systematic Concordance to the Works of Shakespeare. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung. Stoll, Rita 1989 Die nicht-pronominale Anrede bei Shakespeare. (Neue Studieu zur Anglistik und Amerikanistik 41) Frankfurt/Main: Lang. Williams, Joseph M. 1992 ‘O! When degree is shak’d’: Sixteenth-century anticipations of some modern attitudes toward usage. In: Tim William Machan and Charles T. Scott (eds). English in its Social Contexts: Essays in Historical Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 69–101.

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English A socio-affective marking system in transition Gabriella Mazzon University of Naples

.

Background and aims of the study

In this paper, pronouns and, marginally, nominal address used between characters in some Shakespearean plays will be analysed in their role as markers of socio-affective relationships. The plays analysed are: King Lear (KL), Othello (OTH) and Hamlet (HAM);1 they yield interesting examples, since they depict the relationships and conflicts between characters of various social standings. Occurrences of second-person pronouns were recorded,2 as well as pronoun switches operated when addressing the same interlocutor. Nominal address, and contextual and situational variables, were also taken into account, which made it possible to venture hypotheses about “normal” or unmarked uses (see below Section 2 for some comments on the employment of these terms), and to motivate switches as deviations triggered by changes in style, in emotional state or in socio-pragmatic attitude. Similar samples have already been the object of (socio)-linguistic investigation, especially since theatrical works mimic spoken interaction relatively more faithfully than other types of literary works, supplying evidence which can form a sort of heuristic bridge between results yielded by literary and non-literary sources. Of course, such studies should be taken as contributions towards the analysis of specific genres, since it has been repeatedly emphasised that literary evidence cannot substitute other, more direct evidence, but only supplement it (see e.g. Hope 1994: 142; see also Walker, this volume). The use of personal pronouns and nominal address is of course directly relevant to the encoding of both “vertical” and “horizontal” new social relationships, such as those arising when the community’s social structure is in a state of flux, as in Elizabethan England (see the review by Stein, this volume). Each

 Gabriella Mazzon

utterance we produce “stands for” our position with respect to our interlocutors, our ideas about our own status and theirs, our state of mind etc., besides “betraying” our education, social status, provenance, etc., and all those elements have to be encoded in a rather sophisticated way, but in times of transition ambiguities can arise. The danger goes rather beyond the occasional misunderstanding or social blunder: observance of, or detachment from, certain in-group language norms can result in emargination or even open conflict (Brown and Gilman 1960: 269 –70). Before discussing specific findings, I will briefly review literature on this and contiguous topics. In particular, I propose to show that there is hardly anything “casual” in pronoun choice and switching, and that many instances cannot be “stretched” to fit general categories, nor conveniently “swept under the carpet”, nor hastily dismissed as “exceptions”, since they often prove to be subtle examples of social and stylistic marking, making an “irreplaceable contribution” (McIntosh 1963: 71) to the picture we are trying to sketch. The crucial aspect of this analysis will be the examination of the phenomenon of “pronoun switching” (this term is used here in a purely descriptive way; it must be noted, however, that Honegger, in this volume, considers this expression too generic and unsystematic).

. The story of the shrinking subsystem As is well known, the forms of second-person pronouns of Old English and Early Middle English (sg. ©u/©e, later thou/thee, and pl. ye/you) underwent changes during the fifteenth century, when thou came to be used to signal intimacy, and uses of you were extended to the singular, to address superordinates. In this evolution, the established T/V system of French is assumed to have had a relevant role, because of its prestige in medieval and Renaissance England (see Burnley, this volume). Occurrences of you used to address a single interlocutor can be found as early as the thirteenth century, but exclusive use of you soon became predominant, thus leading to the second important systemic change: the contrast between polite and intimate forms is excluded from the standard, and only one pronoun form is left. (Mausch 1993, Lutz 1998: 194f., and Salmon 1975: 47, 70 give hypotheses about the reasons for this reduction.) The lack of singular/plural distinction is relatively rare in the languages of the world (Lutz 1998), and this typological rarity is confirmed by the fact that English dialects tend either to preserve the distinction or to introduce a new symmetry through the generalisation of new plural forms such as youse, y’all, etc. (Wright 1905: §104; Strang 1970: 140; Lass 1987: 229 –31; O’Donnell and Todd [1991]: 24; Trudgill and Chambers 1991: 7–10; and Hickey in this volume).

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English 

. Some notes on previous research The main variables taken into consideration by most studies are social distance (Brown and Gilman 1989; Kopytko 1993) and affective elements (McIntosh 1963; Mulholland 1967; Quirk 1971). Shakespeare’s works yield interesting evidence concerning the stage at which, allegedly, Y-forms are used to signal social distance or respect, while T-forms are employed for the extremes of the social relationship scale, i.e. either to address distant superiors (e.g. God, a kind of use that has survived much longer) or distant inferiors (in which case it often signals contempt). At the same time, the choice between pronouns also conveys emotional distance or proximity (Mausch 1993: 143–4), and again T covers both extremes of a scale, signalling love or hate, affection or anger. Most scholars tend to agree that, generally speaking, the “normal” pronoun is increasingly Y. This conclusion, far from being supported by unequivocal evidence, is often formulated in terms of the marked/unmarked polarity (Eagleson 1971: 142; Quirk 1971: 7–8; Salmon 1975: 58 –9; Mulholland 1967; Stein this volume). Quirk (1971: 7) also tries to explain such uses in terms of appropriateness or politeness: “You is usually the stylistically unmarked form: it is not so much ‘polite’ as ‘not impolite’; it is not so much ‘formal’ as ‘not informal’. It is for this reason that thou can operate in such a wide variety of contrasts with you.” The same type of explanation is given, for nominal address and salutations, by Replogle (1973: 102–12), who emphasises the shocking effect that can be obtained through deliberate violation of address rules. Within this general framework, specific uses are often explained in relation to social and/or affective variables: for instance, Barber (1981: 173) claims that Y was spreading down the social scale, since it starts to be used among “citizens”, i.e. middle-class characters. Both Barber and Mulholland (1967: 159) state the contrary claim that lower-class characters regularly address one another with T: as will be seen, my data confirm these claims only partially. Other general statements of this type have been made for pronoun uses with servants, with strangers and within the family domain (Abbott 1925: 154; Mulholland 1967: 160; Hope 1994: 144); in this case, too, my results partly disconfirm their observations. The greatest issue this kind of research has had to face is, however, that of variation or alternation of use with the same interlocutor, a phenomenon which seems to be more frequent in literary samples, because it contributes to portraying interaction between characters (Hope 1994: 144); the explanation most frequently given is that switches signal variation in affective attitude, and particularly “moments of strong emotion” (Salmon 1975: 59). Others have mentioned other possible reasons for this variation: euphony or metre (Abbott 1925: 158), constraints posed by the specific verbs or constructions the pronouns co-occur with (Mulholland 1967: 156–8; Barber 1981: 175 – 6),3 or co-variation with nominal address, which latter point is of interest here.

 Gabriella Mazzon

The problem with most of these analyses is that they are either extremely specific, discussing pronoun choices in single plays or single scenes only, or disappointingly vague, as when it is maintained that it is “possible” to use both pronouns to address characters regardless of their status, and that in such cases switches are neutral (Barber 1981: 165, Mulholland 1967: 160). Moreover, the assumed “normality” or unmarkedness of some uses does not seem to be based on firmly-grounded theoretical premises, given the fact that these terms cannot be taken to have any absolute value when applied to such studies. Statements about what is “normal” usage for any period of time for which we only have indirect and partial evidence should always be very cautious: the misunderstandings which may derive from hasty identifications of the latter kind of data with “normal” usage are evident. The abovementioned vagueness, and the fact that considering Y as “the norm” and T as “deviation, exception” contrasts with Barber’s (1981: 177) remark that, overall, Shakespeare’s plays show more T than Y uses for single interlocutors, leads us to take into consideration more recent and theoretically-grounded approaches. These are mainly studies that analyse Shakespeare’s works in the light of Politeness Theory (Brown and Gilman 1989, Kopytko 1993), but it seems that these approaches are, in turn, not exempt from flaws. In Brown and Gilman (1989), single speech acts in a Shakespearean sample that largely overlaps with mine are analysed and scored for Politeness, and comments on pronouns and nominal address are included. Nominal address, in particular, are scored for deference, also in view of their importance in Elizabethan England, where the position of each interlocutor on the social scale and with respect to Self is very important.4 As regards pronouns, Brown and Gilman (1989: 178) claim that “normal” usage is governed by social status alone and that deviation is mainly due to “emotional arousal” that causes “expressive” pronoun shift: this explanation seems to echo those found in previous studies. Brown and Gilman highlight the fact that, in Shakespearean English, pronoun usage has the property of retractability, which does not appear in languages where a stable T/V contrast exists. In the latter cases, a pronoun is used consistently with any single interlocutor, and when a switch does occur (e.g. when an acquaintance becomes a friend) it is normally not reversible, and mostly goes in the direction of greater intimacy.5 On the contrary, pronoun usage with a single interlocutor, and even within a single utterance, is not consistent in Shakespeare. The authors conclude (1989: 179) by stating that T and Y “are not very important in scoring speech for politeness. This is partly because there are quite a few shifts that we cannot confidently account for and it is partly because, in many of the clear cases that follow the status rule, the pronoun of address, an obligatory aspect of speech, is automatic and ever-present and so does not function to redress [a Face-Threatening Act].” The same dismissal can be

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English 

found in Kopytko (1993), a work that moves, though somewhat critically, within the framework of politeness theory. Although Kopytko argues for a non-modular and non-reductionist view of pragmatics, he shares with other scholars the oversimplified opinion that pronouns of address were used in a quite clearcut way in Shakespeare’s works, basically in a way that was sensitive to the parameter of social distance; he however admits that many uses are difficult to account for, and finally excludes this aspect from his analysis (1993: 52–8). The exclusion or marginalisation of this evidence is unsatisfactory. There are several general problems in the Brown and Levinson model, which seems rigid and too concentrated on very few parameters and variables. In their work, Brown and Gilman state that the problem of politeness arises only when the speech act to be performed could be intrinsically face-threatening (1989: 162), but studies on languages with highly developed systems of honorifics (Ide 1989; Matsumoto 1989) have shown that, since these systems have necessarily to be used in any speech act, they constitute in themselves a fundamental element of politeness marking. Similarly, the politeness value of Shakespearean pronouns and nominal address can never be overlooked: precisely because the pronoun is an unavoidable, the choice of a pronoun rather than another could in itself constitute a FaceThreatening Act.6 Another problem with Brown and Gilman’s approach is that, while they do take into account the variable of social distance, and particularly the affective element, considering them important for politeness, they fail to correlate this variable with pronoun alternation (perhaps because they view this choice as “automatic”). It is certainly difficult to unequivocally accommodate the use of T in their model, since it can signal intimacy, contempt or high distance at the same time, also given variation due to high/poetic/overformal style (see note 22; notice that studies on non-literary texts such as Hope 1994, or Walker in this volume, seem to indicate a lesser, or anyway more polarised, use of T). On the other hand, while trying to avoid the generalisations of past studies, the authors seem to fall into similar pits: they pigeonhole uses on the basis of their numerical force, and explain away “exceptions” rather vaguely. More recently, Bruti (2000) has investigated the dynamics of personal relationships in the “Falstaff plays” within a wider pragmatic perspective. She also laments the employment of a “pre-theoretical notion of markedness” in previous studies (29), and tries to develop an alternative account, also highlighting the connection between pronouns and their co-text, mainly nominal address. Her results however do not seem to progress much beyond her predecessors’. The use of Y as the “universal unmarked choice” seems very far from being “the rule” in Shakespeare’s plays (Kie£kiewicz-Janowiak 1994: 51). Some relationships and attitudes are regularly encoded through use of T, and alternations certainly

 Gabriella Mazzon

appear “marked” or deviant, but are far too frequent to be accounted for by any single factor. It is possible that the use of pronouns is not central to the performing of a specific speech act, but pronouns certainly contribute, at least on the same level as nominal address and perhaps even more powerfully, to the “face-dynamics” of several exchanges, as will be shown below. Another polarity drawn from pragmatics could be useful here: discernment vs. volition; the former is the observation of rules of social behaviour as they are enforced in a particular community at any particular time – the latter is a conscious choice of verbal forms with special communicative and/or pragmatic aims in mind (Watts 1989: 132–3). In what follows I will generally consider pronoun uses and switches as acts of volition, i.e. as conscious uses of verbal “tools”. Without aiming at formulating strong hypotheses on sixteenth and seventeenth century English on the basis of the results summarised below, it could be claimed that such uses must belong to an established code that was recognisable to an Elizabethan audience, and was probably shared to a certain extent, since they were found in theatrical works (the “mimetic” genre par excellence), and since address forms must have been charged with meaning for Shakespeare’s audience in the first place, perhaps much more than we can realise. The alleged “neutrality” of pronoun choice must be rejected, since it is highly improbable that any speech community could tolerate “casual” alternation of forms in such a delicate pragma-linguistic area as address, particularly a speech community in which social codes were undergoing revolutionary changes.7

. Analysis of the data: family relationships The most frequently depicted family relationship is husband ↔ wife (see Appendix, Table 1). Here we find a numerical predominance of Y, especially from wife to husband, as a sign of respect from a “subordinate” (on the family as a powersolidarity domain in which various degrees of positive and negative politeness can be shown, and on the reflexes of this on pronouns and nominal address, see Nevala, this volume). T is used to signal affection, or contempt and disillusion, as between Goneril and the tormented Duke of Albany: the husband switches five times (out of twelve pronouns directed to his wife), alternating between the coldness and distancing of horror and the intensity of hatred (an alternation which matches the range of nominal address he uses: dame vs. devil). In Othello, the husband ↔ wife relationship is central to the plot, and consequently pronoun usage is more complex, to mirror the range of feelings portrayed, and their evolution. Iago and Emilia mainly exchange Y, but the few switches to T are located at intensely dramatic points: when Emilia urges Iago to exculpate him-

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English 

self, i.e. before realising his guilt, she uses T, stressing her support to her husband and showing her anxiety. Soon she will herself bear witness against Iago, and he will condense hatred, threat and fear in “Filth, thou liest!” (5.2.238).8 The main characters show an asymmetrical behaviour: Desdemona consistently uses Y, except when she pleads for Cassio using the form prithee (see note 8): this is a clear case in which the act of requesting is reinforced by the pronoun switch – in Brown and Gilman’s terms, higher politeness is shown through the stressing of Intimacy (i.e. [– distance]) conveyed by the use of familiar forms; see also the parallel change from formal my lord to sweet love. The intensity of the tormented and passionate feelings shown by Othello towards his spouse emerges much more frequently in pronoun uses and in nominal address. Othello uses T and Y a nearly equal number of times in addressing Desdemona, and his vocatives range from the polite my (good/sweet) lady to devil, strumpet, minion on the one side and to sweeting, honey, chuck, my soul’s joy on the other. This is not surprising, since the whole tragedy is centred on the ambivalence of jealous love, and yet it is interesting to follow the dramatic progression through the various changes in forms of address and the recurring pronoun switches, as was attempted elsewhere (Mazzon 1992: 131–2). The parent ↔ child relationship is usually more asymmetrical, since it involves the variables of power vs. solidarity (also depending on status, e.g. with royalty, as remarked by Stein, this volume), and of distance vs. intimacy, to a higher degree. Gender was also held to be an important variable, on the basis of the (often different) social positions occupied by men and women, and of modern evidence pointing to consistent reflexes of these differences in linguistic behaviour (Abbott 1925: 154; Mulholland 1967: 160). Our sample includes only one case of mother ↔ son interaction, that between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude. Gertrude’s addressing of Hamlet, with a predominance of T but with no less than six switches over twenty occurrences, closely mirrors the intensity of their exchanges and the mixture of affection and fear she expresses; Hamlet invariably uses formal Y with her, which also suggests his “keeping his distance” from her betrayal.9 Father ↔ son relationships in Hamlet (Laertes ↔ Polonius) and in King Lear (Edgar/Edmund ↔ Gloucester), show rather rare instances of direct address; the only substantial sample concerns interaction between Edmund and Gloucester, with predominance of Y;10 note however: “Find out this villain, Edmund; it shall lose thee nothing” (1.2.118), where Gloucester switches his pronouns in a request; he uses the same strategy in a promise to Edmund to trust him with his inheritance: “Loyal and natural boy, I’ll work the means to make thee capable” (2.1.84 –5). The father ↔ daughter relationship also presents interesting variation (see Table 2): daughters are bound to show high respect to fathers, while in most cases fathers’ uses are mixed, to convey the tenderness or condescension in the

 Gabriella Mazzon

relationship. Expected pronoun use should thus be Y from daughters; the most notable exceptions to this “rule” are in King Lear, where Cordelia, who represents truthfulness and sincerity, varies her use much more: at times she allows her tenderness to emerge through uses of T. Lear’s addressing of his daughters is of course of extreme interest, since these relationships are central to the play. As is to be expected, he switches his pronouns a great deal, but T predominates throughout. In the case of Cordelia there is a precise sequence, from T “of anger” at her disappointing behaviour to Y “of distance” to final T of high solidarity during their imprisonment; nominal address are mostly confined to use of the name, which in this case, following Brown and Gilman (1989: 175) can be considered “neutral”, i.e. interpretable as a case of use based on discernment, and is anyway never abusing; the relationship with Regan, also mostly addressed by name, presents several switches, as does that with the even more cruel Goneril, who is in turn addressed as my child (with maximum intimacy, in this case associated to the act of pleading), devil/degenerate bastard (with maximum negative effect); the pretended “coldness”, i.e. distancing, to protest against Goneril’s desertion is expressed by the very effective, extra-polite “Your name, fair gentlewoman?” (1.4.233). This utterance is a clear case (one of the many in our sample) of what Bruti (2000: 38–9) calls a “markedness reversal”, and it is significant precisely in virtue of its pragmatic incongruousness in terms of Relevance (Sperber and Wilson 1995): it is obviously impossible to interpret literally in its context, and a good part of its poignancy is due to the choice of pronoun and term of address, and to the inferences they trigger. The sample yields scarce material concerning other family relationships, yet these data are not uninteresting. Among siblings, there is a predominance of Y (31 occurrences vs. 8 T), but a gender-based difference seems to be revealed by the interaction between Ophelia and Laertes in Hamlet: Laertes is called good my brother11 but invariably addressed with Y, Ophelia is granted a number of terms of endearment and pronoun switches.12 The sister ↔ sister relationship between Lear’s daughters is not brought on the stage prominently, but it is mostly formal, with consistent use of Y; they use the term sister reciprocally for address, but in one case Regan calls Goneril lady (Goneril is the eldest, and is also in a position of greater power). The brother ↔ brother relationship between Edgar and Edmund in King Lear shows a predominance of Y and the use of direct nominal address such as, plainly, brother; T is used once as insulting, and in the final scenes of revelation and reconciliation. This kind of relationship is thus marked rather more for formality than for intimacy, probably also due to the fact that the characters involved are all adults, and of relatively high social status. Other family relationships are characterised by even higher distancing and less affective involvement, so the use of both pronouns and nominal address will tend towards more formal patterns, unless the situation or the relationship itself is

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English 

charged with particular emotional overtones. In Othello, Lodovico and Gratiano stand in this relationship with Desdemona; Lodovico is called good cousin but also, since he is a nobleman, Your honour, and only addressed with Y; he reciprocates, and calls Desdemona Your ladyship. Gratiano is never addressed by Desdemona, and he himself only addresses her once, using T and calling her poor Desdemon, but this is at the very end of the play, when Desdemona is already dead. This instance does not count, strictly, as a case of normal social interaction, but more closely resembles the kind of address in absentia referred to in note 12. The tormented relationship between Hamlet and Claudius is very difficult to assess in terms of distance or intimacy: it is atypical, and its very essence is constantly challenged by Hamlet. Both characters use both pronouns to address each other, although the value of these uses clearly varies; after initial, reciprocal use of Y and of kin terms such as cousin, uncle, my son, Hamlet’s feelings are revealed more clearly in an aside (see note 6), where he refers to Claudius using T. Claudius uses T (asymmetrically, since Hamlet employs Y) when he pretends sympathetic concern for Hamlet while plotting to send him away from the country. In the final scene, Claudius uses Y to establish formally the terms of the duel with Laertes, and then T again, when Hamlet seems to be winning the duel, again in a pretence of affection. Hamlet only reveals himself linguistically after he has stabbed the king and found the courage to address him as “thou incestuous, murderous, damnéd Dane” (5.2.317), as he had done before only in his fantasies. The last group of examples within the family domain concerns relationships between acquired relatives and in-laws, who can be said to occupy the far end of the distance scale in this domain. We would expect this type of relationship to be particularly formal, and this is indeed what happens, but with some notable exceptions. The real “deviant” behaviour occurs in Othello: Brabantio receives respectful Y from the Moor, who on the contrary is always addressed with T by him, both when Brabantio is outraged at Othello’s gaining of Desdemona’s affection, and when he forgives him, grants his daughter’s hand and takes leave of him. The use of T could be due, in these cases, to the emotional state prevailing in Brabantio, whose only daughter is “stolen” from him by a foreigner. We cannot be sure, however, that there is no hint at Othello’s “inferiority” in Brabantio’s behaviour,13 i.e. that these uses of T are rules by Volition, to emphasise a desire to overlook Othello’s social position. Gratiano and Lodovico also basically employ Y (and the respectful terms sir, my lord, etc.) till the last scene (5.2), where both older relatives address Othello with T (Gratiano in response to a threat, Lodovico in pity), but not consistently, since after the discovery of Iago’s treachery Othello is granted the respectful form again; Lodovico passes the final “sentence” on him (5.2.340 –1) in formal terms, with maximum discernment, i.e. adherence to the social code: “You must forsake this room and go with us. Your power and your command is taken off ”.

 Gabriella Mazzon

. Analysis of the data: “official” relationships The term “official relationships” is used here as a cover term, in contrast with “family relationships”, but actually includes several sub-categories. First of all we can distinguish between “peer” and “superordinate ↔ subordinate” relationships; within the former, different patterns can be traced according to the interlocutors’ social class and degree of intimacy, while within the latter, age and gender differences also play a role (gender-based differences in politeness are analysed by Walker, this volume). A category apart was set for the servant ↔ master relationship, and a “courting” relationship was also isolated in order to account for some exchanges where ordinary social roles seem to be partly overridden. On the contrary, the possibility of isolating a category of “friendly relationships” was excluded, since all the relationships of this type that were found in the sample are strongly influenced by the distance variable, as in the case of Hamlet ↔ Horatio; the existence of friendship can thus be considered as implying [– distance], and the relevant cases will be discussed within the major categories established.

. Superordinate ↔ subordinate relationship An analysis of this domain shows why Y is indicated by most scholars as the “normal” or unmarked alternative;14 this pronoun is used in the majority of exchanges within such relationships. On the other hand, most exceptions can be adequately motivated, and do not appear at all casual or neutral. The addressing of a subordinate, in male ↔ male dialogue (see Table 3), seems to depend strictly on status, although affective elements are also important. For example, Othello normally addresses Cassio with Y, and the humbler (but also emotionally closer) Iago with T; in fact, the 37 occurrences of T in Othello’s addressing of Iago are responsible for the near-equality of T/Y figures in this category, so that this relationship appears to be deviant. On the other hand, Iago is addressed once with Y and with the rank title ancient (as opposed to Iago, good Iago etc.) within an official, formal context. In this case, power and distance are both marked, and the pronoun functions as a purely sociolinguistic indicator of formality. Cassio, by converse, “deserves” Y for his higher status, but receives T when “fired”: “Cassio, I love thee, But nevermore be officer of mine. Look if my gentle love be not raised up. I’ll make thee an example” (2.3.242–5); note that the first occurrence of the pronoun, more than showing anger, could concur to a redress strategy, to soften the harshness of the punishment; in the last line, on the other hand, T is employed in a direct threat. The few other uses of T that occur are determined by “affective” factors, as when Iago is accused and insulted for his treachery. Cassio employs the form

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English 

prithee twice in addressing Iago: this choice could be a codified way of softening requests (see note 8). The negotiation of Intimacy and the “angry” T are used by Brabantio both with Iago and with Roderigo: the latter is the object of contempt until the revelation of Desdemona’s “elopement” grants him higher favour and respect, in this case conveyed by a switch to Y. In Hamlet, the addressing of subordinates is performed mainly through Y, and the exceptions are mostly related to “affective” factors. Thus, Laertes’ T to a priest is meant to be insulting, as are the switches in Hamlet’s addressing of Laertes himself. Hamlet also uses T in the affectionate greeting addressed to Guildenstern (2.2.225), followed by consistent use of Y: despite their different social standing, the two characters entertain a friendly relationship, which reduces social distance, as in the case of Hamlet ↔ Horatio. Hamlet’s addressing of Horatio is extremely interesting, since it shows that Horatio is for the Prince, in turn, a loyal subordinate, a friend, and an accomplice. Here, uses of T prevail over those of Y (15 to 7), but there are eight switches, which mark this fluctuation of roles. Here again, the formality of a situation can trigger a switch to Y and to the address term sir, while intimacy is stressed by use of T and terms like fellow-student. Other “deviant” uses can be explained pragmatically: Claudius normally uses T to address Polonius, but see the request for advice about sending Hamlet to England: “What think you on’t?” (3.1.178); here Claudius, seeking advice, is in a way stepping down from his higher position, although metrical reasons for this particular switch cannot be excluded. In addressing Laertes, the king switches from Y (used predominantly) to T on several occasions, to offer solidarity for the younger man’s mourning and his desire of revenge, but also to try and soothe Laertes, to proffer friendship and avoid suspicions of any responsibility in Polonius’ death and Ophelia’s madness: “Laertes: O thou vile king! Give me my father. Claudius: Calmly, good Laertes. [...] What is the cause, Leartes, that thy rebellion looks so giant-like?” (4.5.114–20). In King Lear, superordinate ↔ subordinate exchanges are richer in occurrences of T and in switches, given the wide social gap between some of the characters (increased by the disguise of some high-status characters under lowly appearance). Edgar as “poor Tom”, for example, is addressed with T (but see Section 5 for some exceptions determined by other factors). When Lear is mad, he changes most of his rules of address, e.g. he employs Y with Gloucester, who is normally treated with the same familiarity that Claudius employs with Polonius (on the pragma-linguistic implication of madness see also below and note 12). Gentlemen are always addressed with Y, even if they are inferiors, while Edmund’s address of a Captain as T shows that social subordination can still be marked by pronoun choice. As regards phatic and conative utterances, which often trigger

 Gabriella Mazzon

ceremonial or “well-disposing” use of T, an exception is Edmund’s Pray you to Curan (2.1.9): elsewhere the form pray thee/prithee is preserved even when the relationship is dominated by Y (confirming the redressing politeness value of this form), so this case can be considered “eccentric”. As regards address from a male subordinate to a male superordinate (Table 4), use of Y is much more generalised and consistent. In Othello, the only two uses of T in this group are from Iago to Othello and to Cassio in asides, where the rules of face-to-face interaction do not hold. In Hamlet, anger is the reason for the few switches of this type, except when another kind of suspension of politeness occurs, i.e. when the addressee is dead (Horatio’s only T to Hamlet is of this type). King Lear is again different under this respect. There are cases of absence of the addressee (real or metaphorical) from the scene, as when Lear is addressed in his sleep, or when considered mad,15 or when low-class characters reciprocate the T they receive, a T that is used also, as we will see, by the Fool. Gloucester also receives T from “poor Tom”, to signal pity and solidarity. As for superordinate ↔ subordinate relationships where characters of different sex are involved (Table 5), Y predominates, but again with some exceptions. Pronoun alternation is found mainly where there is a sentimental or courting dimension, however vague, added to the relationship: this is the case of Hamlet ↔ Ophelia and of Cassio ↔ Desdemona (see below 5.3.). All other cases of male ↔ female relationship of this type are dominated by use of Y and of formal nominal address, especially when the woman is in subordinate position or where distance is not wide. The only instance of female ↔ female relationship of this kind is that between Gertrude and Ophelia, which is also dominated by Y except when Ophelia is dead and therefore “socially absent”.

..

Servant ↔ master relationships

The category of servants was kept separate for counting purposes, and other characters clearly possessing low social status were included here: clowns, players, fools, stewards etc. Notice that these uses are often represented by very few occurrences (Table 6), despite this assimilation of social roles. The slight differences in the social standing of the characters involved seem, however, to be mirrored closely by pronoun use, which also shows a tendency to gender-based differences. The Clown in Othello is addressed with Y by Desdemona, but with T by Cassio, and Hamlet’s behaviour towards the Players is also asymmetric: the female Player is addressed with Y, the male Player mostly with T, although Hamlet switches to Y when he poses requests to his interlocutor; in these cases the act of request is accompanied by politeness, shown by the use of respectful forms. Emilia can also be classified as a servant, at least for Desdemona: she addresses her mistress with Y (except once, when she is dead), and Desdemona, in turn, addresses Emilia with T, as she does with Iago.16 Emilia’s relationship with Othello is more

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English 

ambiguous, since she is the most vocal accuser of Desdemona’s murderer: from 5.2.137 onwards she abandons her previous respectful tones (with Y and my good lord) and switches to T and O... dull Moor!, O murderous coxcomb! with all the power of her grief. In the same scene, Othello tries to avoid the confrontation and then to defend himself, and so also switches from “ordinary” Y to T, and from confidential Emilia to defiant woman. Other low subordinates are granted Y by their masters: not only Reynaldo in Hamlet and Oswald in King Lear (who both enjoy the relatively higher status of household stewards), but also, in the latter play, the Fool and other Servants,17 often called sir. The relationship between Lear and his Fool is dominated by use of T, with one exception in the Fool’s speech and two in Lear’s in mock-serious tone, with the address term sirrah.18 Here “normal” rules of address are overridden; it is normal for Lear to “thou” his Fool (and call him knave/boy/lad), but the fact that the Fool is at liberty to “thou” Lear and invariably address him as nuncle shows how deviant this character is. A Fool is not expected to behave “seriously” or responsibly or to “keep his place” in society; he is allowed to say things others cannot say, because he is by definition outside the normal conventions that rule social life.

. Peer relationships In the present study, such characters are considered “peers” whose social standing, title or function can be put on the same or a very similar footing. In this category, a not irrelevant role is played by the existence or non-existence of a friendly relationship, since its existence reduces distance. Significant differences also emerged when the category was broken up into sub-categories according to social level, “high” (noblemen/-women), “middle” (mainly represented by military officers here) or “low” (clowns, fools, servants etc.) (see Table 7). In certain cases, some factors could increase the social distance between the characters, e.g. a difference in age, but other factors were found to obliterate these asymmetries. Notice that here, again, the sample is made up of very few occurrences. “High” peers often interact with Y in Hamlet (Rosencrantz ↔ Guildenstern) and Othello (Lodovico ↔ Gratiano). Exchanges of this kind in King Lear, though, offer very different results, beside being more numerous. Gloucester, for instance, is addressed with a T of abuse and disrespect on several occasions by Albany and Cornwall, and even by Regan, who should be doubly distanced from him, by age and by sex. Other “high” characters address each other with Y most of the time, and the switches found often coincide with moments of emotional stress. In some cases, on the other hand, T is used as a marker of emphatic and “high” style: on being banished, Kent utters this parting speech:

 Gabriella Mazzon

(1) Fare thee well, King. Sith thus thou wilt appear, Freedom lives hence and banishment is here. The gods to their dear shelters take thee, maid, that justly thinks and hast most rightly said! ... Thus Kent, O Princes, bids you all adieu. He’ll shape his old course in a country new. (1.1.183 –90). Here, the use of T both to Lear and to Cordelia has clearly more rhetorical and stylistic than affective value. A younger character, but an important one, such as Edmund, is addressed with Y in formal contexts, but with T “of solidarity” when praised or when encouraged to take action by Cornwall, by Regan (when she is just being polite she uses Y), by Goneril (there is also a “courting” dimension here, see below 5.3), while he receives T from Albany when arrested. The “Middle” level of peer interaction is represented, in Hamlet, by military officers who occupy different hierarchical ranks but also stand in various degrees of intimacy and friendly relationship to each other; this probably explains the differences in pronoun use that were found: Horatio exchanges T with Marcellus but is given Y by Bernardo, who is in turn addressed with T by Marcellus. Francisco, who is a soldier, not an officer, mostly uses and receives Y (lack of intimacy and strictness of role relationship vs. comradeship), except by Bernardo at 1.1.10, when the speaker probably wants to show solicitude. Nominal address reproduce these differences, since the officers call each other by name, while Marcellus calls Francisco honest soldier. In Othello, we note the asymmetry between Emilia and Bianca (who gives Y but receives T), representing the social stigma on the position of “courtesan”, expressed (also through offensive nominal address) by another woman. Roderigo is “a Gentleman”, but he often finds himself interacting on a par with Cassio (with whom he fights) and with Iago (with whom he conspires). The latter relationship is particularly interesting (and it is responsible for the relatively high number of T and of switches in this category), since there is a lot of “face work” going on between the two characters. Roderigo addresses Iago both with Y and T an equal number of times (namely seven), and switches only three times; his uses of T signal familiarity or anger. As always, Iago is far subtler in his language use: he addresses Roderigo 13 times with T and 18 times with Y, and performs no less than fifteen switches. Initially, the relationship is asymmetric and mirrors the difference in social status: Iago gives Y and receives T. When the conspiracy brings about a reduction in social distance, the relationship changes, and so do the relevant modes of address. Iago switches to T to convey solidarity, to flatter, to insinuate or to persuade, as well as to highlight their complicity, in phatic/greeting formulae and to “scold”, but to Y when giving directions or otherwise trying to establish his authority. In some cases, this triggers Roderigo’s switch to the respectful form.

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English 

Nominal address also reflects the relationship: Roderigo calls Iago by name and, finally, O damned Iago! O inhuman dog! (5.1.63) when he realises the treachery. Iago’s vocatives range from Christian name to sir to noble heart, to my sick fool Roderigo (2.3.48, in absentia) and thou silly gentleman, to finish with O murderous slave! O villain! at 5.1.62, which will elicit an equally heated response in the next line, as mentioned above. Among “Low” peers we find, as expected, a more extended (though not exclusive) use of T, which is further proof of the fact that that pronoun use was still felt, at that moment, to be a social marker, beside being a pragmatic one. In the dialogue between two Clowns in Hamlet (5.1.1–60) there seems to be a tendency to use T for agreement, Y (which in this case implies for marked distancing) for contradiction of the interlocutor’s previous statement. In King Lear, servants address each other with T,19 while Oswald, as a house steward, is entitled to give T and receive Y by “poor Tom” and by “Caius”. The latter exchanges, though, reveal alternation between different types of address forms in quarrelling; Caius uses Y when duelling or when disputing with Oswald in Lear’s presence, but chooses rather strong nominal address, not only the common rogue/rascal/slave but also you base football player (1.4.85) and the striking, often-quoted Thou whoreson zed! Thou unnecessary letter! (2.2.65). This is consistent with the fact that Caius is in fact Kent, i.e. he really belongs to the upper social level, and his “native” social code probably tends to override his disguise when he is angry or upset: this emotionally determined shift to native varieties or modes of expression is a phenomenon that has often been observed in sociolinguistics (see e.g. Ervin-Tripp 1986 on style shifting; for a study involving different languages see Borg 1980).

. A special case: the language of courting The plays included in our sample do not present many cases of “love language” apart from those considered under the husband ↔ wife relationship. We expect this type of language to present a balance between “courteousness” and intimacy; it was found that formality tends to prevail in the sample, also given the high social status of the characters involved (Table 8). Cassio and Bianca always address each other with Y: he calls her my most fair Bianca and sweet love but also woman, when he gets impatient; she calls him my sweet/dear Cassio. The same type of formality can be found in King Lear: France and Burgundy address Cordelia with Y, but the former employs T when actually proposing, and calls her (my) fair Cordelia. Edmund only addresses Goneril once and employs Y, but she switches thrice, employing T for the first time at 4.2.23, just after they have kissed,20 and again later to express solidarity and intimacy. The relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia is complicated by the wide distance between them; they mostly use Y, but Hamlet switches frequently his pronouns

 Gabriella Mazzon

and also employs T on four occasions: the first two switches are purely stylistic, since they occur in poems, the third marks a moment of anger and the fourth occurs when Hamlet is giving advice. She dutifully calls him my lord, he calls her lady or, poetically, nymph.

. Further comments on forms of address Several occurrences seem to indicate that pronoun choices primarily mark social attitudes; in the following exchange in King Lear, the pronoun switch is significant: (2) Gloucester: Methinks thy voice is altered, and thou speak’st in better phrase and matter than thou didst. Edgar (disguised, but no longer as the “rustic” Tom): You’re much deceived. In nothing am I changed but in my garments. Gloucester: Methinks you’re better spoken. (4.6.7–10) This is an example of sociolinguistic adjustment: Gloucester decides to switch to Y after observing a series of characteristics which are basic for our assessment of interlocutors (voice, syntax, vocabulary and appearance). He cannot see, but can probably feel, the change of “garments” mentioned by Edgar: it is well known that outward appearance, including clothing, is a basic parameter for our sociolinguistic behaviour (see Barber 1981: 178). In the light of these and other examples, it is difficult to agree with Mulholland (1967: 160), who, also quoting from a King Lear sample, gives T as the unmarked choice when the speaker is in doubt with regard to the social status of the addressee. This statement is hardly plausible in the first place, given that such use would have been negatively marked for politeness: use of Y to strangers, not only belonging to the higher classes, was now probably sufficiently widespread to make the use of T in this context felt as uncalled-for familiarity. Mulholland overlooks the fact that the characters appearing as strangers because disguised always have some mark of low status around them, which allows use of T. The exchange quoted above confirms this: when Gloucester is in doubt about the interlocutor’s status, which seems to have got higher since their last exchange, he immediately switches to Y. It is very difficult to interpret this kind of data without recourse to some notion of politeness, although the “affective” element can overcome such purely social rules in other contexts (on the overriding of institutionalised factors by contextual factors see also Burnley, this volume; the sociolinguistic relevance of this particular example in King Lear is also remarked on by Stein, this volume).

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English 

The notion of politeness and the social implications of pronoun use are brought to the foreground particularly by the cases we can consider “deviant”. We have already mentioned the addressing of characters who can be considered “socially absent” and therefore do not require to be treated according to normal face rules; apart from actual absence from the scene and the “aside” convention, this applies to cases in which the addressee is asleep, dead or otherwise not socially functioning, e.g. mad (as Lear): in all these cases, T is invariably used. T is also the pronoun used in self-address, which is to be expected since this reflects the maximum degree of possible “intimacy”. Furthermore, T is used by Hamlet and Horatio to address the Ghost: in normal circumstances, i.e. if he were alive, Hamlet’s father would be addressed with Y, but his spirit is not,21 since he is perceived as an alien entity (Barber 1981: 168; Brown and Gilman 1989: 179). Most abstract and non-human entities addressed, i.e. invoked, cursed etc., also receive T; this use ranges from the well-known “Frailty, thy name is woman!” (Hamlet 1.2.146) to “thou strumpet Fortune” (Hamlet, 2.2.488), to “O thou side-piercing sight!” (King Lear 4.6.85). Such exclamatory utterances could be said to be inherently “marked” or necessarily declamatory in character,22 but they still show a personification of the entities referred to, which are addressed according to the “emotional” mode, i.e. with T. Nominal address also appears extremely sensitive to social interaction parameters, mirroring the changes in the relations themselves and the speakers’ attitudes conveyed through the speech acts they perform. Caution is necessary in assessing such evidence, since literary texts do not consistently reflect the community’s linguistic behaviour in any reliable way;23 also, the changes undergone by the English language in the time span that separates us from Shakespeare’s works must be taken into account. To limit ourselves to well-known examples, the address good + Name/Title has now disappeared, and its social value at Shakespeare’s time is difficult to assess (not to speak of the various noble, fair, worthy etc., all instances of “adorned” names/titles in Brown and Gilman’s 1989: 175 terminology); sir, then a generic term, seems to have a wider distribution than it has nowadays; lad was used only when addressing adults; mistress was an acceptable and indeed deferential form, and masters seems to vary rather freely with gentlemen. A systematic correlation between terms and pronouns of address has not really been attempted except by Barber (1981: 175), who notes that deferential and kin terms trigger use of Y, while with terms like fellow, and with deprecatives, T occurs more frequently. Detailed analysis of relationships between characters has revealed some such correlations, confirming e.g. that T is common with insulting nominal address, and that sir tends to trigger use of Y regardless of the relationship between the interlocutors and of the tone of the exchange. Brown and Gilman (1989: 175) maintain that the use of Christian names was neutral with regard to deference, while Salmon (1975) claims that this use denoted

 Gabriella Mazzon

higher intimacy than it does now, while observing that the husband ↔ wife relationship normally does not show this use. This is not what was found in the present study; the use of the unadorned Christian name seems possible from superordinate to subordinate, between spouses and other relatives, as well as between peers. The same use in addressing a superior, however, is negatively marked for politeness and usually collocates with T (e.g., Kent addresses Lear by name and with T in anger). A high number of “adorned” names and titles was found; of course, these score higher for politeness (noble lord is more polite than lord etc.), and we could agree with Replogle (1973) that this frequent addressing by title is a typical feature of Elizabethan English. The state of flux of Elizabethan society creates the need for continual reassurance about reciprocal standing, and thus encourages the use of multiple, varied and rather specific nominal address, including kin terms (whose use does not, however, necessarily signal intimacy, since they often collocate with Y, not T) and “occupational” terms: lieutenant, ancient, soldier, priest, trumpet, herald etc. For “high” characters, sir and my lord (with their adorned variants) are by far the most common nominal address in “unmarked” exchanges, while for female characters madam is more common than lady. “Middle” characters receive sir or mistress, or are called by name or surname (e.g. Cassio is called Michael only by Othello, while Desdemona and even his lover Bianca call him by surname, even when they use T). “Low” characters receive fellow, friend, sirrah or abusive terms from superiors, while sir is used only for “higher level” servants such as Reynaldo or Oswald, which correlates with their being more frequently addressed with Y in comparison with other low-class characters. The system of nominal address responds to very subtle socio-pragmatic considerations, and is used as an indicator of relationships and of affective factors, in the same way as the sub-system of second-person pronouns is used. A more systematic analysis of the correlation between pronouns and nominal address in the Shakespearean corpus is carried out by Busse (this volume).

.

Conclusions

I hope to have shown that the application of some more recent notions and categories of pragmatics and sociolinguistics can help us describe the relationships portrayed. For instance, the application, however loose, of the notion of “face” to pronoun use, and the findings relative to the rhetorical and conversational significance of pronoun switches, confirm the fact that pronoun use and switching are not only connected with the conveying of “mood”, but are also related to politeness phenomena. They cannot thus be treated only in terms of anger/affection vs. coldness/neutrality, but must be seen as exquisitely social devices, closely reflecting the degree of distance vs. intimacy and the power vs. solidarity conveyed by any exchange.

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English 

Moreover, we must take into account the variability allowed by the possibility of “strategic” switching, which often seems to mark features of the relationship on the whole and of the particular interactional event at hand at the same time, including discourse turnpoints and specific speech acts. In this case, the notions of relevance to context (especially for non-literal interpretation) and the discernment – volition polarity have also proved useful. The present paper has tried to integrate some of the more recent approaches, starting from the viewpoint that any form of address, and their switching in particular, is significant, and adds to the audience’s understanding and socio-pragmatic placement of the situation, of the individual characters and of the relation between them. The systematic analysis of such occurrences has taken into account both social and pragmatic factors, and this has made it possible to identify certain consistent trends, trying to avoid both the fragmentation of evidence and the overgeneralisations of some previous studies. A full reconstruction of a system of social relationships through verbal forms of address is certainly impossible, but studies on address, especially in non-literary texts, can certainly provide useful insight into the perception of social relationships.

Notes . The same sample was used in a previous, more limited, study (Mazzon 1992). For the editions of the texts used, see References. No critical editions were employed, since a detailed comparison of all text variants did not seem necessary at this stage; the editions used report several variants between the Quartos and the 1623 Folio, which however are mostly irrelevant for the topic at hand. . An “occurrence” is, for our purposes, each utterance in which one character addresses another using a pronoun or other related item; therefore, if there is a switch from Y to T and vice versa, this is of course counted as a separate “occurrence”, but one “occurrence” can contain several forms of address of the same type within the same stretch of discourse, since the actual number of forms is not relevant in this context. . Note that these constraints do not stand confirmed by more recent studies; see Kie£kewicz-Janowiak (1994: 52). . Notice however that their categorisation differs from the very accurate one presented by Salmon (1975: 50-8), particularly as regards Christian names and “unadorned titles”. See also below, Section 5. . One could, of course, find counterexamples: family members of royalty or of the Pope have to adjust their uses to the officiality of the situation, as secret lovers do. In these cases, however, the reason for the switch lies in the context of situation and not in the relationship itself, which is assumed to proceed unaltered “below the surface”. . The case of pronoun switches in asides could be accommodated in the model as “off record” Face-Threatening Acts (one of the macro-strategies of politeness). In these cases,

 Gabriella Mazzon

the interlocutor is conventionally considered absent from the scene; the same holds, as we will see, for other cases of real or “social” absence of the addressee (see below). . There arises here, of course, the problem of the extent to which stage language is a reliable mirror of everyday language and of its sociolinguistic rules. Formulaic and stereotyped usage certainly formed a large part of stage language, but an assessment of the inevitable gap goes beyond the scope of this paper. . It is debatable whether Iago’s use of prithee in another part of the fifth act can be counted as a switch; for the status of this form see Brown and Gilman (1989: 183), Mulholland (1967: 156), Barber (1981: 164). See also below, Section 4.1. On the whole, there seems to be more to say in favour of considering the pray you / prithee variation as significant, with prithee counting as an occurrence of T. . The difference between the two characters is also reflected by the contrast between the abundance of terms of endearment used by Gertrude, and the variation of Hamlet’s forms of address, from cold lady to familiar mother to outraged O most pernicious woman. . Note that this agrees with Brown and Gilman’s remarks (1989: 177) though not with Abbott’s (1925: 154), where this type of exchange is considered asymmetric, with sons using “respectful” Y and receiving T. . Salmon (1975: 49) notes that the use of kinship terms as vocatives was far more frequent in Elizabethan English than it is now, a fact that is relevant for the analysis of this section of the evidence. . Some of these, however, qualify as cases of the “social absence” associated with particular states such as absence from the stage, madness or death of the addressee. See also below notes 15 and 21. See also Mazzon (forthcoming) for a more extensive treatment of all these cases. . The attitudes of racial discrimination portrayed in Othello are rather subtle: Othello is respected for his valour, but still treated as an alien, suspected of sorcery and still connected to his exotic roots. He is granted the titles of lord, your lordship, general, but when attacked he becomes a Moor again. . Abbott (1925: 157) says that T given to strangers not plainly inferior was taken as an insult. Brown and Gilman (1989: 177) insist on the asymmetry in pronoun use between characters of widely different social status. . It is not always true, as Mulholland (1967: 160) maintains, that Lear is not addressed differently from the usual when mad. Brown and Gilman (1989: 185–7) rightly point out that “face” needs are no longer considered when S is mad and, we should add, the more so when H is mad, i.e. when the addressee loses his/her social standing. . It must be noted that Desdemona’s choices of pronouns seem dictated by “affectionate” or “benevolent” attitudes, never by “snobbery” (she employs Y with the Clown). . Regan’s behaviour represents a partial exception to this: she employs T with the Servant, in a context of emotional upheaval, and twice (out of seven times) to Oswald, when greeting him and when trying to coax him into revealing useful information; note that this deviant behaviour emerges again when a gender difference is involved.

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English  . There is some disagreement as to whether this term had already acquired negative overtones, at least in addressing adults (see e.g. Salmon 1975: 60). . “Caius” and the Fool also mostly exchange T, with some exceptions that could be attributed to metrical problems. . It is now a well-established convention, e.g. in films, to use such switches in address forms after a kiss, to signal a turnpoint in a relationship; see Eagleson (1971), Stein (this volume). The significance of the distance dimension for the choice of address forms in courting relationships is stressed by Ervin-Tripp (1972: 237). . Cf. the use of T to address “a dead body and ... a disembodied spirit” registered by Barber (1981: 168) in Richard III. Pronoun use of the T type to super- and non-human addressee is documented, for Russian, by Friedrich (1972: 284). . The connection between “higher” style and the use of T is highlighted by Abbot (1925: 154). . Notwithstanding the contrary opinions reported by Salmon (1975: 37).

Appendix Table 1. Domain: family; relationship: husband – wife Play

Speaker

Addressee

Hamlet

Claudius Gertrude King Player Queen Player Regan Cornwall Goneril Albany Iago Emilia Othello Desdemona Husband

King Lear

Othello

Totals

T

Y

Switches

Gertrude Claudius Queen Player King Player Cornwall Regan Albany Goneril Emilia Iago Desdemona Othello

— — 2 1 — 1 2 4 2 1 27 2

5 2 1 1 1 2 4 8 11 11 24 32

— — 2 1 — 1 1 5 3 2 13 2

Wife

33

46

24

2 2 29

6 5 35

2 6 16

9

56

6

1 5 3

3 10 43

1 1 4

Hamlet King Lear Othello Wife Hamlet King Lear Othello

Husband

 Gabriella Mazzon

Table 2. Domain: family; relationship: father – daughter Play

Speaker

Addressee

Hamlet

Ophelia Polonius Goneril Lear Regan Lear Cordelia Lear Desdemona Brabantio

Polonius Ophelia Lear Goneril Lear Regan Lear Cordelia Brabantio Desdemona

Daughter

Father

King Lear

Othello

Totals

Hamlet King Lear Othello Father

Daughter

Hamlet King Lear Othello

T

Y

Switches

— 3 — 8 — 6 4 8 — 1

2 10 8 4 12 4 8 6 1 1

— 4 — 3 — 5 5 5 — 1

4

31

5

4

2 28 1

5

26

25

18

3 22 1

10 14 1

4 13 1

Table 3. Domain: official; relationship: superordinate to subordinate, male – male Play

T

Y

Switches

Othello Hamlet King Lear

45 28 59

52 81 42

11 19 24

Table 4. Domain: official; relationship: subordinate to superordinate, male – male Play

T

Y

Switches

Othello Hamlet King Lear

2 6 17

105 88 49

3 5 7

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English 

Table 5. Domain: official; relationship: subordinate – superordinate, ±sex difference Play

Speaker

Addressee

Male – SUP

Fem - SUB

Othello Hamlet King Lear Female – SUP

Y

Switches

— 4 —

3 17 —

— 5 —

8 — 1

9 2 1

4 — —

2 — —

8 1 6

3 — —

— — —

3 11 —

— — —

— 1

3 1

— 1

Male - SUB

Othello Hamlet King Lear Male – SUB

Fem - SUP

Othello Hamlet King Lear Fem – SUB

Male - SUP

Othello Hamlet King Lear Hamlet (F - F)

T

Ophelia Gertrude

Gertrude Ophelia

Table 6. Relationship: servant – master Play Othello

Hamlet

Speaker

Addressee T Desdemona Emilia Desdemona Clown Othello Emilia Cassio Clown Hamlet Player 1 (M) Hamlet Polonius

Y

Switches

Emilia Desdemona Clown Desdemona Emilia Othello Clown Cassio Player 1 (M) Hamlet Player 2 (F) Reynaldo

12 1 — — 5 7 2 — 6 — — —

1 10 2 1 7 4 — 1 3 1 1 10

2 1 — — 4 1 — — 3 — — — (continued)

 Gabriella Mazzon

Table 6. Relationship: servant – master (continued) Play

Speaker

Addressee T Hamlet Clown Servant Sailor Horatio Lear Oswald Lear Fool Regan Oswald Regan Servant Goneril Oswald Goneril Fool Gloucester Oswald Cornwall Servant Cornwall

King Lear

Y

Switches

Clown Hamlet Horatio Horatio Sailor Oswald Lear Fool Lear Oswald Regan Servant Regan Oswald Goneril Fool Goneril Oswald Gloucester Servant Cornwall Oswald

3 — — — 2 — — 9 25 2 — 1 — — — — — — — — — —

— 6 1 2 — 4 2 2 1 5 1 — 1 6 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2

Table 7. Domain: official; relationship: equals (± distance, ± sex, ± friendship) Play

Social level

T

Y

Switches

— — 33

1 2 55

— — 19

30 4 —

25 7 —

19 1 —

— 5 26

1 3 12

— 2 7

High Othello Hamlet King Lear Middle Othello Hamlet King Lear Low Othello Hamlet King Lear

— — — — — — — 2 2 3 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English 

Table 8. Relationship: courting (± distance) Play

Speaker Addressee

Othello Hamlet King Lear

Totals

T

Y

Switches

Cassio Bianca Hamlet Ophelia France Burgundy Goneril Edmund

Bianca Cassio Ophelia Hamlet Cordelia Cordelia Edmund Goneril

— — 4 — 1 — 3 —

5 7 16 9 1 1 2 1

— — 5 — 1 — 3 —

Man Woman

Woman Man

5 3 8

24 18 42

6 3 9

Sum

References Primary sources Shakespeare, William. Hamlet 1947 Edited by George Rylands. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ––––––. King Lear 1988 Edited by David Bevington. New York: Bantam. ––––––. Othello 1988 Edited by David Bevington. New York: Bantam.

Secondary sources Abbot, Edwin A. 1925 A Shakespearean Grammar. London: Macmillan. Barber, Charles 1981 You and thou in Shakespeare’s Richard III. Reprinted in Salmon and Burness 1987, 163 –79. Borg, Alexander 1980 Language and socialization in developing Malta. Work in Progress 13, 60–71. Brown, Robert, and Albert Gilman 1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language. Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 253–76. –––––– 1989 Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society 18, 159 –212.

 Gabriella Mazzon

Bruti, Silvia 2000 Address pronouns in Shakespeare’s English: A reappraisal in terms of markedness. In: Dieter Kastovsky and Arthur Mettinger (eds). The History of English in a Social Context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 25 – 51. Eagleson, Robert D. 1971 Propertied as all the tuned spheres: Aspects of Shakespeare’s language. Reprinted in Salmon and Burness 1987, 133–44. Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 1972 Sociolinguistic rules of address. In: John Bernard Pride and Janet Holmes (eds). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 225– 40. –––––– 1986 On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence. In: Gumperz and Hymes 1986, 213 –50. Friedrich, Paul 1972 Social context and semantic feature: The Russian pronominal usage. Reprinted in Gumperz and Hymes 1986, 270–300. Gumperz, John J., and Dell Hymes (eds) 1986 Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Hope, Jonathan 1994 The use of ‘thou’ and ‘you’ in Early Modern spoken English: Evidence from depositions in the Durham ecclesiastical court records. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.). Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 141–52. Ide, Sachiko 1989 Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8(2/3), 223–48. Kie£kewicz-Janowiak, Agnieszka 1994 Sociolinguistics and the computer: Pronominal address in Shakespeare. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 29, 49–56. Kopytko, Roman 1993 Polite Discourse in Shakespeare’s English. Poznañ: Adam Mickiewicz University Press. Lass, Roger 1987 The Shape of English. London: Dent. Lutz, Angelika 1998 The interplay of external and internal factors in morphological restructuring: The case of ‘you’. In: Jacek Fisiak and Marcin Krygier (eds). Advances in English Historical Linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 189–210. Matsumoto, Yoshiko 1989 Politeness and conversational universals: Observations from Japanese. Multilingua 8(2/3), 207–22. Mausch, Hanna 1993 Democratic you and paradigm. Studia Anglica Posnanensia 25–27, 143–53.

Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English 

Mazzon, Gabriella 1992 Shakespearean thou and you revisited, or socio-affective networks on stage. In: Carmela Nocera Avila, Nicola Pantaleo and Domenico Pezzini (eds). Early Modern English: Trends, Forms and Texts. Bari: Schena, 121–36. –––––– Forthcoming Riflessi della pazzia come assenza sociale. McIntosh, Angus 1963 As You Like It: A grammatical clue to character. Review of English Literature 4, 68–81. Mulholland, Joan 1967 Thou/you in Shakespeare. Reprinted in Salmon and Burness 1987, 153–61. O’Donnell, William Robert, and Loreto Todd 1980 [1991] Variety in Contemporary English. London: Routledge. Quirk, Randolph 1971 Shakespeare and the English language. Reprinted in Salmon and Burness 1987, 3–21. Replogle, Carol 1973 Shakespeare’s salutations: A study in stylistic etiquette. Reprinted in Salmon and Burness 1987, 101–15. Salmon, Vivian 1975 Elizabethan colloquial English in the Falstaff Plays. Reprinted in Salmon and Burness 1987, 37–70. Salmon, Vivian, and Edwina Burness (eds) 1987 Reader in the Language of Shakespearian Drama (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson 1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Second edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Strang, Barbara Mary Hope 1970 A History of English. London: Methuen. Trudgill, Peter, and J.K. Chambers (eds) 1991 Dialects of English. Studies in Grammatical Variation. London: Longman. Watts, Richard J. 1989 Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 8(2/3), 131–66. Wright, Joseph 1905 The English Dialect Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare Between sociolinguistics and conversational analysis Dieter Stein Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf

.

Introduction (1) Decline your head: this kiss, if it durst speak, Would stretch thy spirits up into the air. Conceive, and fare thee well. (KL, IV, ii, 22–4)1

The kiss given to Edmund by Goneril in Shakespeare’s tragedy King Lear constitutes a directly contextual event which explicitly expresses emotional emphasis. If we look at the pronouns of address,2 it can be seen that Goneril exchanges your for thy after the kiss. The affective event and the singular form of pronominal address are introduced at the same time. The possibility of highlighting and intensifying the contents of the message by means of intentional pronoun selection was indeed open to Shakespeare, due to the dual function of the singular pronouns of address at that period of time. The opposition of thou and you expresses not only a referential interpretation of a singular form of address, but also, by means of these pronouns, there are additional social connotations. Goneril’s transition to thy thus functions as a linguistic marker of seriousness of her expression of emotion.3 Changes in pronouns of address like this one occur in all of Shakespeare’s plays. In fact, thou and you can alternate with a frequency that is absolutely unthinkable for modern European languages having two competing pronouns of address (cf. Jespersen 1911: 44; McIntosh 1963: 68). The forms of singular pronominal address in Elizabethan English and in Shakespeare in particular are a rich reservoir for systematic discourse analysis that has been left largely untapped even in critical editions of the Shakespeare plays. They are subtle linguistic indicators of social

 Dieter Stein

relations and the management of emotional states at a time. As such they will be analysed in the present study. It is the aim of this study to provide an account of the constancy and variation of singular pronominal address in two of Shakespeare’s plays in an in-depth manner. There could be no meaningful variation if there was not constancy enough to establish what is normal, socially determined use, or, in other words, the area of “non-negotiability” (Calvo 1992). This case study will therefore first establish what is the normal, or the unmarked, pronoun for a given social relationship, and then proceed to analyse the individual occurrences of departures from these socially determined uses as marked uses. No excuse will be made for asking of the reader substantial knowledge of dramatic context necessary for interpretive exploitation in inferring the meanings of marked forms, which is the bane of the analysis at the center of this study. The study has been limited to two plays, King Lear (KL) and As You Like It (AYL) in order to keep within pre-set quantitative boundaries. The distinction between marked and unmarked was first applied to thou and you, singular pronouns of address standing in binary opposition to each other, by Quirk: “...thou and you were in contrast, not as singular and plural, but as marked and unmarked members respectively of an opposition with reference to the singular” (Quirk 1966: 31). The unmarked form corresponds to socially norm-governed use; in a given context it is the usual, default signal of social relationships. The unmarked form therefore represents the stable element in the expression of social relations through pronominal usage. It represents the logical and semiotic precondition for its very semiotic exploitation in marked, emotionally charged uses. The semiotic potential of dual address pronouns lies in the “active contrast” (Quirk 1971: 71) that results from switching over to the marked form. Around the turn of the seventeenth century, you appears to be the unmarked pronoun of address in the majority of cases (Quirk 1971: 70; Lass 1999). Conflicting views are to be found in some accounts of Early Modern English and the language of Shakespeare, which take you to be the sole unmarked form (cf. Strang 1970: 139; Barber 1976: 210; Görlach 1978: 83; Beneke 1982: 161; Scheler 1982: 41). In the following chapters, it will, however, be shown that this exclusiveness cannot be assumed. The study has a twofold aspect: constancy, the relatively static social norms governing pronominal use as set out in Nevalainen (1996), and an element of variation superimposed on and constrained by these norms in a complex way. The latter, dynamic, semiotic mechanism will be couched in terms of markedness, as is self-suggesting in this area of grammar. The former, static, aspect has often been

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

formulated in terms of “power” and “solidarity”. These terms were first introduced into modern sociolinguistics by Brown and Gilman:4 The interesting thing about such pronouns (dual singular pronouns of address) is their close association with two dimensions fundamental to the analysis of all social life – the dimensions of power and solidarity (Brown and Gilman 1960: 253).

A direct connection is made between the dimensions of power and solidarity, which underlie social existence, and singular pronouns of address. Brown and Gilman (1960: 254) introduce the abbreviations T and V into their classification, deriving from the Latin pronouns tu and vos, and which, in a manner appropriately recalling the development of dual forms of pronominal address, generically stand as symbols for the pronoun of intimacy and of polite address, respectively. To simplify matters, T and V will stand for the singular pronouns of address thou and you in all of their inflected forms in the next sections. Since the analysis of Shakespeare’s usage in its entire complexity demands an explicit treatment of individual cases, T and V will not be representative of the above-mentioned functions assigned by Brown and Gilman, but will simply be taken as abbreviations subsuming the various case forms,5 which differentiate between the original singular pronoun of address and the one stemming from the plural. The social structures of the Elizabethan period are the basis for determining the social valency of pronouns of address in the Shakespeare dramas. In Elizabethan social order, the power of an individual correlated with his position in the social hierarchy,6 and thus functioned as a decisive factor for the establishment of interpersonal relationships and mutual pronominal address. Power can therefore be understood as one factor that was seen by the Elizabethan hearer and speaker as a necessary characteristic, placing a demand on the speaker – should he wish to conform to conventions – to formulate his address according to the position of power held by the addressee; it is the calculation of power standing that determines the unmarked choice of the pronoun. On the other hand, the estimation of one’s own power standing becomes of decisive significance in light of the use of the marked form: markedness applies most often when addressing subordinates, from time to time in addressing power equals, and generally not at all when addressing superiors. The speaker uses marked pronominal address when he or she wants to consciously deviate from the norm realized by the unmarked form. The assignment of temporary roles is signaled with the marked form (cf. Salmon 1967: 40, 54; Shopen and Williams 1980: 51). The marked form of address predominantly conveys a change of emotional state, which, on the social level, may either create a feeling of like-mindedness or, exactly the opposite, a feeling of

 Dieter Stein

alienation towards the addressee. Any break in the conventions of pronominal address must be taken as a semantically-loaded signal in every case; the breaking of a norm becomes extreme when the socially lower individual utilizes the linguistic instrument of marked address. In Elizabethan social order, power was the factor which determined the permanent position that an individual had, and consequently the suitable form of pronominal address for him. The unmarked form of address is an expression of the acceptance of these permanent relationships; keeping to them amounts to constancy in pronominal usage. The marked form amounts to the exceptional case, or variation. Notice that the notion of variation employed here is not a statistical notion, but rather semiotically-based, relational and social-deixis-based. The majority of studies based on markedness are non-statistic in nature, but based on the local interpretation of switches (e.g. Lass 1999; Bruti 2000; Mazzon 1992 and this volume). Hope (1993 and 1994) represents a very modern combination of qualitative and quantitative research. The present study, however, is explicitly based on establishing the social norm in a statistical way. It is clear that counting frequencies of all occurrences of the two pronouns even only for selected dyads in two plays is a colossal, menial and lowly task. But it has been shown in previous studies (e.g. Stein 1974, Ch. IV) that the results obtained by such a corpusbased study are much more reliable and informative than text-based ones. It does, however, put severe limits on size and scope of a study and an article like the present one. The approach is therefore basically informationally-based. The meaning of the deviating form is weak in intention and has a high share of inferencing. It is clear that the semiotic processes involved can be analysed as implicatures, or accounted for in terms of relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson 1995). However interesting a further analysis of the exact type of semiotic process and resultant meaning effect may be, further exploration of the more theoretical issues will have to give way to the focus of the paper, the study of the historical context of the socio-pragmatic facts and the demonstration, in an interpretive case study, of their exploitation in the hands of Shakespeare for the purpose of the management of emotions in emotionally charged drama. Mazzon (this volume, §2) justly criticizes former markedness-based approaches to the subject as being either “extremely specific” or “disappointingly vague”. It is hoped that the theoretical problems pointed out by Mazzon are being overcome by implementing a more dynamic approach of markedness of the type set forth by Garcia (1994). This approach allows for a relative and flexible definition of the basis of markedness, i.e. a local definition of the default pronoun relative to the respective state of the relationship within any dyad, which is more congenial to the local movements in the state of the relationship between any two

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

persons than an exclusively static notion based on type relationships only, such as husband – wife, or king – subordinate.

. The use of T and V in the age of Shakespeare The tenor of research into the use of the two pronouns is that you was the neutral form, as claimed by previous researchers, in the late sixteenth century, and thou was indeed “disappearing from the standard language towards the end of the seventeenth century” (Walker, this volume, section 7). Despite this clear and increasing tendency to use V as the unmarked form in the Elizabethan age, address with T and V still express differences in social standing. A servant uses V to his master, as does a child to his parents, a citizen to an aristocrat, and an aristocrat to a sovereign. Conversely, T is the unmarked form of address for superiors to their subordinates: from a master to a servant, from an aristocrat to a common gentleman,7 and from a common gentleman to a craftsman (Barber 1976: 208f.; Franz 1898/9, fourth edition 1939: 259). Barber places parent-to-child address in the category of superior-to-subordinate address relationships. Further, he assumes that parents address their children with T in general (Barber 1976: 208; cf. Franz 1898/9, fourth edition 1939: 258). In Elizabethan society, children were required to show their parents utmost respect during their entire life (Replogle 1967: 78f.). In addressing a parent, V is the only appropriate pronoun. The relationship to a child undergoes a radical change in the course of his becoming an adult. The child takes on an independent social identity, leading to the assumption that – in a society in which social position takes on such a crucial role – his position is acknowledged with the appropriate pronoun of address. As early as the fourteenth century, parents use V to address a child who has achieved a higher social position: Parents and elders in general who habitually use the sing. to children occasionally find themselves placed by force of circumstances in a position of inferiority to their own children and use the plur. just as they would to anyone else of similar rank or renown (Stidson 1917: 77).

In the fifteenth century, Richard Cely used both T and V in letters to his son (Finkenstaedt 1963: 92, fn. 4). Further evidence for usage in the sixteenth century is provided by letters from Thomas More to his daughter Anne Crescare and to his favorite daughter Margaret. It is obvious that More used T to each as a marked pronoun. He even uses T to Margaret’s husband, when V would have been the unmarked form (Finkenstaedt 1963: 145f.). That address to children was no longer T in general in the Elizabethan period follows from the account of Johnson (1966).

 Dieter Stein

According to her account, the unmarked form of address to children was V as early as the seventeenth century, with T being a frequent yet marked form (Johnson 1966: 267). The earliest instances in Johnson are from the years 1604, 1605, and 1611 (1966: 267), just within in the post-Elizabethan period and into the last stretch of time during which Shakespeare wrote. From these pieces of evidence, it can be concluded that the answer to the question of which form of address was used in the Elizabethan period by parents to their children can no longer be uniformly T. When children settled into a life of their own, establishing independence from their parents, the normal form of address from parent to child changed to V in the social classes where V was the unmarked form in general. Daughters often achieved their independence quite early by marrying, while sons generally remained dependent on their parents for longer periods of time (Finkenstaedt 1963: 110f.). Address among social equals in the Elizabethan period was determined by the rank of the group to which the individual belonged in the social hierarchy. The higher classes, and more and more often the middle classes, used V as the unmarked pronoun of address, while the lower classes regularly used T (Barber 1976: 208f). A uniform statement on the form of address between spouses in the upper classes, where V was generally the unmarked form, cannot be made for the reason that the Puritan practice of addressing the wife with T and the husband with V experienced growing popularity (Finkenstaedt 1963: 120f.; Barber 1976: 209). The general picture of usage of T and V in the Elizabethan period shows that pronouns of address were used in dependence of social relationships. This is even more meaningful taken together with the consideration that people in the Elizabethan period were generally sensitive to linguistic manifestation of social relationships, and that any misuse of address conventions would immediately be noticed (Replogle 1967: 128f.). At that time, theater-goers formed an audience that was used to and practiced in decoding the denotations as well as the connotations of address pronouns (Replogle 1967: 124). It was an audience, too, far more ready than we are to think of speech as an art, to accept conventions, and quick to note and appreciate distinctions and changes of key, for all family and social life was more strictly governed by these then than now (Willcock 1934, reprinted 1962: 133).

For the Elizabethan audience, an extremely high value was placed on the interpretations coming from conventional and deviating usages (Replogle 1967: 124). The use of the singular pronouns of address in the Shakespeare plays in terms of social dyads is investigated in this volume by Mazzon. For previous accounts of usage in Shakespeare the reader can be referred to Byrne (1936) and Franz (1898/9, fourth edition 1939). According to them, the form of address from subordinates to superiors, for example from servant to master, is usually V (Byrne 1936: 39, 86, 129,

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

143; Traugott 1972: 136). Superiors, on the other hand, use T as the unmarked form with which to address their subordinates (Brook 1976: 74; Franz 1898/9, fourth edition 1939: 264). Contrary to Brook’s assumption that fathers generally addressed their sons with T (Brook 1976: 73), a critical examination of the parent – child relationship seems in place. Children always use V as the unmarked pronoun to their parents (Byrne 1936: 39, 86, 129, 143, cf. also the examples in Franz 1898/9, fourth edition 1939: 250), but the form of address used by parents to their children depends on whether the child is still a minor and dependent on the parents (see above). When the child has come of age, or has acquired a rank and a name, parents use V rather than T as the unmarked form of address (Byrne 1936: 39, 86, 129, 143, 164f., cf. also the examples in Franz 1898/9, fourth edition 1939: 250). Public life fitted a son or daughter to a plane of equality with the parents, so that, to a son of rank, to a marriageable daughter, to either when they had attained a majority, the Mother or Father used preferably you (Byrne 1936: 166f.).

Although Franz makes no specific claims concerning pronominal address forms to and by fools in the Shakespeare plays, the following picture emerges from Byrne’s work on the plays: fools are generally addressed with T by their superiors (Byrne 1936: 114, 120), who receive V in return, unless it happens to be the case that the fool wishes to convey a special meaning with his responding form of address (Byrne 1936: 114). A fool has the freedom to deviate from the norm whenever he likes; a freedom he may sometimes exercise with great abandon (Byrne 1936: 148f.; Williams 1953: 126; Finkenstaedt 1963: 115, fn. 27). Among members of the higher classes, the mutual form of address is V (Byrne 1936: 146). This holds for upwardly orientated bourgeois characters as well, represented in Shakespeare by e.g. Bottom, Flute or Starveling (Byrne 1936: 146). Among the lower classes, mutual T prevails (Franz 1898/9, fourth edition 1939: 259f.; Brook 1976: 73). Correspondingly, servants as well as shepherds use T as the unmarked form among themselves (Byrne 1936: 154f.). In the social classes in which V represents the reciprocal form of address, there is evidence in Shakespeare that even siblings (Byrne 1936: 39, 86, 129, 143, 155, see also examples in Franz 1898/9, fourth edition 1939: 261), cousins (Byrne 1936: 86, 155), and spouses (Byrne 1936: 157; Franz 1898/9, fourth edition 1939: 261) address each other with V. For lovers, the unmarked form of address is likewise V, but the emotionally governed situations typical of lovers often involve a change to the marked form (Franz 1898/9, fourth edition 1939: 262).8 Within the higher classes, the sovereign has a privileged position. Though normally using V to address aristocrats, he can exercise his right to use marked T more readily than others (Byrne 1936: 152; Replogle 1967: 88).

 Dieter Stein

It is apparent that Shakespeare’s use of singular pronouns of address does not deviate from the relevant linguistic conventions of his time, provided that one ignores the entire issue of non-reciprocal address between spouses popularised by the Puritans. This claim about Shakespeare’s use of address pronouns becomes even more plausible in light of a close resemblance between the more prestigious varieties of colloquial speech and written language assumed to characterise the late Elizabethan period (Willcock 1934, reprinted 1962: 120).

The conditions of Shakespeare’s art as a dramatist did not permit him to stray far from popular idiom, but even if they had, his mind was of a cast that would still have found the material upon which it worked mainly in the diction of common life (Wilson 1941: 169). Shakespeare’s frequent use of hypotaxis in his plays is what most sets them apart from spoken language (Salmon 1967: 65). In spoken language there is a strong tendency towards paratactic constructions. A further difference from spoken language lies in the genre-related characteristics of drama, where language appears in a condensed form (Finkenstaedt 1963: 159). As a consequence, marked forms have a higher frequency than in spoken language, since dramatic events and climaxes in the relationships between characters are closely connected with each other (Finkenstaedt 1963: 190). This general picture is refined and confirmed in its basic traits by Mazzon’s close-up analysis of types of relationships for three Shakespearian plays. Having established the static aspect of pronominal usage in Shakespeare, the following discussion will center on the semiotics of deviating. The assumption will be that not only did Shakespeare follow the conventional use of singular pronominal address of his time, but that he deliberately, although not necessarily consciously, exploited the switch to the marked form as a linguistic signal, and he did this with an audience in mind with whom the violation of linguistic norms was certain to register. It must also be noted that the opportunity thus open to Shakespeare, of exhausting the semantic potential changes in singular pronominal address, consequently barred the poet from changing the singular pronominal address merely for purposes of rhyme or euphony.9

. Marked uses in As You Like It and King Lear As You Like It and King Lear are outstanding among Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies (cf. Saintsbury 1910, reprinted 1933: 192). It is assumed that As You Like

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

It was written in 1599, King Lear in 1604/05 (cf. Pfister 1978: 438; Schläfer 1978: 567). Shakespeare tried to get across the same message with both plays, in one case through the filter of comedy, in the other through that of tragedy (cf. McCombie 1980). Furthermore, the casts of As You Like It and King Lear are comparable in many respects (cf. McCombie 1980; Schabert 1978: 310f., 312f.). The limited nature of the text corpus requires that the address relationships in the plays be as similar as possible. Only in this way can the necessary classification of the address relationships in the next chapter result in larger homogeneous groups. The comparability of the casts has therefore been the main criterion of selection. The number of address relationships in As You Like It and King Lear amounts to 220 in both plays. If an earlier addressee later addresses the same person who talked to him before, this counts as a new address relationship. In order to be able to identify the unmarked singular pronominal address, speaker and addressee have to be defined according to their social status in the Elizabethan social order for every address relationship. The following categories emerged in terms of social stratification of the cast in both plays: – – – – – –

sovereign aristocracy servants of court or of the noble families10 lower classes fools the insane

Sovereigns and aristocracy, the latter without differentiation between nobility and gentry, together form the higher classes. In Elizabethan times, servants were usually regarded as part of the lower classes (Stidston 1917: 29; Johnson 1966: 264). But if they were of noble origin, which was normally the case with stewards, who were at the head of the servants (Byrne 1936: 118; Replogle 1967: 59), they were regarded as members of the middle classes (Johnson 1966: 264, fn. 24). Numerous characters of both plays belong to the servant class. It therefore seemed sensible to place them all in the homogeneous group “servants”, the internal differentiation of which becomes evident only through the singular pronominal address. Since fools occupy a special position they are listed as a separate category, and not among the servants. The insane were part of the lowest class in the Elizabethan period. They form a separate category, too. A category “middle class” cannot be set up. Only Oliver Martext (As You Like It), a member of the lower clergy would fall within this class, along with a few servants (Johnson 1966: 264). Since Oliver Martext is only addressed by the fool Touchstone, the sole

 Dieter Stein

address relationship for him comes under the address of a fool. For the servants, except for the steward Oswald in King Lear, it becomes evident only with the singular address whether they can be classified as members of the middle class. Therefore Oswald is categorized under “servants”, since the address of just one character to Oswald cannot be representative for a particular category. This gives us the following classification of dramatis personae (Roman numerals to be explained below). Table 1. Characters in King Lear AYL

KL

- sovereigns

Duke Senior Duke Frederick

- aristocrats

Rosalind Ganymede as Rosalind Celia Orlando Oliver Jaques de Boys Jaques Amiens First Lord Second Lord

- servants

Adam Dennis Le Beau Charles First Page Second Page

Lear I, II Goneril II Regan II Cordelia II France Burgundy Goneril I Regan I Cordelia I Kent I Gloucester Edgar I Edmund Albany Cornwall Nobleman Knight Gentleman Kent III Oswald Curan Attendant First Servant Second Servant Third Servant A Servant Messenger Herald Officer Doctor Old Man

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

- lower classes

- fools - the insane

Ganymede Aliena Orlando II Corin Sivlvius William Phebe Audrey Touchstone

Edgar III Kent II

Fool Edgar II Lear II

The characters enter into a number of address relationships with one another. The corresponding address relationship with respect to its social valency is characterized by the respective placement of speaker and addressee into a certain category. It is of no importance in this connection whether the characters are male or female members of the respective classes. All address relationships that show a corresponding categorical distribution of speaker and addressee will be grouped under the same type of address relationship in the corpus analysis. Apostrophes and selfaddresses form special types of address. The social status of the characters who are marked with a supplementary note in Table 1 does not remain constant during the unfolding of the dramatic events in As You Like It or King Lear, respectively. This does not hold for Lear, for whom the differentiation into Lear I and II consists exclusively of an inner change of personality. Table 2 thus shows an overview of the subdivision of the characters concerned by means of Roman numerals and offers a cursory explanation for the subdivision. The characters are thereafter listed with the corresponding Roman numerals, which distinguish them as regards their social status. The duration is given for the appearance of a particular “phase” of a character, along with a reason for the change in social status. The different namings in Table 2 designate different positions in the status of the characters concerned in the address relationships they enter into as speaker or addressee. Goneril I and Regan I appear exclusively in the role of speaker, and for Orlando II it is only in his role as addressee that his social rank changes. Therefore, Goneril and Regan are differentiated only as speakers, and Orlando only as addressee in the corpus analysis. The division into Lear I and II concerns the temporary mental disorder of the character. Lear’s mental crisis does not change his social position, but it certainly affects his linguistic behavior as speaker. This is why

 Dieter Stein

Table 2. Characters in As You Like It and in King Lear

AYL KL

Character

Duration

Reason

Orlando I Orlando II Lear I Lear II Goneril I Goneril II Regan I Regan II Regan II

wherever not Orlando II II, vii, 97, 98 wherever not Lear II III, iv, 45 – IV, vi, 190 until I, i, 60 from I, i, 65 until I, i, 75 from I, i, 78 from I, i, 260

Kent I

until I, i, 181 in III, i, 42–53 (in relation to Gentleman from Cordelia’s suite) in IV, iii (in relation to Gentleman from Cordelia’s suite) in IV, Vii (in relation to Gentleman from Cordelia’s suite) from V, iii, 237 (in all relations) I, iv, 5–36 I, iv, 40– III, vi, 99 and IV, vii, 76 except III, i, 42–53

Orlando as aristocrat Orlando as forester Lear in sound mental health Lear in mental disorder Goneril as princess Goneril as sovereign Regan as princess Regan as sovereign Cordelia as designate and actual queen of France Kent as aristocrat

Kent II Kent III

Edgar I Edgar II Edgar III

until II, i, 30 from V, iii, 118 III, iv, 46 – IV, vi, 41 IV, vi, 46 – V, ii, 7

Kent in disguise as a member of the lower classes Kent in disguise as a member of the lower classes as Lear’s servant Edgar as aristocrat Edgar in peasant disguise Edgar as madman

in the course of the analysis of the address relationships the character of Lear, when he is addressed, is not divided into Lear I and II. The grouping of Orlando as Orlando II into the category “lower classes” is based on the following situational context. In II, vii, Orlando invades the peaceful company around Duke Senior, for the purpose of securing food for his loyal servant Adam. His unruly behavior makes him seem as a common robber, until he hints at his higher origin in his speech in II, vii, 95–100. In III, ii, 92–332,

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

Ganymede addresses Orlando as a forester. Ganymede’s address to Orlando is not listed under the type of address “among members of the lower classes” anymore after Orlando’s remark in III, ii, 333–4, from which follows that he himself must be nobler than his clothes make it seem, but in this case under the type of address “from members of the lower classes to aristocrats”. Shakespeare’s renaming of Rosalind and Celia into Ganymede and Aliena makes it unnecessary to distinguish Rosalind I and II or Celia I and II. Ganymede and Aliena change their social status towards others through their disguise. It is only in their addresses to one another that are not overheard by others and in the addresses to and from the fool Touchstone, who is in the know, that their status remains that of noble young ladies. Apart from that, they are grouped with the lower classes. This is done regardless of whether and to what extent Ganymede and Aliena adapt their linguistic behavior to their disguise. The assumption that Kent’s change in clothing is to that of a member of the lower classes results from various indications in the text. Kent’s monologue in I, iv, 1–7 implies that he has rendered himself unrecognizable, and that he has altered his voice in order to be able to continue serving Lear unrecognized. If Kent proceeds on the assumption that Lear and the court are not going to recognize him, it may be assumed that his new appearance is clearly distinguished from his old one. Kent will be able to achieve anonymity most easily by pretending to be a member of a clearly lower class. The language he uses in the immediately following dialogue with Lear is first of all determined strikingly, according to his new identity, by simple thoughts and ideas, which are supposed to be typical of a simple man of the people (Willcock 1934, reprinted 1962: 135). After all, Lear’s question about Kent’s profession in I, iv, 11 indicates, at the least, a non-noble status, as a gentleman would not be allowed to dirty his hands through work (cf. Replogle 1967: 47, 98). Kent’s disguise is made most transparent through the word fellow, which Kent chooses for himself in I, iv, 19 and which Lear picks up in I, iv, 26, and through the spontaneous and continuously maintained address of Lear towards the stranger with T. The term fellow is the usual designation for a member of the lower classes (Replogle 1967: 57), thus the pronominal address with T as an unmarked form points at a socially subordinate status. The new clothing of Edgar is that of a peasant, according to the stage direction for IV, vi. Even if the stage directions had been put in later, the statement about Edgar’s disguise is strengthened by the circumstances in the text of the drama, according to which the simple man and tenant of Gloucester, Old Man, wants to bring Edgar some of his clothes (cf. IV, i, 49 –50). Even old men’s best clothes would supposedly show the subordinate status of the wearer. A sovereign’s entourage like Jaques and Amiens in AYL, or the entourage of Cordelia II, the Gentleman in King Lear, are unmistakably characterized as aristocrats,

 Dieter Stein

and have not been listed under the category “servants”. These fall, as in table 1, within the category “aristocrats”. The stereotyped figures of Nobleman, Knight, Gentleman, Attendant, Officer, Messenger and Herald, which are listed in different categories, are assigned respectively to one speaker or addressee in the corpus analysis, if the single type is represented by several figures. The apostrophes to absent figures are listed under the address relationships that they attempt to produce. This applies to the following cases: Table 3. Apostrophes to absent persons AYL:

Rosalind Orlando Oliver Phebe Lear I Goneril II Cordelia II Kent III Gloucester Edgar I Edmund Edmund Albany Gentleman

to to to to to to to to to to to to to to

Silvius Roslind Orlando I Ganymede Cordelia I, II Edmund Lear Lear Edgar I Oswald Gloucester Edgar I Goucester Lear

In contrast to this, the address of Edgar II in III, vi, 23–4 to Goneril II or Regan II, who are both absent, is not listed under the address relationship of Edgar to Goneril or of Edgar to Regan, but under “apostrophes”, since it is the address of an insane person, and therefore not spoken in full consciousness. Edgar’s character will continue to be classified as belonging to the insane, in spite of the absence of his addressees. Lear II, Kent III and Fool all listen in to his speech as third party. The address of Kent III to Edgar II in III, iv, 43 appears under “apostrophes”, since Kent III, who has not seen Edgar II yet, but has only perceived his movements when he addresses him. Here, the apostrophe is not directed as an apostrophe to another person Kent knows. It should be mentioned here that the address of Kent III to Gloucester in III, iv, 124 cannot be designated an apostrophe like the previously mentioned address of Kent III to Edgar II. The pronominal address with V makes clear that Gloucester, who is carrying a torch, has been identified as a gentleman by Kent III, and that it is consequently a normal address within the address relationship of Kent III to Gloucester.

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

What then are the unmarked functions of T and V? It is possible to identify a “substantive” aspect of the social meaning of the unmarked form? In the corpus analysis, the pronouns contrasting with the unmarked forms are analyzed regarding their connotation, while unmarked forms are simply stated as such. This is why it should be mentioned at this point that T and V carry connotations as unmarked pronouns as well, their contents having long become stereotypical in the Elizabethan period. For instance, address with V among aristocrats expresses mutual respect and polite distance, but these connotations have already become the default social meanings, in fact “conventional implicatures” in the Gricean sense (Grice 1975: 44). This is even more obvious with the unmarked form of address V for a member of the lower classes to an aristocrat. The connotations of the marked form are generally only clear from the situational context of the respective address and need specific analysis, since they are used as a contrast to the unmarked form, signalled either in a positive (positive emotional values like affection) or negative way (negative emotional values like scorn). Possible, partly overlapping, connotations of T and V as marked pronouns of address are the following: T:

scorn disapproval complicity affection intimacy respect

V:

scorn disapproval formality elevation glorification

Table 4. Address among sovereigns address relationship AYL: KL:

— Lear I Lear I Burgundy France France

— to Burgundy to France to Lear to Lear to Burgundy

T

V

— — 2 — 1 —

— 7 5 3 4 2

The unmarked form of address is V. The address relationship of Lear I to France contains two instances of T contrasting with the unmarked form, and the address relationship of France to Lear I is an instance of T. The question of whether T has been used deliberately as a marked form in the respective address relationship can be answered by looking at the situational context concerned, the address situation. France is determined that Cordelia I becomes his wife, making it known that he loves her (cf. I, i, 250). Lear hates her (cf. I, i, 208–9). France’s strong feelings

 Dieter Stein

for Cordelia I go hand in hand with the drying up of his respect towards Lear, who is repudiating his daughter for no good reason. The address relationship is strengthened by the address pronoun in I, i, 255: it revokes the respectful distance towards the vis-à-vis and signals open disapproval. The form of address King (I, i, 255) used in parallel without the polite attribute called for by etiquette (Replogle 1967: 28f.), which Lear I had added in his address to France in I, i, 207 in a still unstrained address situation, fits in well with the assumption that T constitutes markedness. The address of Lear I to France in I, i, 261 with T is to be interpreted as a direct negatively marked response to France. This becomes even more apparent when Lear I now harshly calls the king of France France only (I, i, 261) and thereby proclaims that he is not willing to give Cordelia I and France his blessing (cf. I, i, 263–4). Table 5. Address among sovereigns who are kindred or related by marriage to one another address relationship AYL: KL:

— Goneril II Goneril II Regan II

— to Regan to Cordelia II to Goneril

T

V

— — — —

— 6 5 2

Unmarked address among sovereigns who are kindred or related by marriage to one another is also V. None of the actual address relationships contains a pronoun contrasting with the unmarked form. The following address relationships and T and V instances are between father and daughter or son: Table 6. Address relationship between father and daughter or son address relationship AYL: KL:

— Lear I Lear I Lear I Goneril II Regan II Cordelia II

— to Goneril to Regan to Cordelia II to Lear to Lear to Lear

T

V

— 23 20 9 — — 7

— 3 6 11 26 29 6

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

Unmarked address to a sovereign as well as to a parent is V. To address the sovereign and father Lear with T means a rupture of norms that is only imaginable in light of a very high level of emotional tension. Cordelia II addresses Lear seven times with T. Both instances in IV, iv, 24 as well as the five instances in IV, vii are apostrophes. While Lear does not hear the address in IV, iv, 24 because he is physically absent, Cordelia II addresses Lear in IV, viii while he is sleeping. Since the unmarked address in apostrophes is realized by T, all cited cases are in accordance with the rules. In V, iii, 5, Cordelia II addresses Lear with T, while they are both taken away as prisoners. From the co-text as well as from the fact that Cordelia does truly love her father, it can be induced that Cordelia II uses the marked T of devoted affection in view of the humiliation suffered by father and daughter. Unmarked address to children who have gained social maturity is V. Thus, the use of V is in accordance with the norm when Lear addresses his married daughters Goneril and Regan, as well as Cordelia I, who is shortly going to marry, and later Cordelia II. McIntosh and Williamson (1963: 54), Quirk (1971: 71), Johnson (1975: 154) and Mitchell (1979: 5) assume accordingly that T is the unmarked form in the above-mentioned address relationships. McIntosh and Williamson (1963: 54) chiefly stress the solemnity of I, i and offer a plausible explanation for the markedness of the address with V to Cordelia I. In contrast to this view, Quirk calls the address with V to Cordelia I a surprise and sees it as a direct connection to Lear’s manifestations of affection for Cordelia: It seems unlikely that these uses of you(r) are without significance in indicating a special feeling that Lear has for the girl he calls “our joy”, who has been, as France says, Lear’s “best object”, the argument of his praise, the balm of his age, the best, the dearest (...) (Quirk 1971: 71).

Such connotations would be completely atypical for V, which indicates above all distance to the person vis-à-vis. They could, however, easily be signaled through the use of T as a marked form and also be understood by the audience as such. J.A. Johnson (1975: 154) claims that T still betrays the loving father in the address of the furious Lear to Cordelia I, who does not verbalize her love. He sees the V, which contrasts with the T in the request “Mend your speech a little, Lest you may mar your fortunes” (I, i, 93–4), as negatively marked, without dealing in the least with the preceding address with V in I, i, 84–5. The address in I, i, 84–5 would clearly have to be interpreted positively in the given situational context, if taken as the marked form. It would be unmistakably difficult, though, to observe a clear revulsion of feeling in Lear between the addresses in I, i, 84–5 and I, i, 93–4, which would be the condition for interpreting V in I, i, 93–4 as negatively marked. Mitchell’s view seems not well-founded since it proceeds on the assumption

 Dieter Stein

that the address of Lear I to Goneril and Regan with T at the same time emphasizes the king and the severe father (Mitchell 1979: 5). Why should Lear I, who seems quite satisfied with the answers of the two elder daughters, signal a very emphatic severity against them, of all people? This alone cannot provide justification for the change of the definition of V as the unmarked address from Lear I to his daughters, which was established in chapter two. The address relationships by Lear I to Goneril and Regan both stand out because of an extremely high number of T instances in contrast to the unmarked V, and in comparison to that, a very low number of V instances. In I, i, Lear I expresses towards both daughters his contentment with their statements of love to him. He does that by putting his intention into practice, giving Goneril and Regan their respective inheritances prematurely and thereby turning them into sovereigns. The address with T that is chosen at the same time stresses, as a marked form, the benevolence of Lear I about the appropriate behavior of the daughters. In I, iv, 251, Lear I switches from the unmarked form of address with V when addressing the noblewoman Goneril (cf. I, iv, 233, 216) to the marked form of address with T, appropriate for a heartless daughter. The markedness becomes apparent from the co-text, which contains some of the worst abuses and condemnations of the daughter. The relationship of Lear I to Goneril as one between a father and his honorable noblewoman-daughter seems completely disrupted. Lear I continues to use the negatively marked address in II, iv, 191–227, where he stresses the duties of children and despises Goneril’s influence on her father as pathological. Lear addresses Goneril in II, iv, 216 with prithee. The T instances in II, iv, 256–7 are, because of the situational context, probably meant to be positively marked. Lear I now judges Regan to be even more detestable than Goneril, and he “praises” the eldest daughter in comparison to her sister for being at least not the worst of the daughters (cf. II, iv, 256). Lear I has undergone a complete change of opinion, which forces him to woo for Goneril’s affection again. This is emphasized by the use of T, which now signals a conciliatory attitude. Lear I addresses the noblewoman Regan in II, iv, 126 with an unmarked V. In lines 127–133, however, he appeals to Regan as a daughter, which he stresses by mentioning her mother and by the usage of the marked from. The unmarked form in lines 150 and 153, when Lear I pleadingly kneels down in front of Regan, should not be surprising. The marked T would, above all, emphasize the father – daughter relationship, while Lear I, according to his humiliating behavior, will most likely have wanted to express respect towards Goneril in his address. This respect cannot be specifically stressed by the unmarked V, but this instance of V certainly has overtones of it. In line 168, Lear I changes again to marked T: The father places the daughter in the foreground, who knows her duty of showing politeness and thankfulness to her father better than her older sister (cf. II, iv, 175–7). The renewed transition to the

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

marked form in II, iv, 265 occurs after Regan has completely declined Lear I’s claim to an entourage. Lear I feels completely betrayed by that. The connection of T with the statement that Regan is a lady (cf. II, iv, 265–8) forms a paradox that hints at the clearly negatively perceived exceptional situation in this context. The address relationship of Lear I to Cordelia I and II contains about as many unmarked as marked forms. In I, i, 104, Lear I changes to T because he feels the utmost annoyance at the disobedient daughter, which culminates in the disinheritance of Cordelia and his complete rejection of her. T, as the negatively marked pronoun, emphasizes this attitude of Lear. In IV, vii, 46, however, Lear I does address Cordelia II with T, but because he does not recognize her and because he thinks he is addressing a ghost, T here is the unmarked form of address (Byrne 1936: 129). The two V instances in line 49, which are still part of the address to the ghost, are marked and are probably to be taken as an emphasis of Lear’s assumption that the ghost he is facing is that of Cordelia, with whom he has a special relationship. The T instances in V, iii, 10–23 are clearly positively marked as address to his only truly loving daughter Cordelia, who he has by now recognized as being so. If one proceeds on the assumption that Lear I is convinced that Cordelia is dead when he carries her in his arms at the end of V, iii, then his address to her with T in V, iii, 271–306 is unmarked, because the dead are generally addressed with T (Byrne 1936: 39, 85, 129, 143; Shopen and Williams 1981: 50). Table 7. Address from aristocrats without a special relationship to sovereigns address relationship AYL:

KL:

Orlando Orlando Oliver Jaques Amiens First Lord Second Lord Kent I Kent I Gloucester Gloucester Edgar I Edmund Edmund Knight Gentleman

to Duke Frederick to Duke Senior to Duke Frederick to Duke Senior to Duke Senior to Duke Senior to Duke Frederick to Lear to Cordelia II to Lear to Regan to Lear to Goneril to Regan to Lear to Lear

T

V

— — — — — — — 17 — 2 6 — — — — 1

1 11 1 8 1 4 2 5 1 8 2 1 1 1 6 4

 Dieter Stein

The unmarked form of address to sovereigns is V. In addition to that, Kent I, Gloucester and “gentleman” address Lear I on occasion with T, and Gloucester addresses Regan six times with T. The 17 instances of T, including one address with fare thee well from Kent I to Lear, all appear in I, i. The usage of T on the part of Kent I to the sovereign in I, i, 145, 179 is an expression of an existential conflict between far-sightedness and high-handed blindness. The decisiveness of Kent I to counter Lear’s “insanity” with “uncivil” behavior (I, i, 144), is transferred by him immediately into linguistic behaviour: he addresses Lear during the whole dispute exclusively with T, which signals disapproval. The address to a sovereign with T, though, is only fitting for a subject as expression of respectful reverence. Kent I is, to the highest possible norm-offending degree, impudent when he uses negatively marked T (Blake 1983: 6). The address of Gloucester to Lear with T in IV, vi, 134, 138, however, expresses respectful attitude. Gloucester’s insistence on kissing Lear’s hand (cf. IV, vi, 131) corresponds to the following marked address. A remarkable fact is that neither of the occasions when Gloucester addresses Lear with T occurs in the Quarto. The address in IV, vi, 134 reads “Do you” in the Quarto, and in place of “thy” in line 138, the Quarto has “the”.11 “Gentleman” uses the unmarked T of the apostrophe. In open indignation, Gloucester turns in II, vii, 38–62 against Regan and her merciless and cruel behavior towards Lear and himself. T is therefore intended as a negatively marked address. The following address relationships and T and V instances fall within the type of address “Address of aristocrats who are kindred or related by marriage to one another”: Table 8. Address of aristocrats who are kindred or related by marriage to one another address relationship AYL: KL:

— Albany Cornwall

— to Regan to Goneril

T

V

— — —

— 4 1

The unmarked address to sovereigns, even among those who are kindred or related by marriage to one another, is V. The two address relationships which are grouped under this type of address do not contain the pronoun T, which forms a contrast to the unmarked address. The following address relationships and T and V instances fall within the type of address “Address from daughters or sons”:

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

Table 9. Address from daughters or sons address relationship AYL:

KL:

Rosalind Rosalind Celia Goneril I Regan I Cordelia I Albany Cornwall

to Duke Frederick to Duke Senior to Duke Frederick to Lear to Lear to Lear to Lear to Lear

T

V

— — — — — — — —

6 3 2 2 1 10 1 2

The address from a child to parent is normally V, no matter whether he or she is already a sovereign himself or whether he is, like in the cited cases, part of the category “aristocrats”. This is all the more so if the parent is a sovereign. The address relationships mentioned above do not show any contrasting T instances. Table 10. Address from spouses address relationship AYL: KL:

— Albany Cornwall

— to Goneril to Regan

T

V

— 9 1

— 9 1

The unmarked form of address from a spouse to a sovereign is also V. While there are hardly any other instances for the character of Cornwall at all, it is striking that Albany often breaks this norm. Albany’s relationship to Goneril passes through a complete change in the course of the play. This is reflected in the address. The unmarked address in IV, ii, 30–1 is still used for Albany’s sharp accusation of Goneril. The switch to T follows Goneril’s offending devaluation of Albany as a man and sensible person in IV, ii, 50–9, which is strengthened even more by Goneril’s choice of T as negatively marked pronoun of address. The T instances in lines 59–67 stress in this situation that Albany himself now deeply despises Goneril. Albany uses the pronouns in V, iii, 153–9 in a state of heated emotion towards Goneril, who is laying out intrigues against him. From this results the negative markedness of the T instances, which for their part characterize the emotional situation as very serious. The unmarked address with V in line 153, in spite of the extreme emotional tension, could be conditioned by the following address with “dame”.12 This could be the case as well with the V in line 156, which can be determined by the address with “lady”.

 Dieter Stein

Cornwall’s address to Regan with T in II, i, 103 can be seen as an emphasis of his complete agreement with Regan on her intention to avoid the meeting with Lear with T constituting a positively marked form of address. Table 11. Address from court servants or servants to aristocrats address relationship AYL: KL:

Adam Charles Oswald Oswald Oswald First Servant Messenger Doctor Kent III Kent III

to Duke Senior to Duke Frederick to Lear to Goneril to Regan to Regan to Goneril to Cordelia II to Lear to Regan

T

V

— — — — — — — — 3 —

1 2 2 1 1 2 1 4 11 2

The unmarked form of address is V. Kent III addresses Lear with contrasting T three times. T represents the unmarked pronoun of apostrophes in I, ii, 157 and III, vi, 96. Kent III uses a positively marked T in II, iv, 4 to Lear as his master. The T is doubtlessly intended to underscore a respectful deportment, which is expressed independently of the choice of pronoun itself by the epitheton ornans “noble” (II, iv, 4) (cf. Abbott 1883: 156). Table 12. Address from low class position address relationship AYL: KL:

Ganymede Kent II

to Duke Senior to Lear

T

V

— —

7 3

The unmarked address is V. There is no contrasting T in the address relationships above. Up to now, all instances involving a contrast to the unmarked form were analyzed in all of the address relationships with respect to their markedness. Up to this point, the survey shows that the use of deviations from the norm in Shakespeare’s dramas As You Like It and King Lear is quite systematic. Since, however, the token number of pronominal address is quite large, and the quantitative scope of the present paper quite limited, the in-depth discussion of the remaining dyads will have to be restricted to selected relationships.

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

Table 13. Address among aristocrats with no special relationship to one another address relationship AYL:

KL:

Rosalind Celia Orlando Orlando Oliver Jaques Jaques Jaques Jaques Jaques Amiens Kent I Kent I Kent I Kent I Gloucester Gloucester Edmund Edmund Edmund Albany Albany Albany Albany Cornwall Cornwall Gentleman Gentleman

to Orlando I to Orlando I to Rosalind to Jaques to Rosalind as Ganymede to Orlando I to Oliver to Amiens to Jaques de Boys to Second Lord to Jaques 1 to Cordelia I to Gloucester to Edmund to Gentleman to Kent to Cornwall to Kent I to Albany to Cornwall to Kent I to Gloucester to Edgar I to Edmund to Gloucester to Edmund to Kent I to Albany

T

V

1 — — — —

10 21 1 11 2

— — 3 — — — 1 — — — — — — 2 — 1 3 4 10 5 4 — —

15 2 6 2 1 5 — 2 2 14 1 4 1 9 2 — — 4 7 8 10 5 2

The unmarked form of address among aristocrats is V. The disruptions of this norm can be divided into two categories. Negative connotations are carried by the marked forms in the address of Edmund to Albany, of Albany to Edmund and of Cornwall to Gloucester, and positive connotations in the address of Kent I to Cordelia I, of Albany to Kent I and of Edgar I and of Cornwall to Edmund. The address from Rosalind to Orlando I and that of Jaques to Amiens also seem positively marked, where T occurs. As an apostrophe, the address of Albany to Gloucester is unmarked. The following interpretation of the instances contrasting with the unmarked form will be limited to the address relationships in which Albany is the speaker or addressee, and to the address relationship of Rosalind to Orlando I.

 Dieter Stein

When Albany calls on Goneril in V, iii to account for her intrigue against him, Edmund takes on his role as an accomplice. Edmund’s address to Albany with T in V, iii, 81 should probably be taken as an undisguised insult. It is remarkable that Edmund chooses to address Albany with an unmarked V in the extremely affective context in V, iii, 101. The use of V at that stage could mean, however, that Edmund wants to pose as a level-headed gentleman, who knows social manners, in a conscious contrast to Albany’s accusation and his continuous address to Edmund with T. Edmund changes once again to the address with T in V, iii, 251. In the meantime, Edmund has been fatally wounded in a duel and looks by this time for reconciliation with the world. Looking death in the face, the T could be intended as an appeal for Albany to show an attitude of brotherly benevolence and compassion. Albany uses T as a negatively marked address to Edmund in V, iii, 83 –103. He informs Edmund in this phase of dramatic events of the latter’s arrest for high treason and of the duel awaiting the traitor as retaliation of the unjust doings. As a person guilty of high treason, Edmund loses all social rights and dignities (Replogle 1967: 118). Albany’s T expresses unfathomable contempt for the villain, who has been unmasked as wicked. Albany’s wish to render Kent I courtesy in recognition of his achievements (cf. V, iii, 232–3) may be the impulse for the T in the address of Kent I in V, iii, 237. It could then be taken as a sign of deference. T could in this address relationship just as well be an expression of a feeling of deepest affection on the part of the straightforward Albany for the faithful and honest Kent. After Edgar has disclosed his identity as Edgar I, the repeated address with T from Albany to Edgar I probably signals the sincerity of Albany’s happiness to meet unexpectedly with the formerly wrongfully persecuted Edgar, who thereafter is recognized as being truly noble. The address of Rosalind to Orlando I contains a single T instance. The pronoun is chosen within a statement of her favorable attitude towards the young man, who faces a duel with the wrestler Charles. In this connection, T can, as a positively marked form, express the sincerity of Rosalind’s wishes. Table 14. Address among aristocrats who are kindred or related by marriage to one another address relationship AYL:

KL:

Rosalind Celia Orlando Oliver Edgar I Edmund

to Celia to Rosalind to Oliver to Orlando to Edmund to Edgar I

T

V

16 38 5 2 30 10

15 26 22 14 8 31

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

The unmarked address is V. All the listed address relationships, however, contain disruptions of this norm. In the following, the T instances contrasting with the unmarked form in the address relationships of Edgar I to Edmund and of Celia to Rosalind will be analyzed. The address of Edgar I to Edmund is especially interesting, since several instances in this address relationship only allegedly come from Edgar I. The situational context for the instances in I, ii, 51–3 consists of a scene in which Edmund, seemingly reluctantly, has given Gloucester a forged letter of Edgar I to his half-brother, which Gloucester reads now. Edmund has Edgar I use the unmarked address to him in this written note. Edgar I invites the half-brother in the forged letter to agree to a joint intrigue against Gloucester. In the given situation, the unmarked address can underline the alleged offer of Edgar I to esteem Edmund in case of his consent as a brother of equal birth (cf. I, ii, 51–2). In fact, however, it is only Edmund who sees and feels himself as a bastard (Replogle 1967: 115), and who manages to exploit his illegitimacy for his intrigues against Edgar I and Gloucester. Obviously, the unsuspecting Edgar I addresses Edmund in I, ii, 136 –74 completely naturally with V. The contrasting address with T in II, i again does not really come from Edgar I. Edmund reports to Gloucester an invented insulting speech by Edgar I, in which he is supposed to have voiced scorn for the position of his brother as bastard. In connection with the severe abuses mentioned by Edmund, the address with T carries the connotation of ultimate degradation. T is thus employed in a manner suitable to its purpose as marked. In V, iii, there is no other unmarked address of Edgar I to Edmund. Edgar, taking on the role of a nobleman whose true identity is unknown, (in V, iii, 125–40) challenges his halfbrother Edmund to a duel in which he openly accuses him of being a traitor (cf. V, iii, 132). The address among adversaries in a duel would normally be marked, since a duel was usually understood to be a measure of retaliation for a defamatory utterance or deed. The T in V, iii, 166–248 of Edgar I to Edmund seems positively marked, because in line 165 Edgar I suggests to the fatally wounded Edmund that they “exchange charity”. In the address relationship of Celia to Rosalind, the contrasting T occurs quite often. Celia generally uses T in I, ii, 1– 27, except for one address with V. The purposeful use of T as a marked form results from Celia’s emotionally charged disposition towards Rosalind in I, ii. Celia’s insistent entreaty of Rosalind to be cheerful, and her attempts to persuade her, which aim at the same direction, are stressed formally by T. The V in line 16 occurs when Celia addresses the serious topic of rightful succession. But she falls back into the emphatic address with T still within the same speech, when she discloses to Rosalind that she wants to give up the inheritance to her (cf. I, ii, 17–8). In I, iii, 4 –20, Celia tries again to put Rosalind in an exuberant and talkative mood. Here, the T, which stresses emotional nearness, could have the function of drawing

 Dieter Stein

Rosalind near to Celia and her own cheerful mood. Celia probably uses the other marked instances in I, iii to convince Rosalind after her banishment of Celia’s sincere sympathy and her decisiveness to turn her back on the court together with Rosalind. The unmarked form only seems to be chosen when Celia primarily aims at factually clearing up her position or the whole situation. In III, ii, 160 – 8, Celia strikes a stressedly playful note. When Rosalind starts getting emotionally involved in the question of the author of the poem for her, Celia’s address contrasts with that of Rosalind. The latter already happens in the first act, though Rosalind there generally prefers the unmarked address, which underlines matter-of-factness, while Celia from now on takes over the part of contrasting ratio. The T instances occurring after this “change of parts” in III, ii, 240, 243 probably signal a passing irritation about Rosalind’s continuous interruptions, while the marked form in III, iv, 2 seems to express Celia’s true sympathy with Rosalind. Within the marked address Celia turns four times with prithee to Rosalind. McIntosh’s (1963) analysis cannot be adduced here, because already his basic argument, that the address of one person to another is determined by the individual relationship as marked or unmarked (McIntosh 1963: 72f.), is not correct. The speech conventions of the Elizabethan period were socially based and supra-personally valid, and the theater audience of the time relied on them and reacted accordingly. Therefore unmarked or marked address cannot be determined right from the start for every address relationship individually, excluding general language usage.

Table 15. Address between father and daughter or son address relationship AYL: KL:

— Gloucester Gloucester Edmund

— to Edmund to Edgar I to Gloucester

T

V

— 2 2 1

— 14 — 16

The unmarked address is V. T instances occur in all the listed address relationships. The address of Gloucester to Edgar I and the one of Edmund to Gloucester is unmarked, despite the pronoun T, since they are apostrophes. In contrast to this, the T instances in the address of Gloucester to Edmund form a contrast to the unmarked V. Gloucester, who is upset by Edmund’s intrigue against Edgar I, stresses with T in I, ii, 112 as well as in II, i, 84 his fatherly affection, which he is planning to show his supposedly faithful son Edmund also financially.

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

Table 16. Address among lovers address relationship AYL:

Rosalind Ganymede as Rosalind Orlando Orlando —

KL:

to Orlando I to Orlando I to Rosalind to Ganymede as Rosalind —

T

V

— 7 5 5 —

3 18 3 — —

The unmarked address is V. The address of Ganymede as Rosalind to Orlando I in IV, i, 131 contains the address pronoun T, because it refers to a marriage proposal. Ganymede as Rosalind tries to convince Orlando in the speech in IV, i, 138–48 of Rosalind’s capriciousness. The change in the pronominal address from T to V to T could be intended as accentuation of the moods described. In IV, i, 169, Ganymede as Rosalind seems to want to underline with T the urgent character of the statement that she could not do without her lover. Ganymede as Rosalind obviously uses the pronoun T in her address in V, ii, 19–22, because the expressed regret at the injury of Orlando I is intended to be understood as sincere. Table 17. Address to aristocrats without a special relationship to the sovereigns address relationship AYL:

KL:

Duke Frederick Duke Frederick Duke Senior Duke Senior Duke Senior Lear I Lear I Lear I Lear I Cordelia II Regan II

to Orlando I to Oliver to Orlando I to Jaques to Jaques de Boys to Kent I to Gloucester to Knight to a Nobleman to Kent to Gloucester

T

V

8 11 1 7 2 10 1 2 — 3 5

— — 18 3 — 5 — — 3 — 7

The unmarked address is V. The address of Lear I to Kent I in I, i is continuously T. It is obvious from the situational context, that T is clearly negatively marked. Kent has taken the incredible liberty to contradict Lear, even to address him with the negatively marked T. Lear I puts Kent I in his place, with all the power he de facto does not have anymore. Eventually, he resorts to banishment. T accordingly

 Dieter Stein

signals utmost annoyance and wrath. The address with “Prithee, away” (V, iii, 267) is the urgent plea of a completely desperate person to be left alone. Lear I does not seem to recognize Kent I at this moment, nor to value form and formality. The disruption of social norm through the address of Kent I with T becomes clear at this moment through the remark of Edgar I: “Tis noble Kent, your friend” (V, iii, 267). Duke Frederick addresses Oliver in III, i, 4–15 with T as a formal equivalent to the scorn proclaimed in the contents of the speech and Oliver’s at least passing social degradation. T thus seems negatively marked. The T of Duke Senior to Orlando I in V, iv, 1 could be the expression of how much the duke trusts Orlando, son of the highly esteemed Sir Rowland de Boys: the duke is seeking the opinion of Orlando I. T would be positively marked in this case. Table 18. Address to aristocrats who are kindred or related by marriage to one another address relationship AYL: KL:

— Regan II

— to Albany

T

V

— —

— 2

The unmarked address is V. In the only address relationship, a T contrasting the V does not occur. Table 19. Address to daughter or son address relationship AYL:

KL:

Duke Frederick Duke Frederick Duke Senior Duke Senior Lear I Lear I Lear I

to Rosalind13 to Celia to Rosalind to Celia to Cordelia to Albany to Cornwall

T

V

6 6 — 1 6 1 —

8 2 1 — 5 4 2

The unmarked address is V. Lear I addresses Cordelia I in I, i, 104 –232 with T. The situational context clearly suggests the markedness of the T instances. Lear I stresses with the pronoun his obvious discontent with Cordelia I’s refusal to express her love for her father in ornate words. Concurrent with the change to T, his affection turns into dislike.

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

The address of Duke Frederick to Rosalind in I, iii, 39–54 seems clearly marked. The duke accuses Rosalind of being a traitor, and proclaims her banishment. When the pronominal address occurs in one breath with titles, which mark Rosalind’s social status or even her kinswomanlike relation to Duke Frederick, he chooses the unmarked, formal V (cf. I, iii, 37–8 and 83). In I, iii, 84, 85, it is not Rosalind’s humiliation, but the irrevocability of the judgment that is placed in the foreground. This explains the address with V. Table 20. Address to a spouse address relationship AYL: KL:

— Goneril II Regan II

— to Albany to Cornwall

T

V

— 6 —

— 6 1

The unmarked address is V. Goneril II addresses Albany six times with T. The T Goneril II uses in her address to Albany in IV, ii, 52–8 is obviously negatively marked. The T gives additional emphasis to her abuse of Albany as “milklivered man” (IV, ii, 50) and “vain fool” (IV, ii, 58), both of which are harsh insults. In the given context, the change to the unmarked V in IV, ii, 68 appears rather curious. The pronoun seems to be meant sarcastically, though, as an attribute to “manliness” (IV, ii, 68), which had been just before more than called into question. Goneril counters Albany’s reproaches and marked address in V, iii, 157 by stressing her position of power as sovereign. One T she uses is in an emphatic position at the end of the sentence. The clearly negatively marked T is possibly meant in the given address situation to imply the inferior social status of Albany as well. Table 21. Address among lovers address relationship AYL: KL:

— Burgundy France Goneril II Regan II

— to Cordelia I to Cordelia I to Edmund to Edmund

T

V

— — 3 5 4

— 2 1 9 5

The unmarked address is V. Goneril II uses T in IV, ii, 23–4 as a positively marked pronoun. The change to the address with T occurs after Goneril has kissed Edmund. With the change to T, Edmund has to see Goneril’s kiss as genuine proof

 Dieter Stein

of her affection. The T in IV, ii, 27 is the unmarked pronoun of the apostrophe. The T as positively marked pronoun seems to make clear in V, iii, 151–2, that Goneril’s words to the fatally wounded Edmund contain more than normal affection. Otherwise, Albany’s reaction in V, iii, 153–6 would be much too impulsive and spontaneous. Table 22. Address of servants of court or of aristocratic families14 address relationship AYL:

KL:

Adam Adam Dennis Charles Le Beau Le Beau Oswald Curan First Servant Herald Old Man Kent III Kent III Kent III Kent III

to Orlando I to Oliver to Oliver to Oliver to Celia to Orlando to Gloucester to Edmund to Gloucester to Edgar I to Gloucester to Gloucester to Edmond to Cornwall to Gentleman

T

V

1 — — — — — 4 — — — — — — — —

26 1 3 10 2 8 — 6 5 4 4 3 3 8 8

The unmarked address is V. Of the address relationships listed above, only the address of Oswald to Gloucester and that of Adam to Orlando I contain T instances contrasting with the unmarked form. The fact that Oswald addresses Gloucester exclusively with T can be seen as a serious disruption of the norm; as a servant, Oswald is required to show unconditional respect to an earl. Oswald, Goneril’s steward, sees a traitor in Gloucester, whom he intends to kill in compliance with Regan’s order. Accordingly, the pronoun T as a negatively marked address not only stresses that Gloucester, as a traitor, has lost status and dignities (Replogle 1967: 118), it also emphasizes the scorn of the murderer for his victim. Adam addresses Orlando I in II, iii, 69 with T. He does so after giving Orlando I all his savings, so that the latter can flee from Oliver’s sphere of influence, who is planning to murder him. The T of Adam to Orlando I is a positively marked pronoun, which expresses respectfulness for his master and underlines the seriousness of absolute loyalty even after his death, which is assured in the co-text.

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

Table 23. Address of members of the lower classes address relationship AYL:

KL:

Ganymede Ganymede Ganymede Aliena Aliena Edgar III Edgar III Edgar III

to Orlando I to Oliver to Jaques to Orlando I to Oliver to Gloucester to Albany to Gentleman

T

V

— — — — — 9 — —

96 13 12 1 7 18 6 4

The unmarked address is V. The only address relationship which shows any disruption of the norm is that of Edgar III to Gloucester. The relationship receives its special imprint from Gloucester’s blindness and Edgar’s true identity. Of further importance is Edgar III’s effort to spare his father any additional grief. During the time that Gloucester is convinced that he has thrown himself over a cliff in Dover, not comprehending that he has survived his attempted suicide, Edgar abandons the role of a madman and takes on that of a peasant. He addresses Gloucester as such and pretends to be so surprised about the rescue that he can only explain it by a miracle (cf. IV, vi, 49–55). The address with T in IV, vi, 49–55 could, along these lines, express Edgar’s enacted bewilderment. It could also underline his argumentation that a human could hardly survive such a fall, so that Gloucester would have to be an extra-terrestrial – that would have to be addressed with T – and that, if Gloucester happened to be a human being after all, a miracle must have happened. The address of Gloucester with T in IV, vi, 72, 74 supposedly carries similar connotations. In contrast to that, the address with T in V, ii, 5 and 7 seems to express sincere care for the helpless Gloucester, who would be at the approaching enemy’s mercy. Table 24. Address among servants address relationship AYL: KL:

— Kent III Oswald Third Servant

— to Oswald to Kent III to Second Servant

T

V

— 14 11 1

— 24 — —

The unmarked address is T. Members of the lower classes who belong to the same professional field have continued to address each other with T into the seventeenth century. The question arises whether the unmarked address of common servants

 Dieter Stein

to servants, who, like Oswald, were considered part of the middle classes, would possibly have been V. This might be concluded from the fact that the aristocrats would have made such distinctions among their servants in such a manner, but the question cannot be answered from the address relationships at hand. Since the marked form is the one expected from a person who challenges another person to a fatal duel, and since Kent III does challenge Oswald several times, addressing him with V, the conclusion can be drawn that in this address relationship the unmarked address is T, too. Kent III addresses Oswald in I, iv, 84 –9 with V. The negative markedness of V becomes clear from the context: Kent III fiercely abuses Oswald and, moreover, trips him (cf. stage direction for I, iv, 84). Kent, who is Lear’s most faithful subject, becomes extremely furious at Oswald’s unruly behavior towards Lear. Kent III bids Oswald in II, ii, 28 to draw the dagger. He then changes to marked V, which he continues to use except for the lines 52–61. Kent III utters the marked pronouns while he is prodigiously heaping Oswald with abuse, but without forgetting to challenge Oswald for a duel several times. In fact, he continues his abuse in lines 52–61. Why he falls back into the unmarked form in this part of his address to Oswald only to change to the marked form again later on, cannot be substantiated. Table 25. Address of sovereigns to attendants and servants address relationship AYL: KL:

Duke Frederick Duke Senior Lear I Lear I Lear I Goneril II Regan II Regan II Regan II Cordelia II

to Charles to Adam to Kent III to Oswald to Attendant to Oswald to Oswald to First Servant to a Servant to Doctor

T

V

1 2 21 — — — 2 — 1 —

— — 6 10 3 13 15 2 — 2

The unmarked address to common servants is T. Of the listed servants, only the position of Kent III is known to be that of a common servant. The unmarked address to servants who are considered to be members of the middle classes is V. This applies to Oswald. The social position of the other servants is not directly obvious, but it can be derived from the address usage, which can be used as measure of status. Lear I’s address to the type “attendant” in I, iv, 43–75 does not seem to imply any kind of markedness, due to the complete emotional neutrality of the address

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

situation. It is thus assumed that “attendant” is addressed with unmarked V. What can be concluded from this is that the type “attendant” is aristocratic and, because he is a servant, that he is rated as a member of the middle classes. The position of the “doctor” remains unclear even if address usage is taken into consideration. The reason might be that the actual address situation in IV, vii, 19–20 neither excludes the markedness of the address pronoun V, nor does it allow the unambiguous conclusion that V is unmarked. Since the address to “doctor” is limited to two instances, and because there is no such character in As You Like It at all, no conclusions concerning Shakespeare’s social classification of doctors can be drawn here. Replogle (1967: 41f.), though, claims that Shakespeare generally grants doctors the social status of members of the gentry, but that they remain tainted with the blemish of common servitude. While the address from Regan to “a servant” in III, vii, 78 is obviously unmarked, the situational context and the insulting address “dog” (III, vii, 73) reveal the markedness of the address to “first servant” in III, vii, 73, 75. According to this, “a servant” as well as “first servant” are addressed with unmarked T, and that is why they appear as common servants. This also applies respectively for Charles and Adam. To all appearances, they are addressed with unmarked T in neutral address situations. Lear I addresses Kent III six times with V. He seems to do that in I, v, 1–5 as well as in II, iv, 129, because he has made him his envoy. The address with V could imply formal upgrading also in a linguistic respect. For the address with V in III, ii, 71 no explanation can be offered. By addressing Oswald with T in IV, v, 21, Regan achieves additional emphasis for her statement “I’ll love thee much,” (IV, v, 21). Her successful attempt to make Oswald her fellow-conspirator ends in IV, v, 40 with a fare thee well, which emphasises their being “partners in crime” (Quirk 1971: 72). The address relationship of Lear I to Oswald shows some special characteristics. The conclusion could be drawn from Lear’s complete dismissal of Oswald with abusive words like “clot poll” (I, iv, 46), “mongrel” (I, iv, 48), “whoreson dog” (I, iv, 79–80) as well as “slave” and “cur” (I, iv, 80) and from his extreme state of excitement in the address situation that his use of address with V is marked. Because sociolinguistic conventions were common knowledge, it can be assumed that Lear I uses V deliberately as a means of irony. This view is supported by Johnson: “In reproof or command, you is very frequently employed in irony to those of lower social status; it usually occurs in expressions such as “you-sir”, “you, sirrah”, or “d’ye hear” (Johnson 1966: 266f.). Lear I does address Oswald with “you, sirrah” (I, iv, 44) and “you, sir” (I, iv, 76). The following address relationships and T and V instances fall within the type of address “address of aristocrats” (as part of address to servants):

 Dieter Stein

Table 26. Address of members of the nobility addressing servants address relationship AYL:

KL:

Orlando Orlando Orlando Oliver Oliver Gloucester Gloucester Gloucester Edgar I Edgar I Edmund Edmund Albany Cornwall Cornwall Gentleman

to Adam to Le Beau to Charles to Adam to Charles to Kent III to Oswald to Old Man to Oswald to Officer to Curan to Officer to Messenger to Kent III to Oswald to Kent III

T

V

26 — — — 16 13 — 8 4 2 1 10 1 4 — —

1 4 3 2 2 — 1 — — — 1 — — 5 2 2

The unmarked address to common servants is T. This applies to the address to Kent III, Old Man, Adam and Charles. Unmarked address to servants, who are seen as members of the middle class, is V. Of the above mentioned servants classed in this type of address, only Oswald is known to be a socially higher-ranking servant. Edgar I as well as Edmund address the type “officer” with T in neutral address situations. For that reason, he is listed among the common servants. It may well be the case that Albany’s T to the “messenger” in IV, ii, 97 is unmarked address as well, because the situational context of the actual address relationship does not seem to make increased emotionality likely. Thus, the “messenger” would also not be placed in a higher social position. Edmund addresses Curan one time in II, i, 1 with T and another time in II, i, 9 with V, in this instance with pray you. Because the first address is a spontaneous greeting, the assumption that T is the unmarked address seems obvious. The V as marked address could be intended to flatter the servant, because Edmund is curious to know on which news Curan is informed (cf. II, i, 6–8). The V would then seem like a “formal-linguistic reward” in order to encourage Curan to give a detailed account of the news. The courtier Le Beau is exclusively addressed by Orlando. The few instances are all restricted to V. That V is the unmarked address in this case is indicated by the following three facts: for one Orlando addresses Le Beau with “sir” in I, ii, 258; in addition, the relationship between the two seems to be of a neutral-polite

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

nature; and finally, the situational context does not give any reason to assume affective reactions. Consequently, Le Beau would have to be seen as a courtier of higher birth. The following analysis of Orlando’s and Oliver’s address to Adam with V, and Edgar I’s address to Oswald with T will conclude the discussion for this address type. Although the V in I, i, 8 is listed as an address from Orlando to Adam, it does not, strictly speaking, constitute an address, and can therefore be called V only with reservations. Here, a generic use should be assumed.15 In contrast, Oliver addresses Adam with V in order to show his utmost discontent. The negative markedness of the address becomes clear in the command “Get you with him, you old dog” (I, i, 81). Edgar’s address to Oswald with T in IV, vi, 249–75 does indeed occur during the stage of the dramatic development in which Edgar plays the role of a peasant. But because he addresses the deceased Oswald, and since the still-present Gloucester is obviously busy with his own thoughts (cf. IV, vi, 251 and 276–81), the remarks may actually well be from Edgar I. The T here represents the unmarked form of address, independently of the status of the speaker, because the dead are generally addressed with T. Table 27. Address among members of the lower classes without a special relationship to one another address relationship AYL: KL:

— Edgar III

— to Oswald

T

V

— —

— 6

It can be gathered from the co-text in IV, vi, 234–9 that Edgar is not just simply speaking the stage version of the language of a simple peasant from Somerset, but rather that he, in accordance with his role, is behaving absolutely subserviently towards Oswald. The usage of a negatively marked address would be rather contrary to this behavior. With the increasing emotional gravity of the situation, the marked form of address could be expected in IV, vi, 241–2, but Edgar sticks to the V of his preceding, relatively polite statement to Oswald. His extremely subservient status in society seems to force him to address people of higher rank politely in every situation. Because the address relationship of Edgar III to Oswald is the only one within this type of address, these interpretations have to remain mere hypothesis. Prior to the analysis of the single type of address, the categorization of Ganymede and Aliena as members of the lower classes will have to be discussed.

 Dieter Stein

Since Ganymede and Aliena, in their disguises, appear as members of the lower classes to everyone except Touchstone, and therefore their status as addressee being fixed to a certain degree, it cannot, however, be definitely established whether they, as speakers, adapt to their roles, too. The following four considerations support the assumption that Ganymede’s and Aliena’s use of the pronominal address corresponds to that of aristocrats and not to that of members of the lower classes: (1) Rosalind and Celia plan to change their status outwardly as a protection against robbers by wearing different clothes and by smearing their faces (cf. I, iii, 107–18). Unlike Kent (cf. I, iv, 1) and Edgar (cf. II, iii, 14–20) in King Lear, they do not explicitly want to manipulate their language. (2) Jaques addresses Ganymede, whom he does not know, in IV, i, 1–2 spontaneously with T. Only when he starts to wonder about the discrepancy between outward appearance and Ganymede’s talking in blank verse does he emphasize this by addressing him with V in IV, 1, 29. The obviously unmarked address with T shows that Ganymede is taken for a young shepherd. The change to the marked form signals that his language does not correspond to the given social status. (3) Orlando remarks in III, ii, 333–4 that Ganymede’s language cannot have been learned in the woods of Arden. He, too, addresses Ganymede with V (cf. III, ii, 328–43), when he brings Ganymede’s beauty and linguistic behavior into their conversation. (4) In the address of a young shepherd to his sister, T would have to be the unmarked and V the marked form. From the context of the address of Ganymede to Aliena in III, ii, 423, IV, i, 117–22 and IV, iii, 66 follows, however, that V is used as the unmarked form. It should be possible to find an interpretation as a marked form for the single instance with T in this relationship. This is indeed the case, because the T occurs in the course of enthusiastic affirmations of Rosalind as Ganymede that she feels deep love for Orlando. Nevertheless, this instance cannot shed further light on the matter here either, because the address, even though it is explicitly directed to Aliena, may have actually been meant for Celia. The latter can be concluded from the fact that no other listeners are present. Further discussion of this question is not necessary for the following analysis of the types of address. The address relationships of Aliena and Ganymede as addressees (except for the address relationships between them) are such that a differentiation into marked and unmarked form of address would stay the same, regardless of whether the address stemmed from a shepherd.

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

Table 28. Address among members of the lower classes without a special relationship to one another address relationship AYL:

KL:

Ganymede Ganymede Ganymede Ganymede Aliena Corin Corin Silvius Silvius Phebe Audrey —

to Orlando II to Corin to Silvius to Phebe to Corin to Ganymede to Silvius to Ganymede to Corin to Silvius to William —

T

V

— 4 8 — 1 — — — 17 31 — —

4 2 23 36 — 1 1 5 — — 1 —

The unmarked form of address is T. The address conforming to norms is often substituted by a contrasting V. The address of Ganymede to Orlando II, that of Ganymede to Corin and that of Silvius to Ganymede will be analyzed in the following paragraph. Ganymede addresses Orlando in III, ii, 292–332 as a forester. He consistently uses V as the pronoun of address in this relationship. Immediately prior to this, Rosalind leads Celia to understand that she, as Ganymede, wants to use as a disguise the language of a “saucy lackey” (III, ii, 290 –1) towards Orlando. This might indicate that the address with V signals markedness. In addition to that, this is the only time that language serves explicitly as a means of disguise in As You Like It. Corin is addressed in II, iv, 67 by Ganymede with V. Ganymede here turns to Corin, whom he does not know up to that moment, with the intention of asking him for help. Ganymede seems to be anxious to encounter the shepherd with a marked friendliness and politeness after Touchstone’s loutish address to the latter. The markedness seems to be motivated by that. The change to the unmarked form immediately follows Corin’s reply to Ganymede’s friendly greeting. The latter can now be certain that the shepherd does not bear a grudge for Touchstone’s remark in II, iv, 65. The unmarked prithee precedes the address with “shepherd” in II, iv, 69. A motivation for the V instance in III, iv, 54 cannot be given. The address of Silvius to Ganymede consists exclusively of V instances. Silvius may want to express respect for Ganymede’s obvious superiority by the usage of the pronoun contrasting with the unmarked form of address.

 Dieter Stein

Table 29. Address among members of the lower classes who are kindred or related by marriage to each other address relationship AYL: KL:

Ganymede Aliena —

to Aliena to Ganymede —

T

V

1 — —

5 5 —

The unmarked form of address is T. Due to the nature of the address relationships between Ganymede and Aliena no normal address relationships exist within this type of address. As has been pointed out in the chapter heading of chapter three, several factors suggest that Ganymede and Aliena do not adapt their pronominal address to the social status of shepherds. The address of Ganymede to Aliena in III, ii, 423, IV, i, 117–205 and IV, iii, 66 has already been V. The situational context for Aliena’s address to Ganymede in IV, i, 63 – 4 and IV, iii, 162, 177 does not give any indication of a marked address, either. The use of V as the unmarked form of address would indeed be the address to an aristocratic cousin according to the norms. Table 30. Address among lovers address relationship AYL: KL:

Silvius Phebe —

to Phebe to Ganymede —

T

V

— 6 —

9 10 —

The unmarked form of address is V. Silvius exclusively uses V as an address pronoun, which is in contrast with the unmarked form. Phebe uses it more often than T. The address of Silvius to Phebe, who seems to be unmoved by his love, could signal the glorifying exaltation of the lover. The markedness of the address would correspond to the deplorable situation of the rejected admirer. Phebe falls madly in love with Ganymede at first sight. Her address to the young shepherd with V in III, v, 64–71; IV, iii, 50–5 (love letter to Ganymede) and V, ii, 102–3 could be seen as an emphatic exaltation of the boy of her choice and could respectively have been used markedly as a deliberate linguistic signal. The V instances in V, ii, 76–7 could, in contrast to this, express Phebe’s resentment at Ganymede’s betrayal of trust when seen in the context of Phebe’s exposure in front of Silvius. The negative markedness of such a usage, however, turns unproblemat-

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

ically into a renewed positive markedness in this address in V, ii, 102–3 in accordance with Phebe’s passion. Given Phebe’s enthusiasm, the use of the unmarked form of address rather than the use of the marked form is rather surprising. In IV, iii, 40, T is the unmarked pronoun of the apostrophe. In her love-letter to him, Phebe identifies Ganymede with a deity. The T in IV, iii, 44–5 and 56–9 in the same letter could result from Phebe’s wish to express a sensation of intimate closeness. That may be her reason for choosing the unmarked form of address, because V cannot signal these semantics. Table 31. The address of sovereigns address relationship AYL: KL:

Duke Senior Lear I

to Orlando II to Kent I

T

V

3 11

— —

The unmarked form of address is T. The listed address relationships do not show any deviation from the address according to norms. Table 32. The address of servants address relationship AYL:

KL:

Rosalind Rosalind Orlando Orlando Oliver Jaques Jaques Gloucester Albany Gentleman

to Silvius to Phebe to Ganymede to Aliena to Ganymede to Ganymede to Silvius to Edgar III to Edgar III to Edgar III

T

V

1 — 6 1 — 2 — — 2 —

— 1 11 — 4 2 1 3 — 2

The unmarked form of address is T. Of the V instances contrasting the unmarked form, the address relationships of Gloucester to Edgar III, that of Rosalind to Phebe and that of Jaques to Silvius will be analyzed more closely. An attempt to illustrate the markedness of the address from Jaques to Ganymede with V has already been made above. Gloucester’s address to Edgar III in IV, vi, 77, 217 and V, ii, 4 with V could be an expression of his insecurity concerning the social status of Edgar III. Since

 Dieter Stein

Gloucester is blind, he has to infer the social status of the person from the language of that person. Even when Edgar was playing the role of the Bedlam-beggar Gloucester became uncertain because of the language of Edgar II. The noticeable change in Edgar II’s language could also have resulted from the use of the pronominal address. Edgar II had, after the continuous address with T to Gloucester in IV, i, 39–78, addressed him exclusively with V from IV, vi, 2–32 onwards, up until the change of roles. Out of astonishment, Gloucester then changes to the marked address with V to the supposedly insane Edgar and states: “Methinks you’re better spoken” (IV, vi, 10). When, after the attempted suicide, Gloucester cannot connect Edgar with Edgar II anymore, the pronoun V towards the supposed stranger signals that Gloucester takes Edgar for a gentleman because of his linguistic skill. In this sense, V could be judged here as the unmarked form of address. Gloucester’s polite address to Edgar III with “sir” in IV, vi, 217 and V, ii, 4 supports this assumption: “Now, good sir, what are you?” (IV, vi, 217) “Grace go with you, sir!” (V, ii, 4). Rosalind’s address of Phebe with V in V, iv, 123 and that of Jaques to Silvius in V, iv, 189 can be linked to similar factors. In both cases, V may have been used towards members of the lower classes with the intention of undifferentiatedly highlighting all of the characters destined to marry. V as pronoun would then be meant to stress the formal, festive speech, in which the lovers are not differentiated according to their social background, but are put on one level according to their shared emotions. This explanation would also cover the markedness of Ganymede’s address to Silvius in V, ii, 112–20 and V, iv, 16, 23, that of Jaques to Touchstone in V, iv, 190, and that of Hymen to the lovers in V, iv, 130–4.

Table 33. The address of servants address relationship AYL: KL:

— Oswald

— to Edgar III

T

V

— 6

— —

The unmarked form of address is T. Members of the lower classes are generally addressed with T, no matter what category the speaker belongs to. The address relationship at hand does not contain any V contrasting with the unmarked form. The unmarked form of address to sovereigns and aristocrats is V. The only address relationship that has T in this type of address is that of Fool to Lear: the fool almost exclusively addresses Lear with T. The markedness of the address results from the fact that Fool sees a jester in Lear after Goneril and Regan have been made sovereigns and Cordelia is banned, and he also addresses Lear as if he

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

Table 34. The address to sovereigns and aristocrats address relationship AYL:

KL:

Touchstone Touchstone Touchstone Touchstone Fool Fool

to Duke Senior to Rosalind to Celia to Jaques to Lear to Goneril

T

V

— — — — 64 —

4 4 9 12 3 5

T

V

— 14

— 1

Table 35. The address to servants address relationship AYL: KL:

— Fool

— to Kent III

Table 36. The address to members of the lower classes and to Oliver Martext address relationship AYL:

KL:

Touchstone Touchstone Touchstone Touchstone —

to Corin to William to Audrey to Oliver Martext —

T

V

15 17 9 2 —

5 6 4 4 —

were a jester: “He [Fool] and the self-deposed king become co-equals in foolishness, [...].” (Johnson 1975: 155). There is no obvious reason for the astonishing relapse into the unmarked address with V in I, iv, 127–8 and 212 in terms of this address relationship, since the attitude of Fool towards Lear does not change. The address of the jester as a servant to another common servant is T. Fool addresses Kent III with V once. The connection with the address “sirrah” (I, iv, 95), which is normally followed by the address pronoun T, and the request to take the fool’s cap (cf. I, iv, 95) hint at the markedness of V. The address of the jester to members of the lower classes is T. The clergyman Oliver Martext, who is a member of the middle classes, is unmarkedly addressed with V. The change to the contrasting V in the address relationship to William can be analyzed as follows. In meeting William, Touchstone sees a completely inferior rival for Audrey’s favor. V may well signal an elevation in the situational context of

 Dieter Stein

V, i, when Touchstone calls on William for an explanation, the irony of which may be lost on William. But, nevertheless, this irony is intended. The type of address “The address to jesters” can be further divided into three more precise types of address with the following order of address relationships and T and V instances: Table 37. The address of sovereigns and aristocrats address relationship AYL:

KL:

Rosalind Celia Jaques Lear I Goneril

to Touchstone to Touchstone to Touchstone to Fool to Fool

T

V

5 5 3 4 —

5 6 9 3 2

T

V

— — 3

1 1 1

Table 38. The address of servants address relationship AYL: KL:

First Page Second Page Kent III

to Touchstone to Touchstone to Fool

Table 39. The address of members of the lower classes address relationship AYL:

KL:

Corin William Audrey —

to Touchstone to Touchstone to Touchstone —

T

V

— — — —

7 2 4 —

The unmarked form of address of sovereigns and aristocrats is V. The markedness of the address with V by Lear I to Fool in I, iv, 167 as well as by Celia to Touchstone in I, ii, 54 –64 seem to be meant as a signal of benevolent respect. In contrast to this, the V instances of Lear I in I, iv, 177 and the V of Celia in I, ii, 78 carry negative connotations. Fool as well as Touchstone are threatened with a whip in the respective address. The unmarked form of address by servants to jesters is T. There is one V instance in the address of Kent III to the Fool. Here, however, no pronominal address in the actual sense of the word is concerned, but the generic usage of you

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

(Wales: 1985). First Page and Second Page sing in V, iii a song for Touchstone as a “honest gentleman” (V, iii, 6). The marked V in V, iii, 8 of Second Page follows the address in V, iii, 6, and the V in V, iii, 41 immediately precedes the renewed polite address with “sir” (V, iii, 41). It is possible that the unmarked address of members of the lower classes to jesters is V. Corin, William and Audrey exclusively address Touchstone with V. The jester behaves towards them like an eloquent gentleman with courtly manners, and is accepted by them as such, which is shown by the pronominal address. But the address relationships within this type of address cannot lead to any global statement about unmarkedness or markedness in the pronominal address because Touchstone is the only addressee that can be listed. It is doubtful whether Touchstone’s behavior towards members of the lower classes is typical of jesters in general. Determining markedness for insane persons is a complicated and intriguing issue that cannot be resolved in the context of the present study. Markedness in the sense of the present study implies a notion of semiotic of intentionality. How can we be reasonably sure of that in the case of an insane person? Is the marked linguistic behavior expressive of the author’s social or affective intentions or of the portrayal of the insane person’s very insanity? To what extent are the social default conditions for pronouns applicable for establishing markedness? What is the cultural and literary status of the insane at the time? All these issues are difficult to resolve and will need to be correlated with further research on the topic. This is why the statistics will just be presented in raw form, and an interpretation of the semantics of the marked form suspended in this case. Table 40. Address among the insane address relationship AYL: KL:

— Lear II Edgar II

— to Edgar II to Lear II

T

V

— 16 10

— 7 —

T

V

— — 19 2 — — 6

— 2 6 — 1 1 8

Table 41. The address of the insane address relationship AYL: KL:

— Lear II Lear II Lear II Lear II Lear II Edgar II

— to Kent II to Gloucester to Fool to Edgar III to Gentleman to Gloucester

 Dieter Stein

Table 42. Address to the insane address relationship AYL: KL:

— Gloucester

— to Edgar II

T

V

— 13

— 2

As appears from the purely numerical statistics, the unmarked form of address to the insane, as members of the lowest class of society, is T. Table 43. Apostrophes and addresses of Hymen to humans address relationship AYL:

Rosalind Jaques Amiens Lord Hymen Hymen

to Jupiter to Jupiter to Jupiter to Jupiter to Duke Senior to Lovers

T

V

— 2 8 4 2 —

2 — — — — 8

T

V

17 6 1 4 2 17 1 2

1 — — — — — — —

Table 44. Humans to Hymen address relationship KL:

Lear I Lear II Kent I Kent III Fool Edgar II Edgar III Edmund

to Hymen to Hymen to Hymen to Hymen to Hymen to Hymen to Hymen to Hymen

The unmarked form of address is T. The apostrophes of both Lear II and Edgar II, the latter uttering apostrophes of an insane person in the presence of others, exclusively contain the pronoun T, even if one cannot speak of unmarkedness of address. V instances occur in the apostrophes of Lear I and Rosalind and in the address of Hymen to the lovers. The single instance with V within the apostrophes of Lear I in III, iv, 26 could carry the referential meaning of a plural you, even though they refer to the singular “houseless poverty” (III, iv, 26). This might be the case because Lear I uses “houseless poverty” to address the plural nominal phrases

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

“poor naked wretches” (III, iv, 28) and “houseless heads” (III, iv, 30). If this is true, then there is, for the character of Lear I, no pronominal address deviating from the norm to be found in the apostrophes. The nearly continuous usage of T in this type of address could help decide whether the has of the Folio or the hast of the Quarto should be preferred. In As You Like It, Rosalind’s address is directed to Jupiter. The use of V on this occasion is to be seen as exceptional. That notwithstanding, the markedness of the address could be based on a phenomenon that was described for the fourteenth century by Stidston: The few instances of the plur. addressed to God or Christ are probably due largely to a feeling on the part of the author that there is an almost human relationship between the speaker and the one addressed (Stidson 1917: 47f.).

Stidston does indeed restrict this statement to God and Christ, but presents it within his paper on the address “To God and the heathen deities” (Stidson 1917: 45f.). The transfer of this observation to Rosalind’s pronominal usage may well be permissible for that reason. The address of Hymen to the lovers with V has been treated in above in chapter three. Table 45. Self-address address relationship AYL: KL:

Ganymede Orlando Lear I Kent I Edgar II

to Rosalind

T

V

1 2 2 5 5

— — — — —

The self-address is exclusively T; because “[...]man ist ja mit sich ‘per Du.’”(Finkenstaedt 1963: 82). Edgar, who only enacts the role of an insane person, speaks as Edgar I in the self-address. The address of Ganymede to Rosalind in a marriage formula will be classified as self-address, regardless of the disguise and the role.

. Marked and unmarked singular pronominal address in As You Like It and King Lear The analyses in Section 3 have shown that, as far as unmarked usage structure was concerned, Shakespeare was basically in conformity with the usage of his time. This usage was, however, in the nature of categorical rules only in marginal areas.

 Dieter Stein

It was in the nature of regularities that could be exploited for purposeful infringement for the expression of emotional meanings in most of the address dyads. Explanations for the use of the unmarked form can be found in nearly all cases, by relating the informational saliency value of the marked form to the dramatic context. The common denominator of the marked form is some sort of emotional value (positive or negative). The meaning potential of the marked form – emotionality – is therefore much more restricted, and the meaning of the individual occurrence much more easily identified, than in the case of the “s” vs “th” contrast (“singes” vs “singeth”) third-singulars in Shakespeare (Stein 1974). T as well as V can both function as marked address. Where the address is roughly between equals it is T that is the marked form. V is used with marked status towards common servants, members of the lower classes, and minor-aged children. The differentiation in marked and unmarked address is in fact also realized when T and V are expressed with formulaic prithee, pray you, fare thee well, fare you well. The concentrated language and emphatic emotionality typical of plays lead to a considerable frequency of marked addresses in numerous address relationships in both As You Like It and King Lear. In both plays about 30% of the T and V instances are marked. This corresponds to a 1 : 2 relationship in favor of the unmarked address. In the following, all instances of T and of V in As You Like It and King Lear will be presented in two separate tables. Speakers and addressees will be subsumed under the six categories as in chapter three, and will no longer appear under the name of the particular character. For example, the table for King Lear will thus contain data on form of address from sovereign to sovereign for all of the T and V instances that occur between the sovereigns Lear and Burgundy, Lear and France, Lear and Goneril, Lear and Regan, Lear and Cordelia, Goneril and Regan, as well as between Goneril and Cordelia. Consistency of the pronominal forms of address to sovereigns, nobles, members of the lower classes, fools (except when addressed by members of the lower classes) and the insane is a socially predetermined matter following Elizabethan notions of “station”. There are, however, cases lower down the social scale where the social relationships are not as clear-cut so as to clearly predict pronominal usage. The instances of T and V within the grouping of address to servants cannot portray a clear picture of the consistency and variation of pronominal forms of address for the reason that both common and higher ranked servants fall into the general category of “servants”. The status of the types “attendant” as well as “first servant”, “a servant”, Charles and Adam are cases in point. In a circular fashion, pronominal address provides an important clue to their social station. The character of the “Doctor”, however, cannot be placed into a particular social category on the basis of pronominal forms of address because

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

V in a given address situation might just as well have been intended as marked or unmarked. The “Doctor” will nonetheless be grouped with the higher-ranked servants, following Replogle (1967: 41f.). It will be noted in this context that Touchstone’s address to Oliver Martext has been entered in the table for As You Like It as an address to a member of the lower classes. Apostrophes, which have been listed under the form of address type “apostrophes”, and self-addresses do not appear in the tables. Percentages are only given in the tables when the sum of the T and V instances for a particular address dyad is at least ten.

Table 46. Overview of address dyads in As You Like It

to

sovereigns

members of the lower classes

court jesters/ fools

aristocrats

servants

T

T

V

T

V

T

3 —

— —

3 —

— —

— —

from

T

V

sovereigns

—

—

aristocrats

—

39 82 177 100% 31% 69%

42 12 10 19 13 20 77% 23% 34% 66% 39% 61%

— — — —

servants

— —

3 —

1 2%

50 98%

— —

— —

— —

— — — —

members of — the lower — classes

7 —

— —

129 — 100% —

— —

68 102 — 40% 60% —

13 — — 100% — —

court — jesters/fools —

4 —

— —

25 — 100% —

— —

43 19 — 69% 31% —

— —

— — — —

the insane

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

— — — —

— —

V

42 32 56% 44%

— —

— —

— —

2 —

— —

V

the insane

— —

— —

T

V

— — — —

The form of address from nobles to sovereigns in As You Like It is the unmarked form V in 100% of the cases. This is in keeping with the elevated status of the sovereigns. Nobles are addressed by sovereigns with T in 56% of the cases. Of the 42 T instances, twelve are from Duke Frederick to Celia and Rosalind. Duke Frederick angrily addresses Oliver with T eleven times. For this kind of address, marked

 Dieter Stein

T is used more often than marked V. This can be taken as an expression of the powerful position held by the sovereign. Nobles in As You Like It use T when addressing sovereigns 82 times, that is 31% of the cases. However, since 54 instances of address with T are between Rosalind and Celia and twelve marked instances of T are uttered between lovers, this rather surprising frequency of overall marked address for this social class can be explained by referring to the special relationship of the speaker to the addressee. There is one instance of address with T from a servant to a noble in As You Like It. For an underling to violate norms in his linguistic behavior towards a much higher-up member of society is indeed especially noteworthy. This single instance could be interpreted as a signal of respect and deference from Adam to Orlando I, or, more precisely, as an attempt to define the special nature of the relationship. Members of the lower classes and the court jester/fool do not use any marked forms in their address to nobles in As You Like It. In fact, the completely subordinate position of the lower classes in society practically compels them to use forms of address conforming to set norms for members of the more influential classes. The court jester, of course, in having certain linguistic freedoms associated with “foolishness”, has no need to restrict his address to nobles with V. All in all, of the 54% of the T and V instances for address from nobles to servants in As You Like It, 13% are marked. This can be determined by re-examining the details given in Section 3 of the social position of each individual servant, according to which Charles and Adam are addressed with marked forms by Oliver, and Charles by Orlando for a total of seven times. At first sight it appears striking that nobles in As You Like It address members of the lower classes 66% of the time with V. However, the statistical fact appears in a different light when we note that of the 19 V instances 17 are addressed to Ganymede, whose deportment is incompatible with his shepherd disguise. The marked forms of address used by Orlando, Oliver and Jacques towards Ganymede are thus not to be taken as being representative of the typical forms of address to the lower classes. The role that the disguises play in this instance makes the unexpectedly high percentage of marked forms of address for this address type a special case. The forms of address among members of the lower classes in As You Like It patterns along with the forms of address from nobility to members of the lower classes in that more marked forms occur than unmarked: 60% of the instances of address among members of the lower classes are realized with V. Of the 102 V instances, 59 stem from Ganymede’s addresses to the love-sick Silvius combined with the addresses towards Phebe, who does not yield to Silvius’ pleas for her love, but rather falls head over heels in love with Ganymede. Ganymede and Aliena use V ten times among themselves. But certainly, as has been discussed in earlier in

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

section 3, their address relationship is not at all typical for members of the lower classes. 19 of the other V instances fall into the category of address among lovers. The marked pronoun uses can be explained for these instances by the desire of the admirer to put the object of his or her affection on a pedestal, in a formal way. The court jester in As You Like It addresses members of the lower classes 19 times with V. That 31% of these addresses are marked can be seen as a result of Touchstone’s arrogant stance towards addressees of this address type. The fact that the percentage of marked forms of address from nobles to court jesters is 61% higher than unmarked in As You Like It may be explained by the – at times rather heated – encounters the speakers Rosalind, Celia and Jaques have with the Fool and his wit. The form of address from members of the lower classes to the court jesters is V 100% of the time in As You Like It. Table 47. Overview of address dyads in King Lear

to

sovereigns

from

T

V

sovereigns

62 35%

aristocrats

servants

aristocrats

servants

T

T

T

115 46 52 65% 46% 54%

24 51 11 — 32% 68% 100% —

4 —

36 37%

60 75 140 63% 34% 66%

43 11 2 79% 21% —

5 —

3 11%

24 4 89% 8%

26 24 6 52% 48% — — —

3 —

court 64 jesters/fools 88%

8 — 12% —

the insane

— —

— —

41 92%

9 28 24% 76%

— —

25 15 62% 15%

V

V

5 —

— —

— —

— —

— —

13 2 86% 14%

— —

3 —

1 —

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

14 1 94% 6%

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

— —

1 —

2 —

— —

26 7 78% 22%

2 —

V

the insane

T

6 —

T

court jesters/ fools

V

members of — the lower — classes

V

members of the lower classes

Marked usage of T makes up 35% of occurring address types from one sovereign to another in King Lear. Since the position of power held by the addressee is the same as that of the speaker, namely “sovereign”, the occurrence of marked address

 Dieter Stein

with an absolute total of 62 T instances seems especially noteworthy. An explanation for this statistic can be provided when it is taken into consideration that 59 instances of address with T are from Lear I to his daughters Goneril, Regan and Cornelia II. The parent – child relationship is such that even when V is the unmarked form of address to a child, T is used often in those situations where the parent aims to address the child in his or her role as child and not as an already independent and grown-up person. Even more out of the ordinary than the marked address from a sovereign to another appears to be the norm violations found in address from nobles to a sovereign. With 37% marked address is indeed used quite often for this address type in King Lear. 17 of the T instances occur when Kent I addresses Lear. His dispute with the sovereign ends with Kent’s banishment. Six other addresses with T are from Gloucester to Regan after he has fallen into the sovereign’s disfavor. Albany uses T with extreme anger towards Goneril, his wife. Albany, holding a good amount of power himself, does not have to fear Goneril’s power as a sovereign; though he, too, is by no means safe from her intrigues. The 11% of T instances from servants to sovereigns in King Lear appear in a different light when taking into account the two apostrophes they contain. The only remaining marked instance with T is from Kent III to Lear, which he uses as a signal of his respectful stance towards Lear. The court jester can use marked address to sovereigns with impunity due to his “fool’s licence”. The Fool uses T 64 times towards Lear. The reason for the enormously high frequency of marked address for this address type in King Lear, namely 88% of the time, may be found in the sustained and extremely critical confrontations of the Fool with Lear. Sovereigns use marked forms in their address to nobles 46% of the time in King Lear. Ten of the 46 T instances result from the confrontation of Lear I with Kent I, which lead to his banishment. Lear I uses T six times to Cordelia, who ends up disinherited. Goneril II addresses her despised husband six times with T. And, twelve of the T instances occur in the course of declarations of love. The reasons for the marked pronominal usage of T are various. But they all strongly point to the position of power held by the sovereign. 34% of the addresses among nobles in King Lear are marked. Ten of the total of 75 T instances involve the address from Albany to Edmund after his exposure as a doer of misdeeds. The five times that Cornwall uses T towards Gloucester have an equally negative intent. But the greatest portion of marked address occurs in the address relationship between Edgar I and Edmund. The brothers address each other 40 times with marked T; sometimes positively, sometimes negatively. Marked address from servants to nobles in King Lear, amounting to 8%, must be handled as an exceptional case. All of the four T instances are from the steward Oswald to Gloucester as his victim, whom he, at Regan’s bidding, wants to kill.

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

24% of the marked instances of address from members of the lower classes to nobles in King Lear find an explanation in the peculiarities of the particular address relationship as well: all nine instances of address with T are from Edgar III to Gloucester. Of the total of 75 pronominal addresses from sovereigns to servants in King Lear, the marked form is used ten times. The address from Lear I to Kent, and that from Regan II to “First Servant” together account for eight of the marked addresses with V. In addition, Oswald is twice affectionately addressed with marked T by Regan II. This total of ten marked instances makes up 13% of the addresses for this address type. Of the total of 54 T and V instances in the address from nobles to servants in King Lear, eight are marked. All of these marked forms are realized with V. Curan is addressed by Edmund in this manner, as is Kent III by Cornwall and by Gentleman. These eight instances of marked address amount to 15%. The total of the T and V address instances among servants in King Lear is 50. For these address relationships, marked address is expressed with V. The 24 V instances, which amount to 48% of the addresses for this address type, all occur in the address relationship of Kent III to Oswald. The address from court jesters to servants in King Lear is limited to the address from “Fool” to Kent III. Here, the sole V instance is one of marked address. The address from sovereigns to members of the lower classes show no marked forms in King Lear. Two marked instances of V turn up in the address from nobles to the insane in King Lear, which corresponds to 14% in this address type. Both marked pronouns are directed to Edgar II by Gloucester, to be accounted for by the peculiarities of this address relationship as expounded in Section 3. Comparing As You Like It and King Lear, there are some striking similarities and differences. Consistency of pronominal address is a striking feature of address between nobles and sovereigns in As You Like It. It is matched by the power relationships in King Lear. The latter relationship, power, is marked by a high fluctuation of address, depending on whether the addressee is socially superior, equal, or subordinate to the speaker. While sovereigns choose a marked address to nobles in 56% of the cases in As You Like It, the address among nobles is only marked in 31% of the cases. Servants almost never use marked address to nobles. In addition, members of the lower classes always keep to unmarked address forms in their address to nobles. For King Lear, the data for address from sovereigns to nobles, among nobles, and from servants to nobles approximately correspond to the results for As You Like It, with 46%, 34%, and 8%, respectively. The variation in the address from members of the lower classes to nobles in King Lear, with a frequency of 24%, represents a measure of divergence from the consistency within this address type in As You Like It. It is not only the presence of a gap in social ranks between nobles and members of the lower classes that accounts for the fact that the consistency in As You Like It is

 Dieter Stein

due to the social circumstances as mirrored in the forms of address, but also the fact that the address relationship of Edgar III to Gloucester, which accounts for all of the marked addresses for this address type in King Lear, has to be characterized as completely atypical. In both As You Like It and King Lear, nobles do not address servants very often with marked forms. The relative frequency is 13% for As You Like It and 15% for King Lear.

. Conclusion The discussion of the pattern of stability and variation for both plays studied here has shown that for both plays investigated the constraints of the social hierarchy leave enough “space” for semiotic exploitation, much in the same vein as discussed by Stein (1974 ch. IV) for the variant inflectional endings “th” and “s”, with “th” no longer part of whatever was spoken or colloquial language of the time (Stein 1987), but still available in the competence of speakers as a residual possibility of poetic and other high registers (religion!) to be exploited for literary purposes. The same seems to be the case for the pronominal contrast investigated in the present study. For all we know, thou must have been the generally marked form during Shakespeare’s lifetime in terms of social rank (Hope 1993: 97f.), but the phase-shifted status of poetic language still allowed its use for the purposes described here. Shakespeare would not be one to pass up on such expressive potential. As shown by e.g. Lass (1999: 151f.) in a study of the local microstructure of pronominal shifting, the exploitation of the contrast in non-poetic language continues much longer, with “thou increasingly marked by affectivity” (Lass 1999: 150). The picture from the present analysis is totally in line with the static patterns of social structure evinced by Nevalainen (1996). The very high and very low ends, to the extent that they are represented in the plays, and their pronominal behavior towards each other, are socially entirely predictable. And the lower classes amongst themselves are entirely consistent too in – still – using thou. Just as with the many uses of the old “th” in the third-singular in Shakespeare, this is probably diachronically antiquated use, where reality has overtaken literature. It is the higher classes amongst themselves, and the middle ground in terms of social gradience that are the mainstay of pronominal emotion management. And it cannot come as a surprise that it is the passions of the nobles and sovereigns that are signaled and contextualized by pronominal contrast: in both plays it is sovereigns talking to aristocrats that shows the most finely-tuned handling of the pronominal contrast in both plays as reflected in around 50/50 shares of both pronouns. The differences in the two plays in the pronominal behavior of aristocrats talking upwards to sovereigns, with one third of eligible cases by thou in King Lear,

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

is a matter interpretable only in the context of the dramatic movements within King Lear. Aristocrats talking to aristocrats in both plays are, next to sovereigns, the socially most advanced group, with you as the unmarked form. If drama is, or better, were, anything to go by, the lower classes amongst themselves are in a state of flux, as shown by the pattern of As You Like It. The position of the fool and jester is wonderfully ambiguous, so are the insane, offering just as much ground for interpretation as nobles and sovereigns.

Acknowledgments Many thanks are due to Antje Hartmann and Stefanie Reynders for critical comments and help with the preparation of the manuscript.

Notes . All of the quotations from As You Like It and King Lear in this paper have been taken from the respective editions from Arden. The entries for act, scene, and line are in parentheses, and immediately follow the example from the text. As You Like It is shortened to AYL, and King Lear to KL. . As long as no further specification is given, the terms “pronominal address” and “address pronoun” refer to the singular realizations. . See Section 2 for an explanation of thou and you in the Elizabethan period. . Cf. Hudson (1980: 122). Trudgill (1974: 106–8) and Leith (1983: 106–10) also deal with Brown and Gilman’s terminology and concepts. . The case differentiations for thou and you in the Elizabethan period are the following: Nominative thou you/ye Accusative thee you/ye Possessive thine yours Determiner thy/thine your . The position of power that a minor-aged child holds with respect to his or her biological parents must be dealt with as a special case. . The title of gentleman was extended to non-aristocratic classes in the Elizabethan period. . For pronominal usage in love making in D.H. Lawrence cf. Reitz (1992). . Opposing views can be found in Abbott (1883: 154, 158), Williams (1953: 125–8), and J.A. Johnson (1975: 156). . Shortened to “servants” throughout the remaining text. . See the comments on IV, vi, 134 and 138 in the Arden edition of King Lear.

 Dieter Stein . The address with dame may be ambiguous, cf. Salmon (1967: 53). . It seems reasonable to include the address from Duke Frederick to Rosalind under this address type, as well as that from Duke Senior to Celia. Rosalind not only shares an intimate friendship with her cousin Celia, but also, as the wrestler Charles puts it, is “...no less beloved of her uncle Duke Frederick than his own daughter, ...” (I, i, 110–1). Celia is put on an equal standing as a daughter in Duke Senior’s eyes as well (cf. V, iv, 147). . See Section 2. . See Wales (1985) for the generic use of you.

References Primary sources Shakespeare, William 1972 King Lear. Edited by Kenneth Muir. London: Arden. Shakespeare, William 1975 As You Like It. Edited by Agnes Latham. London: Arden.

Secondary sources Abbott, E. A. 1883 A Shakespearian Grammar. London: New Edition. Barber, Charles 1976 Early Modern English. London: Deutsch. Beneke, Jürgen 1982 Das elisabethanische Englisch im Vergleich zum heutigen Englisch. William Shakespeare. In: Rüdiger Ahrens (ed.). Didaktisches Handbuch. Vol. 1. Munich: Fink, 145–80. Blake, Norman 1983 Shakespeare’s Language. An Introduction. London: Macmillan. Brook, G. L. 1976 The Language of Shakespeare. London: Deutsch. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman 1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 253–76. Bruti, Silvia 2000 Address pronouns in Shakespeare’s English: A re-appraisal of markedness. In: Dieter Kastovsky and Arthur Mettinger (eds). The History of English in a Social Context. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 25–53. Byrne, Sister St. Geraldine 1936 Shakespeare’s Use of the Pronoun of Address: Its Significance in Characterization and Motivation. Unpublished dissertation, Catholic University of America, Washington D. C.

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

Calvo, Clara 1992 Pronouns of address in As You Like It. Language and Literature 1, 5–27. Finkenstaedt, Thomas. 1963 You und Thou: Studien Zur Anrede Im Englischen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Franz, Wilhelm 1898/9 [4th edition 1939] Die Sprache Shakespeares in Vers und Prosa: unter Berücksichtigung des Amerikanischen entwicklungsgeschichtlich dargestellt: Shakespeare-Grammatik. Halle and Saale: Niemeyer. Garcia, Erica C. 1994 Reversing the status of markedness. Folia Linguistica XXVIII(3–4), 327–61. Görlach, Manfred 1978 Einführung ins Frühneuenglische (Uni-Taschenbücher 820). Heidelberg: Quelle and Mayer. Grice, H. P. 1975 Logic and Conversation. In: P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds). Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academy Press, 41–59. Hope, Jonathan 1993 Second person singular pronouns in records of Early Modern Spoken English. Neophilologische Mitteilungen 94(1), 83–100. –––––– 1994 The use of thou and you in Early Modern Spoken English: Evidence from depositions in the Durham ecclesiastical court records. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.). Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 141–53. Hudson, Richard A. 1980 Sociolinguistics (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jespersen, Otto 1911 [reprinted 1954]. A Modern English Grammar. London. Allen & Unwin. Johnson, Anne Carvey 1966 The pronoun of direct address in seventeenth century English. American Speech 41(4), 261–9. Johnson, Judith A. 1975 Second person pronouns in Shakespeare’s tragedies. Michigan Academician 8(2), 151–6. Lass, Roger 1999 Phonology and morphology. In: Richard Hogg (ed.). The Cambridge History of the English Language 1476–1776. Vol. 3, 65–186. Leith, Dick 1983 A Social History of English (Language and Society). London: Routledge & Kegan. Mazzon, Gabriella 1992 Shakespearean ‘thou’ and ‘you’ revisited, or socio-affective networks on stage. In: Carmela Nocera Avila, Nicola Pantaleo and Dominico Pezzini (eds). Early Modern English: Trends, Forms and Texts: Papers read at the IV National Conference of History of English. Bari: Schena, 121–36.

 Dieter Stein

McCombie, Frank 1980 Medium and message in As You Like It and King Lear. Shakespeare Survey. An Annual Survey of Study and Production 33, 67–80. McIntosh, Angus 1963 As You Like It: A grammatical clue to character. A Review of English Literature 4(2), 68–81. McIntosh, Angus, and Colin Williamson 1963 King Lear, Act I, Scene i. A stylistic note. The Review of English Studies New Series 14, 54 – 8. Mitchell, Bruce 1979 The language of Shakespeare. Spicilegio Moderno 12, 3–17. Nevalainen, Terttu 1996 Social stratification. In: Terttu Nevalainen (ed.). Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies based on the Corpus of Early Modern English Correspondence. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi, 57–77. Pfister, Manfred 1978 Die heiteren Komödien. In: Schabert 1978, 435–43. Quirk, Randolph 1966 [1959] English language and the structural approach. In: Randolph Quirk and A. H. Smith (eds). The teaching of English. (Language and Language Learning 3). London: Oxford University Press, 6–35. –––––– 1971 Shakespeare and the English language. In: Kenneth Muir and Samuel Schoenbaum (eds). A New Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 67– 83. Reitz, Ulla-Carina 1992 Dialekt bei D.H. Lawrence (Neue Studien zur Anglistik und Amerikanistik 56). Frankfurt am Main, Bern, Paris and New York: Peter Lang. Replogle, Carol Ann 1967 Shakespeare’s Use of The Forms Of Address. Unpublished dissertation, Brandeis University. Saintsbury, George 1910 [reprinted 1933] Cambridge History of English Literature. Volume V. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Salmon, Vivian 1967 Elizabethan colloquial English in the Falstaff plays. Leeds Studies in English New Series 1, 37–70. Schabert, Ina 1978 Die “dramatis personae”. In: Schabert 1978, 296–315. Schabert, Ina (ed.) 1978 Shakespeare-Handbuch. Die Zeit, Der Mensch, Das Werk, Die Nachwelt. Stuttgart: Kröner. Scheler, Manfred 1982 Shakespeares Englisch: Eine Einführung (Grundlagen der Anglistik und Amerikanistik 12). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.

Pronominal usage in Shakespeare 

Schläfer, Ute 1978 Die späteren Tragödien. In: Schabert 1978, 594–9. Shopen, Timothy, and Joseph M. Williams 1981 Style and Variables in English. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdree Wilson 1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Stein, Dieter 1974 Grammatik und Variation von Flexionsformen in der Sprache des Shakespeare Corpus. Unpublished dissertation, University of Saarbrücken. –––––– 1987 At the crossroads of philology, linguistics and semiotics: Notes on the replacement of ‘th’ by ‘s’ in the third person singular in English. English Studies 68(5), 406–32. Stidston, Russel Osborne 1917 The Use of ‘Ye’ In The Function of ‘Thou’: A Study of Grammar and Social Intercourse in Fourteenth- Century England. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University. Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970 A History of English. London: Methuen. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1972 A History of English Syntax: A Transformational Approach to the History of English Sentence Structure. New York: Holt, Reinhard & Winston. Trudgill, Peter 1974 Sociolinguistics: An Introduction. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Wales, Kathleen M. 1985 Generic ‘your’ and Jacobean drama: the rise and fall of pronominal usage. English Studies 66(1), 7–24. Willcock, Gladys D. 1934 [reprinted 1962] Shakespeare and Elizabethan English. In: H. GranvilleParker and G. B Harrison (eds). A Companion to Shakespeare Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117–37. Williams, Charles 1953 The use of the second person in Twelfth Night. English 9, 125–9. Wilson, F. P. 1941 Shakespeare and the diction of common life. Proceedings of the British Academy 27, 167–97.

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues Patterns of usage Terry Walker Uppsala University

.

Introduction

This study focuses on the use of you and thou1 in dialogues in a variety of text types from 1560-1600 and 1680-1720, and furthermore investigates differences in usage between male and female speakers. Previous studies have concentrated on constructed dialogue, especially the plays of Shakespeare (e.g. Barber 1981; Brown and Gilman 1960, 1989), but there are many sources yet to be fully exploited. In this study I look at pronoun usage in both constructed and authentic 2 dialogues of the two periods. Within these two text categories, the text types studied are trials and depositions, that is, texts supposed to record authentic dialogues, and handbooks and comedy drama, which include constructed dialogues. The source material used is drawn from the computerised Corpus of English Dialogues 15601760 (CED) currently under compilation at Lancaster and Uppsala Universities. The material used for this study consists of approximately 200,000 words of running text, the details of which are presented below (Table 1). For each text type and period, three text samples were selected from the CED to form a sub-corpus of 24 texts (henceforth referred to as the corpus). The aim of the study is both to compare pronoun usage in the text categories of constructed and authentic dialogues, and within each above-mentioned text type during the two periods, and to show the changes in pronominal usage across time within the text types. The further aim of the work is to investigate the role of the gender variable in second person singular pronoun selection. Recent studies (e.g. Holmes 1995) have shown women in present day society to be more polite than men, as a result of, among other things, women’s inferior social status. It seems reasonable to suggest that in the hierarchical societies of late sixteenth and early eighteenth century England the politeness strategies of women would differ from those of men. This is not to suggest that gender is the only, or even most

 Terry Walker

Table 1. The corpus (the abbreviated text titles used in this study are underlined) Authentic Dialogue: Trials (T) Witness depositions (W)

Constructed Dialogue: Comedy drama (C) Handbooks (H)

1560–1600

Trial of Duke of Norfolk (T) 13,790 words (1571) Trial of Edward Abington et al (T) 5,104 words (1586) Trial of Mr. John Udall (T) 11,074 words (1590) Church Courts of Durham (W) 10,194 words (1560–88) Bishop’s Court, Chester (W) 13,406 words (1561–6) S. Oses Witches (Darcy) (W) 10,827 words (1582)

The Old Wives Tale (Peele) (C) 8,801 words (1595) Menaecmi (Warner) (C) 11,784 words (1595) A Humerous Dayes Mirth (Chapman) (C) 9,549 words (1599) Dialogue betweene a Lady and a Pilgrim (H) 4,857 words (1579) Familiar Dialogves (Bellot) (H) 6,439 words (1586) Dialogue Concerning Witches (Gifford) (H) 9,510 words (1593)

Total 115,335

Total 64,395

Total 50,940

1680–1720

Tryal of John Giles (T) 7,227 words (1680) Tryal of Lady Lisle (T) 10,435 words (1685) Tryals of Haagen Swendsen (T) 10,024 words (1702) York Depositions (W) 9,885 words (1680–9) Concerning the Birth of the Prince of Wales (W) 8,272 words (1688) Duke of Norfolk’s Charge against the Duchess (W) 3,525 words (1691)

The Lost Lover (Manley) (C) 10,533 words (1696) The Beaux Stratagem (Farquhar) (C) 10,023 words (1707) Chit-Chat (Killigrew) (C) 10,067 words (1719) Nouvelle Methode (Miege) (H) 10,041 words (1685) Dialogue betwixt John and Kate (H) 5,398 words (1685) Dialogue between Two Young Ladies (H) 6,801 words (1696)

Total 102,231

Total 49,368

Total 52,863

Total 217,566

Total 113,763

Total 103,803

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues

important factor which might influence the selection of a particular pronoun; linguistic factors, such as the syntactic function of a pronoun, or verb collocation, may also play a role. However, the treatment of linguistic factors is beyond the scope of the present study. This is a preliminary report on ongoing research into, primarily, how the two extra-linguistic factors of text type and gender influence the use of thou and you in Early Modern English dialogues. After considering previous research in some detail, and briefly commenting on methodology, I present and compare the relative frequencies of thou to you in the text categories, text types and individual texts in the two periods studied. Moreover, the actual pronoun usage is discussed, and comparisons made between the two periods, in the different text types in the two text categories. Following this, after a brief introduction, I present the relative frequency of thou to you for both periods according to the gender of the speaker and hearer; apparent trends in the pronoun usage of male and female speakers are then discussed.

. Previous research The periods 1560–1600 and 1680–1720 are interesting for the study of pronominal usage as previous descriptions of thou usage point to a steady decline between 1560 and 1720. It has been shown that the late sixteenth century witnessed the beginning of thou as the marked form, and thus you functioning as the neutral form (Hope 1993: 91), while the early eighteenth century saw thou existing only marginally in the standard language (Barber 1976: 212). It has been said that during the period 1560-1600 thou was used within the lower ranks of society, while the upper ranks (including the aristocracy, gentry, professionals, and merchants) used you (Brown and Gilman 1989: 176–9). However, where there was a difference in status, a speaker of superior social rank would address a person of lower rank with thou but receive you. This power rule also applied within the family, with the parent addressing the child as thou, and sometimes the husband addressing the wife with thou but receiving you (Barber 1976: 208–9). Nevertheless, to express such strong emotion as love, anger or contempt, thou could be used, where you would otherwise be expected. You was used in formal contexts, whereas thou could be employed in informal situations, to express familiarity and intimacy. By the period 1680–1720, primarily on the evidence of Restoration Comedy, it has been argued that thou was very infrequently used to address those of inferior rank, and only occasionally used to express strong emotion, but that thou was used as a mark of male camaraderie among the gentry (Barber 1976: 211–2). Although noting that thou continued to be used among the lower ranks (and in certain regional dialects) Barber (1976: 212) argues that it had all but disappeared from the standard language by 1700 (Barber 1976: 208).



 Terry Walker

Several reasons for the decline of thou in the seventeenth century have been offered: Brown and Gilman (1960: 266) suggest that the trend towards simplified verbal inflection, together with a popular reaction against the insistence of Quakers on the use of thou to address an individual led to the spread of you. Barber (1976: 210), and Wales (1983: 117-9), suggest that you was preferred as the “safer” pronoun to use as it did not imply social superiority or emotion at a time when increasing social mobility led to less clearly defined boundaries between the social ranks. Moreover, those wishing to identify themselves with the upper ranks tended to imitate the linguistic behaviour of the “better sort”. Wales also points out that the growth of London encouraged the notion of a standard language, and the idea of regional dialects – with which thou was associated – as sub-standard. Studies of present day gender differences have shown that women tend not only to be more polite than men, as pointed out above (Holmes 1995), but also to use more standard forms than men (Trudgill 1972), and to support or even initiate linguistic change towards the prestige variety (Labov 1972). Men, conversely, prefer to use more non-standard forms, which they associate with toughness and masculinity (Trudgill 1972). Recent studies (e.g. Nevalainen 1996) have suggested that there is evidence of similar differences in linguistic behaviour between men and women in Early Modern England. If this is so, it might be expected that women would lead the way in promoting the use of you over thou. In my pilot study of late sixteenth century dialogues in witness depositions and drama (Walker 2000), women did seem to use the polite form you to a greater extent than did men. This apparent preference for you on the part of women was not simply a result of Brown and Gilman’s power rule: my study showed little evidence of the powerful male speakers giving thou but receiving you from the powerless female speakers. In fact although thou was used to address inferiors, it was not predictable, as you was also frequently employed. Women showed a consistent tendency to use you more frequently than thou, whereas men did not. Moreover, women tended to use you even in angry exchanges while men preferred thou in such cases. This could suggest that women were more “polite” than men in Elizabethan England as today, preferring to use the neutral form you rather than the marked and therefore potentially face-threatening thou form. This would explain, in particular, the female avoidance of emotive thou in relation to male usage found in the witness depositions. These findings are by no means conclusive, due to the small scale of the study, but they do serve as a starting point for the gender study below. With the exception of Finkenstaedt (1963), most studies of you and thou have focused on constructed dialogue, as noted above. By extending the investigation to include a range of text types, using quantitative methods to discover patterns of usage, and furthermore, studying the role played by gender regarding pronoun

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues

usage, this study is intended as a step towards obtaining a wider perspective of pronoun usage in Early Modern English.

. Methodological considerations The corpus yielded a total of 5,694 examples of the various forms of you and thou. For obvious reasons this total does not include you forms with a plural reference; other examples excluded are the use of you in the meaning of ‘one’, and examples of thou which occur in the corpus in the context of, for example, quotes from the Bible or prayers. Where several reports of the same speech event are given, such as in the deposition texts, the occurrences of you and thou are treated as separate examples, partly for the reason that sometimes a different pronoun is reported, and partly as each report is in itself a separate speech event in the court. After the examples were selected and extracted from the computerised corpus using the WordCruncher program, an Excel database was created for each text type for each period to facilitate the quantification of the data. Something that proved difficult to quantify was the motive for the use of a particular pronoun by a particular speaker: it was not always discernible, for example, whether an example of thou was being used to express emotion (known as “expressive” thou) such as contempt, to show the speaker’s superior status, or as a sign of solidarity among the lower ranks, which were found to be the three main reasons for the use of thou. Thus discussion of how the pronouns are used is of a qualitative nature, based on a close reading of the corpus texts.

. The distribution of you and thou in the text types In this section the relative frequency of thou to you is given by period, text category and text type, and patterns which emerge are commented on. A comparison is made between the relative frequency in the two periods, the two text categories and the four text types. The text types themselves are also compared, and some comments made regarding pronoun usage within these text types. As shown in Table 2 below, there are 2,716 examples of second person singular pronouns for the period 1560 –1600, of which the percentage of thou forms is 21.1 per cent. The material for the period 1680–1720 yielded 2,978 examples of thou and you: the percentage of thou forms is 16.4 per cent. This represents a decrease in the number of thou forms used, as would be expected if thou had become limited in use by the eighteenth century; however, the decrease is scarcely indicative of the virtual disappearance of thou from the standard language by 1700.



 Terry Walker

However, these overall, all-embracing, figures could very well be misleading. It is of greater value to look at the relative frequency within the text categories, and the text types. Table 2. Overall ratio of thou to you in the corpus Period

thou

you

Total

1560–1600

574 (21.1%) 488 (16.4%)

2,142 (78.9%) 2,490 (83.6%)

2,716

1,062 (18.7%)

4,632 (81.3%)

1680 –1720 Total

2,978 5,694

For the period 1560–1600, the authentic dialogues of trials and depositions contain 21.5 per cent thou forms, while the constructed dialogues of drama comedies and handbooks contain 20.9 per cent. The figures for the second period are 25.6 and 12 per cent respectively. Thus in the case of authentic dialogues, the relative frequency of thou has actually increased, while that of the constructed dialogues has dropped quite dramatically. Once again it seems necessary to go deeper, to look beyond the text categories and consider the figures for the different text types. The figures for the relative frequency of thou to you in each text type are shown below (Tables 3 and 4). The authentic dialogues of the trial texts are formal in context, therefore it might be expected that you forms would predominate, especially as judges were members of the upper ranks, as were, at least in the early trial texts, the majority of defendants. This thesis is supported by the low frequency of thou forms (9.8%) in the first period. However, in the second period, this figure increases significantly to 26 per cent, which demands further consideration (see Section 5).3 The other records of authentic dialogue, the deposition texts, tend to yield a lower number of second person pronouns, due to a high degree of narratorial intervention, and a preponderance of indirect speech. These records differ from trials also in that although the depositions themselves are made in a formal context, the speech events reported on are often dialogues which occurred in informal contexts. There are several instances, for example, of defamation cases containing reports of “slanging matches” in the streets. Thus the expressive or emotional use of thou is more likely to occur in such cases. The percentage of thou in depositions of the first period (44.2%) seems to lend support to this suggestion. This figure is more than halved in the second period, which has 20 per cent thou. The deposition texts therefore apparently show the downward trend in thou usage reported in previous studies.

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues

Table 3. Ratio of thou to you by text type from period 1560–1600 (raw figures and percentages). The difference between thou/you distributions in the text types is statistically significant at a <0.001 confidence level. 1560–1600 Text type Trials Depositions Comedies Handbooks

thou

you

64 (9.8%) 150 (44.2%) 331 (26.4%) 29 (6.2%)

590 (90.2%) 189 (55.8%) 924 (73.6%) 439 (93.8%)

Total 100% 654 339 1255 468

Table 4. Ratio of thou to you by text type from period 1680–1720 (raw figures and percentages). The difference between thou/you distributions in the text types is statistically significant at a <0.001 confidence level. 1680–1720 Text type Trials Depositions Comedies Handbooks

thou

you

234 (26%) 11 (20%) 106 (8.6%) 137 (17.4%)

667 (74%) 44 (80%) 1128 (91.4%) 651 (82.6%)

Total 100% 901 55 1234 778

To judge by these results for trials and depositions, it could be argued it is not useful to consider these two text types together as one text category, due to the differences remarked upon above. The text types within the category of constructed dialogues, i.e. drama comedies and handbooks, also show variation in the relative frequency of thou to you, which again can be explained in part by differences between the two text types. However, it should perhaps be noted here that as the text categories, and indeed the text types, are set up on the basis of extra-linguistic criteria, there is no reason to expect these either to show any resemblance or to differ automatically in terms of linguistic characteristics.



 Terry Walker

Drama texts have been the object of many important studies on second person pronouns. They are rich in dialogue, relatively easily accessible, and also often contain interaction between characters from all walks of life, in a variety of contexts. Some researchers even presume similarities between stage language and the spoken language of the past: Brown and Gilman (1989: 159), with reference to Shakespeare’s tragedies, argue that “dramatic texts provide the best information on colloquial speech of the period”. Nevertheless, even if some drama “attempts in its dialogue to give the illusion of real speech” (Barber 1976: 211, on Restoration Comedy), it should be stressed that it is unlikely that drama texts are primarily concerned with an accurate portrayal of Early Modern English. Moreover, the language in drama texts may often be manipulated or exaggerated for artistic purposes. As the drama comedies in my corpus include characters representing the lower ranks of society, and contain some highly emotional exchanges (as do many drama texts), a relatively high ratio of thou to you in the first period, compared to the ratio for the other text types in this study, might not be surprising if second person pronouns are used as previous research suggests. Indeed, Busse (in the present volume) shows that thou tends to collocate with address nouns expressing both positive and negative emotion in the Shakespeare corpus. In my corpus, the percentage of thou in the drama comedies, at 26.4 per cent for the period 1560-1600, is not as high as the figure for the deposition texts, but is still a substantial figure compared with that for trials (9.8%) and handbooks (6.2%). Moreover, Busse shows that the ratio of thou to you in his corpus is even higher in the Histories and Tragedies (though thou is still less than 50%) compared with the Comedies. The figure for comedies in my corpus decreases considerably to 8.6 per cent in the second period 1680 –1720, in keeping with the findings of previous researchers, which are largely based on similar sources. The handbooks consist of instructional or didactic works in dialogue form. The formality of the context varies within this text type (see section 5) and thus the pronoun usage also varies. Moreover, the number of speakers in the texts is often limited to two individuals, and therefore the likelihood of a range of pronoun usage is also more limited. The low figure for thou in the first period, or conversely, the high percentage of neutral you forms, seems to support this point. However, in the second period this figure rises to 17.4 per cent, which, as with the figure for trials in this period, needs closer examination. Therefore, in the following section, I give the relative frequency of thou to you, and investigate how the pronouns are used, in the individual corpus texts.

. The corpus texts and pronoun usage The relative frequency of thou to you in each text within each text type is given in the tables below (Tables 5–8).4 The date of the speech event, or the publication

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues 

date of constructed dialogues, is included in the tables to facilitate the study of possible developments over time within as well as between the two periods. If it is accepted that in the sixteenth century thou had become the marked form, and that by the eighteenth century the pronoun existed only marginally in the standard language, a general downward trend in the ratio of thou to you might be expected. However, as suggested by the variation in the relative frequency of the pronouns illustrated in the previous section, the actual pronoun usage may differ according to text type, or individual text, which might blur any such picture of a general decline in the use of thou.

5.1 Trials As I have shown, the trial texts taken together attest an increase in the use of thou over time. The figures (shown in Table 5) for the individual trial texts reveal that two texts, Abington in the first period, and Lisle in the second, contain many more thou forms than the other texts (35.2 and 54 per cent respectively), which raises the relative frequency of thou to you in the second period especially. A glance at the figures without these two texts, shows a rather low frequency of thou and no thou at all after 1700. Such a low occurrence of thou might be predicted in the formal environment of trial proceedings. It is of interest to now compare how thou is used in these texts, and to discover how the usage differs between the two abovementioned texts and the other trial texts. One genre-specific use of thou in the trial texts of both periods is the formulaic use in the opening and closing stages of a trial, i.e. after the reading of the indictment and the verdict, where such set phrases as “How wilt thou be tried” and “thou hast been found guilty” occur. This is discussed at length by Finkenstaedt (1963: 138–43), who states that this formulaic use survived well into the eighteenth century. This helps explain the relatively high frequency of thou in Abington as this trial includes several defendants, and therefore the phrases occur a number of times. The formulaic use is also found in the beginning of the Norfolk and Udall trials, and at the end of the Lisle trial. The lack of formulaic thou forms in the other trial texts is explained by the fact that the corpus samples simply do not include these sections of the trial proceedings. This partly explains the variation in the frequency of thou within the text type. However, in the corpus, the pronoun thou is also used in the trials to reflect the speaker’s superior status, and to express contempt. The former tends to be used only when there is a significant divide between the speaker and addressee: when the judge (usually a knight) is talking to a member of the serving classes, which occurs in Giles and Lisle. The use of thou is apparently employed to stress this social divide, and appears to have a patronising tone, followed normally by a switch to the default pronoun you, which can be seen in the example (1) below.

 Terry Walker

Table 5. Ratio of thou to you for each trial text from the periods 1560–1600 and 1680–1720 (raw figures and percentages). 1560–1600 Trial texts

thou

you

NORFOLK 1571 ABINGTON 1586 UDALL 1590

9 (3.1%) 38 (35.2%) 17 (6.8%)

286 (96.9%) 70 (64.8%) 234 (93.2%)

Total

64 (9.8%)

590 (90.2%)

(1)

Total (100%)

1680–1720 Trial texts

thou

you

295

GILES 1680 LISLE 1685 SWENDSEN 1702

4 (1.9%) 230 (54%) 0 (0%)

202 (98.1%) 196 (46%) 269 (100%)

Total

234 (26%)

667 (74%)

108 251

654

Total (100%) 206 426 269

901

[$ (^Record.^) $] Speak as loud as thou would’st do if thou wer’t at home: When was this? [$ (^Ann.^) $] The Thursday after (^Easter^) . [$ (^Record.^) $] The Thursday in (^Easter^) Week, or the Thursday in the next Week? [$ (^Ann.^) $] The Thursday in (^Easter^) Week; we were never out of Company; when he came home to his Lodging I believe it was near Ten a Clock. [$ (^Record.^) $] Where was your Lodging at the (^Kings Arms^) ? [$ (^Ann.^) $] At the (^Kings Arms^) . [$ (^Record.^) $] Good Woman, did you go with him to (^Whetstones Park^) ? [$ (^Ann.^) $] No not I. (The Tryal of John Giles 1680, 36)

In the Lisle text, which contains more thou forms (54%) than you forms, the servant Dunne is addressed almost consistently with thou, but this is due to the other use of thou exploited in the trial texts, the expression of contempt for the addressee, or the assertion of the speaker’s moral superiority. As the Lisle text consists largely of the bullying of the unfortunate Dunne by the Lord Chief Justice, Judge Jeffreys, this explains the otherwise unexpected number of thou forms, exemplified in (2) below: (2) What say’st thou? Prithee tell us what the Discourse was? (^Dunne.^) My Lord, they did talk of Fighting,

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues 

but I cannot exactly tell what the Discourse was? (^L.C.J.^) And thou said’st thou did’st eat and drink with them in the same Room? (^Dunne.^) I did so, my Lord, I confess it. (^L.C.J.^) And it was not a little Girl that lighted thee to Bed, or conducted thee in? (^Dunne.^) It was not a little Girl. (^L.C.J.^) Who was it then? (^Dunne.^) It was Mr. (^Carpenter,^) my Lord. (^L.C.J.^) And why did’st thou tell so many Lyes then? Jesu God! (The Trial of the Lady Alice Lisle 1685, 122) The use of thou to express contempt is also found in the Abington trial, and in the Udall text the judge assumes a contemptuous tone when “lecturing” the defendant on religion. Thus, in all, there are three texts which include this use of thou, which is reflected in their having a higher frequency of thou forms.

. Depositions The depositions, as mentioned earlier, illustrate a decline in the use of thou forms between the first and second periods. However, when the individual texts are considered (see Table 6 below), this trend is shown to be misleading. The figures for the Darcy and York texts stand out from those of the other texts in their respective periods, reflecting the fact that these two texts differ in content from the other texts with which they are grouped. Three of the text samples, Durham, Chester (from the first period) and York (from the second period), are collections of depositions relating to a number of cases,5 while the other three texts, Darcy (from the first period), and Wales and Duchess (from the second period), relate to one case, which affects the pronoun usage in these texts, as illustrated in what follows. In the first period, Darcy contains more thou (53.3%) than you forms whereas the other two texts share a very similar, lower, ratio of thou to you. The former contains a high number of thou forms as it consists of depositions relating to witchcraft and the majority of speakers are from the lower ranks of society, where the reciprocal use of thou is employed, which is illustrated below in (3): (3) the saide William saith to his wife, doest thou not see? doest thou see: wherevnto this examinate sayth, that he hath hearde the saide Ales to say, if thou seest any thing giue it

 Terry Walker

some of thy meat. (…Examination of all the Witches, taken at S. Oses… (Darcy) 1582, A6V) Table 6. Ratio of thou to you for each deposition text from the periods 1560–1600 and 1680–1720 (raw figures and percentages). 1560–1600 Deposition texts (100%)

Total (100%)

thou

you

DURHAM 1560–88 CHESTER 1561–6 DARCY 1582

64 (41%) 38 (40.9%) 48 (53.3%)

92 (59%) 55 (59.1%) 42 (46.7%)

156

Total

150 (44.2%)

189 (55.8%)

339

93 90

1680 –1720 Deposition texts

thou

you

YORK 1680–9 WALES 1688 DUCHESS 1691

11 (30.6%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

25 (69.4%) 7 (100%) 12 (100%)

Total

11 (20%)

44 (80%)

Total

36 7 12

55

Moreover, there are reports of witches talking to their familiars or spirits, which are addressed as thou. This usage is connected to the use of thou as the pronoun used to address God. In the context of religion, thou was preserved as the singular form (Finkenstaedt 1963: 154–6), which survives to the present day in, for example, the marriage ceremony. The other deposition texts of the first period are primarily cases of defamation and broken marriage contracts, but contain speakers from a cross-section of society. There is no clear evidence of reciprocal thou amongst the lower ranks, and you appears to be the default or “neutral” pronoun. The uses of thou range from the expression of anger or contempt such as “Thou giglott” (Durham 109) and “thou lyest whoresonne” (Darcy D1v), and the use of thou to address those of lower status, to the expression of intimacy, and in promises of marriage. Worthy of note, however, is that the pronoun you seems to be encroaching on this territory of thou, making pronoun usage in a given context impossible to predict. You is used in angry exchanges (for further discussion of this see Section 8.2), between speakers of unequal status, between intimates, and in troth-plighting: “I take you for my wief” (Chester 187). One difficulty in assessing the pronoun usage in the depositions is that deponents may, consciously or unconsciously, report a pronoun that was not actually used in the original speech event. For instance, a deponent may be overawed by the formality of the court into reporting the pronoun normally used in such formal contexts. Evidence that inaccuracy occurs can be found by comparing different

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues 

reports of the same speech event. For example, one use of thou which is specific to the deposition texts is in the aforementioned troth-plighting. This could be argued to be a formulaic use of thou, since being connected with religious ceremony, thou should be used by both parties (see also Finkenstaedt 1963: 143). However, in the records concerning troth-plighting, both mutual you and mutual thou are reported. The York depositions of the second period are comparable with the Durham and Chester texts in that they include a variety of cases and speakers of different social ranks. Unfortunately, the number of second person pronouns used in this text is limited. Thou is used in two York depositions: in one deposition it is used to express contempt, while in the other the motivation for the selection of thou is ambiguous and could be interpreted as expressing contempt or superior status. The other two deposition texts of the period 1680–1720, which each refer to only one case, yield very little data. Nevertheless, it would be surprising to find thou used in these texts: Wales contains depositions given by and reporting speech between members of the very highest echelons of society, where thou would not be expected even a century earlier, and Duchess also consists primarily of high ranking deponents. Regarding the depositions of the second period, the lack of data means that no firm conclusions can be drawn, and the high percentage of thou forms in the York text (30.6%) must be considered in the light of the fact that there are only 36 examples of second person pronouns in this text (and only 55 examples in total in the three deposition texts of the period 1680–1720). Thus although there is an apparent decline in the relative frequency of thou from the first to the second period, further research is needed to confirm this trend.

. Comedies The ratio of thou to you found in the text type comedy drama shows the expected decline in the use of thou from the first period to the second period. The figures for the individual texts echo this trend although revealing that the decline is not steady (see Table 7). The comedies by Peele and Warner, both from 1595, contain a similar number of thou forms, but the ratio of thou to you in Peele (41%) is almost double that of Warner (22.5%). Moreover, the 1719 drama by Killigrew has a high percentage of thou forms (6.8%) considering the supposed disappearance of thou from the standard language after 1700, a conclusion based largely on evidence from this text type. The motivation for the use of thou in these texts is therefore interesting, and might clarify the aforementioned figures. The uses of thou exemplified in the comedy texts of period one are similar. In all texts thou is used to address those of lower social status (especially master to servant). Moreover, thou is employed to show contempt. The reciprocal use of thou

 Terry Walker

Table 7. Ratio of thou to you for each drama comedy text from the periods 1560–1600 and 1680–1720 (raw figures and percentages) 1560–1600 Comedy texts

thou

you

PEELE 1595 WARNER 1595 CHAPMAN 1599

112 (41%) 126 (22.5%) 93 (22%)

161 (59%) 433 (77.5%) 330 (78%)

Total

331 (26.4%)

924 (73.6%)

Total (100%) 273 559 423

1255

1680 –1720 Comedy texts

thou

you

MANLEY 1696 FARQUHAR 1707 KILLIGREW 1719

74 (16.9%) 3 (0.8%) 29 (6.8%)

364 (83.1%) 364 (99.2%) 400 (93.2%)

Total

106 (8.6%)

1128 (91.4%)

Total (100%) 438 367 429

1234

by the lower ranks is found in Peele, but in the other texts there is little dialogue between members of the lower ranks, thus explaining the higher frequency of thou in the former. Where such dialogue does occur, between servants, in Chapman, mutual you is used. It has been argued that the serving classes were exchanging you at the beginning of the seventeenth century (Wales 1983: 117), which is perhaps due to their close contact with their social superiors, who used you amongst themselves. The comedy dramas of the late seventeenth century, according to Barber (1976: 211–2), should demonstrate the use of you in all cases, with the exception perhaps of when expressing strong emotion, when ladies address their maids, or more often when young gentlemen on friendly terms address one another. In the drama texts studied in this investigation, the thou usage is found to be very similar. The three texts all have examples of the predicted use of thou to show mutual intimacy or affection. Contempt or scorn is also expressed by thou in the two texts with the highest frequencies of thou. The relatively high ratio of thou to you (16.9%) in the drama by Manley is partly explained by a long angry exchange containing many thou forms. However, this text also contains another use of thou, by a husband to his wife, which is discussed below (see Section 8). Thus, in general, the pronouns are employed in these texts as predicted above. The two post-1700 texts do show thou existing only marginally in the language exemplified in this text type by the eighteenth century.

. Handbooks The other type of constructed dialogue, the handbooks, reveals a very different pattern in pronoun usage from that of drama comedies. The overall frequency of

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues 

thou is greater in the second period, and by looking at the frequency of thou in the different texts (see Table 8), it can be seen that this is due to the Kate text. Gifford in period one also has a much higher frequency of thou than the other two sixteenth-century texts. Apart from in these two texts, the use of thou is negligible (ranging from 0 to 1.2 per cent) in this text type. As these texts are didactic, it is not surprising that there is very little evidence of expressive thou. The other instances of thou depend on there being social inequality between the speakers, or dialogue between members of the lower ranks. Moreover, in cases where there are only two speakers in the handbooks, the pronouns dictated by rank are unlikely to vary. As a result the Pilgrim and Ladies texts lack thou forms because both dialogues are between members of the upper ranks who, as expected, employ reciprocal you. Conversely, the text with over 50 per cent thou forms is between a man and his fiancée, where the inequality of the sexes is reflected by the man using thou but receiving you. The other text with a relatively high frequency of thou (Gifford) also contains the use of thou to express superiority by a man to his wife, and by a gentleman to a witch. However, what accounts for this high frequency (15.8%) is the use of mutual thou by the lower ranks (in this case, the supposed witches), and the formulaic use of thou to address the supernatural, discussed earlier; both atypical of usage in the other handbooks. Table 8. Ratio of thou to you for each handbook text from the periods 1560–1600 and 1680–1720 (raw figures and percentages) 1560–1600 Handbook texts

thou

you

PILGRIM 1579 BELLOT 1586 GIFFORD 1593

0 (0%) 3 (1.2%) 26 (15.8%)

54 (100%) 246 (98.8%) 139 (84.2%)

Total

29 (6.2%)

439 (93.8%)

Total (100%) 54 249 165

468

1680 –1720 Handbook texts

thou

you

MIEGE 1685 KATE 1685 LADIES 1696

2 (0.5%) 134 (59.6%) 1 (0.5%)

365 (99.5%) 91 (40.4%) 195 (99.5%)

Total

137 (17.4%)

651 (82.6%)

Total (100%) 367 225 196

788

The two remaining handbooks, Bellot from 1586, and Miege from 1685, are similar not only in pronoun usage but also in purpose: both are dialogues designed to teach French speakers how to acquire fluency in English, and both have very few examples of thou. In Bellot, thou is only used sometimes to address servants, and

 Terry Walker

the same use is found in Miege, but only in one case in which the coachman is put in his place when he attempts to be jocular. Thus Miege is similar to texts from other text types of the second period, which illustrates that thou was only used in the late seventeenth century with the purpose of stressing unequal status, often with a switch to the neutral you form once attention had been drawn to this inequality. In the handbooks, then, the use of thou is largely dependent on whether there is a difference between speakers in terms of social rank or gender. As these two variables clearly play a role regarding pronoun usage, I next turn to an investigation of the distribution of you and thou according to gender (see Section 6). Speaker/hearer rank has not as yet been added to the quantified data, but will nevertheless be included in the discussion in Section 8, which examines the probable motivation for the choice of pronoun, based primarily on the explanations of previous research (see Section 2) in the two periods for each text type. As mentioned earlier, discussion regarding motivation is purely qualitative. First, however, I present a brief summary of the overall findings thus far.

. A summary of pronoun usage in the text types The study of pronoun usage has revealed certain differences between the text types. There are certain formulaic uses of thou found in the authentic dialogue texts, which do not occur in the constructed dialogues. In general – the exceptions have already been discussed above – thou occurs more in the witness depositions and the drama comedies, where the expressive use is relatively common; moreover, in the first period, these two text types also include examples of reciprocal thou being used among the lower ranks. In contrast, the text types trials and handbooks tend to have a lower ratio of thou to you, and thou is perhaps most commonly used to express the speaker’s social superiority (this use of thou is also found in the other two text types). However, trials also contain expressive thou to show contempt. In all text types, especially regarding the non-emotional uses of the pronoun, thou tends to be less frequent in the second period. In Section 9 below, I give a more detailed overview of usage in the text types.

. The corpus for the gender study The corpus illustrated in Table 1 above was also used for the gender study; however, it was necessary to adapt the corpus slightly due to the lack of female speakers in the trials of the first period. In place of the three trial texts, three extra deposition texts were selected to ensure more of a balance between the constructed

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues 

and authentic dialogue categories. This is further justified by the fact that depositions, unlike the other text types, are characterised by considerable narratorial intervention, and thus do not yield as much “spoken” data. The part of the corpus which was revised for the gender study, that is the authentic dialogue texts for period one, is shown below (Table 9). The other sections of the corpus shown in Table 1 remain the same.

Table 9. study

The section of the corpus revised for the gender Authentic Dialogue Witness depositions (W)

1560–1600

Church Courts of Durham (W) 10,194 words (1560–88) Bishop’s Court, Chester (W) 13,406 words (1561–6) Wytches at Chensforde (W) 3,691 words (1566) S. Oses Witches (W) 10,827 words (1582) Depositions Respecting an AVray at Norwich (W) 3,075 words (1583)6 Confession of Three Essex Witches (W) 2,583 words (1589)

The data obtained from the corpus thus revised, which yielded a total of 5,073 examples of you and thou, is used to illustrate how, and to what extent, the gender variable influenced the choice of pronoun in Early Modern English dialogues. Previous research suggests that there were gender differences in linguistic behaviour in Early Modern English (Nevalainen 1996, and Palander-Collin 1999). Moreover, Wales (1983) suggests that the decline of thou in the seventeenth century was encouraged by the women of the rising merchant class, imitating the usage of mutual you among the higher ranks, in their attempt to gain, or pretend, higher social status. If this is the case, women were instrumental in promoting linguistic change during the Early Modern English period. Furthermore, the use of thou to express male camaraderie, when thou was otherwise only used in regional or lower class dialects (Barber 1976: 211–2), could perhaps be interpreted as an example of “covert prestige”, with men continuing to use what had become associated with the lower ranks, as a sign of masculinity.

 Terry Walker

.

Trends in the distribution of you and thou with regard to gender

In this section I present the relative frequencies of thou to you that result from taking into account speaker/hearer gender, time period, and text type. Moreover, I summarise and suggest reasons for the trends that seem to emerge. Based on the findings of previous research, certain trends might be predicted. The status rule could affect the pronoun choice of male and female speakers in that a man might use thou to his wife, fiancée or sister, but receive you. Therefore one might expect the ratio of thou to you to be higher for male speakers than for female speakers. Moreover, the suggestion that women would tend to avoid the marked form, preferring the more “polite” form, or “standard” form, you, encourages the idea that the ratio of thou to you would be lower for female speakers. The figures for the ratio of thou to you by gender of speaker and period show this to be the case in both periods (see Table 10 below). Male and female speakers use 25.8 per cent and 25.2 per cent thou forms respectively in the period 1560 –1600, and the corresponding figures for the period 1680–1720 are 22.6 per cent and 3.9 per cent. These figures reveal that you was clearly the preferred form by both sexes, and even more so in the second period, seeming to support the findings of previous research that thou was already marked in the first period, and even less common in the second period. However, men still use a relatively large number of thou forms in the second period, whereas women show a negligible thou usage. Women use fewer thou forms than men (although the difference is tiny in the first period). Table 10. Ratio of thou to you in the two periods according to speaker gender Men

Women

Period

Thou

You

Total

Thou

You

Total

1560–1600

415 (25.8%) 449 (22.6%)

1,195 (74.2%) 1,534 (77.4%)

1,610

122 (25.2%) 39 (3.9%)

363 (74.8%) 956 (96.1%)

485

1680–1720

1,983

995

The figures showing the ratio by gender of speaker and addressee should prove more useful, in that they may reveal a difference in usage according to the gender of the hearer, especially if the status rule does affect the choice of pronoun, as suggested above (these figures can be found at the bottom of Tables 11 and 12 below). In all, the figures for the ratio of thou to you by gender of speaker and hearer consistently show a preference for you, especially by women in all but one case. In the period 1560–1600 (see Tables 11a and 11b), men use 28.2 per cent thou forms

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues 

to female addressees, and 24.8 per cent to males. Women use 45.8 per cent thou to female addressees, and only 20 per cent to males. The figures show that men use more thou to females, whereas women use more you to males, which certainly suggests that the status rule plays a large part in determining pronoun selection. The corresponding figures for the period 1680-1720 appear to show that this is no longer the case: men use 21.9 and 23.1 per cent thou to females and males respectively, while women employ 1.6 and 5.8 per cent thou to female and male addressees respectively (see Tables 12a and 12b). Thus in the latter period, the gender of the hearer has the reverse effect to that of the first period, with men using more thou forms to males than to females, and women employing you to females more than to males. For this period (1680–1720) the much higher ratio of thou to you by men, compared to the very low figures for thou usage by women, might reflect the use of thou to express male camaraderie, but this fails to explain why the figure for men addressing women is only marginally lower. A closer look at the figures for the ratio of thou to you, not only by the gender of the speaker and addressee, but also by text type results in further, even more distinct patterns emerging. The patterns which emerge from the tables below (Tables 11a and 11b for the period 1560 –1600, and 12a and 12b for the period 1680 –1720) can be summarised thus: first, both men and women show a preference for you over thou with the exception of male speakers in the early depositions, women addressing other women in the early comedies, and men speaking to women in the handbooks from the later period. Second, there is a decrease in the use of thou over time, except for men addressing women, and women addressing men in the later handbooks. The difference in the distribution of thou and you in the two periods (within each speaker/addressee and text type grouping) is in the majority of cases statistically Table 11a. Ratio of thou to you by male speakers in the text types from 1560–1600 (raw figures and percentages). The difference in thou/you distribution across the text types is statistically significant at a <0.05 confidence level. 1560–1600

Men to Women

Text type

thou

you

Depositions

63 (52.1%) 59 (21.1%) 11 (15.7%)

58 (47.9%) 221 (78.9%) 59 (84.3%)

133 (28.2%)

338 (71.8%)

Comedies Handbooks Total

Men to Men

Total 100% 121 280 70 471

thou

you

47 (50.5%) 225 (29.8%) 10 (3.4%)

46 (49.5%) 529 (70.2%) 282 (96.6%)

282 (24.8%)

857 (75.2%)

Total 100% 93 754 292 1139

 Terry Walker

Table 11b. Ratio of thou to you by female speakers in the text types from 1560–1600 (raw figures and percentages). The difference in thou/you distribution across the text types for women addressing men is statistically significant at a <0.05 confidence level. 1560–1600 Text type Depositions Comedies Handbooks Total

Women to Women thou

you

28 (43.1%) 8 (66.7%) 8 (42.1%)

37 (56.9%) 4 (33.3%) 11 (57.9%)

44 (45.8%)

52 (54.2%)

Women to Men

Total 100% 65 12 19 96

thou

you

49 (47.6%) 29 (14.6%) 0 (0%)

54 (52.4%) 170 (85.4%) 87 (100%)

78 (20%)

311 (80%)

Total 100% 103 199 87 389

significant.7 Third, with a few exceptions which are discussed below (Section 8), men talking to men, and men talking to women, use more thou forms than do women addressing men, and women addressing women, respectively. This is particularly true of the second period. Speaker gender, at least in the constructed dialogues, and especially in comedy drama, has a statistically significant effect on pronoun distribution.8 In sum, these trends would seem to indicate that you was the neutral form, as claimed by previous researchers, in the late sixteenth century, and that thou was Table 12a. Ratio of thou to you by male speakers in the text types from 1680–1720 (raw figures and percentages). The difference in thou/you distribution across the text types is statistically significant at a <0.05 confidence level. 1680–1720 Text type Trials Depositions Comedies Handbooks Total

Men to Women thou

you

8 (3.5%) 0 (0%) 32 (10.1%) 128 (59.3%)

223 (96.5%) 3 (100%) 285 (89.9%) 88 (40.7%)

168 (21.9%)

599 (78.1%)

Men to Men

Total 100% 231 3 317 216 767

thou

you

Total 100%

222 (35.1%) 11 (28.2%) 46 (13.5%) 2 (1%)

411 (64.9%) 28 (71.8%) 295 (86.5%) 201 (99%)

633

281 (23.1%)

935 (76.9%)

1216

39 341 203

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues 

Table 12b. Ratio of thou to you by female speakers in the text types from 1680–1720 (raw figures and percentages). The difference in thou/you distribution across the text types for women addressing men is statistically significant at a <0.05 confidence level (but as some expected values are less than 5, the chi-square may not be valid). 1680–1720 Text type Trials Depositions Comedies Handbooks Total

Women to Women thou

you

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (2.6%) 1 (0.5%)

15 (100%) 8 (100%) 228 (97.4%) 183 (99.5%)

7 (1.6%)

434 (98.4%)

Women to Men

Total 100% 15 8 234 184 441

thou

you

4 (18.2%) 0 (0%) 22 (6.4%) 6 (3.2%)

18 (81.8%) 5 (100%) 320 (93.6%) 179 (96.8%)

32 (5.8%)

522 (94.2%)

Total 100% 22 5 342 185 554

indeed disappearing from the standard language towards the end of the seventeenth century. Regarding the influence of gender on pronoun usage, women do seem to use more you forms than do men, and this could be a result of women preferring the “safer” form you. The explanation that the preference for the pronoun you by women is a reflection of men using thou to women and women giving you in return is not supported by the general trend in the data: the tendency is in fact for both male and female speakers to use more thou to men than to women. However, to see what explanations lie behind the figures presented in this section, it is necessary to look at how the pronouns are actually used by male and female speakers in the corpus. In the following section, with reference to previous research, I give a description of the apparent motives for the selection of you or thou based on my close reading of the corpus texts. I also attempt to explain the pronoun usage behind those figures which seem to deviate from the general trends shown in the tables.

. An overview of motivation behind male and female pronoun usage in the text types In this section the probable motivation for pronoun usage is described for each text type, and for both periods, according to the gender of the speaker and hearer. It is clearly beyond the scope of this study to account for the motivation of all 5,073 examples of you and thou in the corpus, therefore the following is a general

 Terry Walker

account of the usage of, primarily, thou, which is illustrated where appropriate by extracts taken from the corpus texts.

. The trial texts The trials of the second period, 1680–1720, supply a substantial amount of data, though lack of data for the period 1560–1600 means, of course, that there can be no comparison made between the two periods. As shown earlier (see Section 4 and 7), the trials reveal you as the form preferred, which is predictable given the formality of the context. However, a glance at the ratio of thou to you (see Tables 12a and 12b) apparently reveals a difference in usage depending on the gender of the speaker and addressee. The percentage of thou for men speaking to men (35.1%) is almost twice as high as that of women addressing men (18.2%). Moreover, women do not use thou at all when addressing other women, while men still use a few thou forms to women. However, this difference between males and females in the use of thou forms can be almost wholly explained by the effect of a difference in rank between the speakers, upon which gender seems to play no part. Thou is used occasionally by superiors, both male and female, to those of inferior rank of either sex: thus both a lady and a judge address labourers with thou as does a judge to a chamber maid. The only discernible gender difference is that the aforementioned lady consistently addresses the labourer with thou, whereas the judges tend only to use thou to stress their position of power, and then shift to the pronoun you. The large proportion of thou used by males addressing other males reflects the use of thou to express contempt in a long dialogue in one trial text as discussed above (see Section 5). Thou is used by a male to a female of high rank in only one example: “Alice Lisle, Hold up thy Hand” (Lisle 127), but this is the formulaic use mentioned earlier, and thus the gender variable is not relevant here. In sum, the gender difference suggested by the ratio of thou to you in the trial texts, is found to be a result of the rank of the speaker and addressee, and no real evidence of differences due to gender is found by studying the motives for pronoun usage in this text type.

. The deposition texts The deposition texts of the first period contain a high ratio of thou to you, by both men and women, especially compared with the other text types. The three deposition texts added for the gender study consist of depositions given in witchcraft cases, with a preponderance of women speakers, and depositions given regarding

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues

a fatal sword-fight, involving men. As shown in Tables 11a and 11b, men address women with thou more often than you (52.1%), while women addressing men use more you forms, but still a high percentage of thou (47.6%). One explanation for this is the use of thou to express contempt, which is frequently employed. As previously discussed, many of the depositions report angry exchanges, with an abundance of insults and accusations. Of course, the hurling of abuse is not limited to men addressing women and vice versa: male speakers seem to use thou for this purpose more frequently than do women regardless of the gender of the addressee (see also Walker 2000). Two cases of men addressing men in anger are illustrated in the examples (4) and (5) below, in both cases the meeting degenerates into physical violence. (4) thou hast done our kinswoman Isabell Hinde a displeasure, and we will make thi skinne make her amendes; and, by God’s woundes, rather then thou use her thus thou shall beare me thy backfull of strockes ;” holding and shaking his staffe at the said Horsfall. (Durham Church Court Records 1560–88, 120) (5) ...feight with me yf thou darr.” “Nay,” quoth the said Sir Richerd, “I am a man of peace; but I will come to the, perchance, when thou art in a better mynd.” And the said S=r= Richerd, comming towerd the said Wawton, he the said James drewe his dagger. (Durham Church Court Records 1560–88, 292) Thus one gender difference which can be identified here is that women tend to prefer you even when angry; moreover, this seems to be especially the case when women address other women. This could perhaps be interpreted as an indication that women were especially sensitive to the implications of thou, and recognised that other women would react as they themselves would to a pronoun associated with the lower ranks, and thus reserved thou for use in cases of extreme antagonism. In the following exchange (6), even though one woman has apparently accused the other of having a child out of wedlock – a very serious charge – and remains defiant, you is consistently employed by both women. (6) “Mrs. Whittingham, you have reported that I have had a child before I was maried. I trust you will bringe forth the father for yt.” The said Mrs. Whittingham maid aunswer, “I doe not saie that you hadd anie child before you were maried; but I saie that I have



 Terry Walker

herd that you had a child before you wer maried, but I will not saie that it is trew. Doe your worst, I will not flie the countrie.” Whereupon the said Margaret Key said, “I defie you, and all that can so saie.” (Durham Church Court Records 1560–88, 316) A further explanation for the high figures for thou in the depositions is that a number of cases involve speakers from the lower ranks of society, who are reported as using thou reciprocally, regardless of the gender of the speaker and addressee, as in example (3) above. This example also illustrates pronoun usage between a husband and wife. There is no evidence of men using thou but receiving you from their wives or sisters; on the contrary, the only evidence in the depositions reports the reciprocal use of either thou (as above) or you. There are examples of males using thou and receiving you from females, but the motive for pronoun choice is clearly based on a difference in social rank, that is, dialogue between members of the gentry and those of the lower ranks, which also occurs between males. However, this is relatively rare in the depositions, as most of the speech reported is between social equals. A third motive for the use of thou, between men and women, is in trothplighting, discussed above (see Section 5). The thou expected in such rituals connected with religious ceremony is more usual, but in one case, two male deponents report that mutual you was used, while the female deponents, including the woman who took the vows, report mutual thou. The reason for this mis-reporting by either the male or female speakers is impossible to ascertain. The use of thou in troth-plighting, and the reporting of the formulaic use of thou between the female “witches” and their “familiars” (always referred to as male) offers a further explanation for the high ratio of thou between men and women, compared with those of the other text types. In the depositions of the first period, men use more thou regardless of the gender of the addressee (although very slightly more to female addressees, which could be a result of the aforementioned formulaic uses of thou), while the reverse is true of female speakers. You is clearly the reciprocal pronoun amongst members of all but the lowest ranks, except when expressing anger. The fact that men use more thou forms than women do seems to be explained by women using more you in angry exchanges, especially to other women, than men do, while it does not seem to be the case that husbands address wives with thou but receive you. However, firm conclusions cannot be reached until further quantification is carried out: it may be that men apparently use more thou simply because there are more cases of angry exchanges between men of the lower ranks than there are between women of the lower ranks represented in the depositions, which may affect which pronoun is used when expressing anger.

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues 

The depositions of the second period offer little evidence of gender differences. In the great majority of cases, the speakers, both male and female, are members of the upper ranks, and thus exchange reciprocal you. Angry exchanges take place only between men, when thou occurs. The small number of examples also limits the usefulness of the data.

. The drama comedies Regarding the ratio of thou to you for the drama comedies, it could be argued that men use more thou than do women, and that speakers of both sexes use more thou to men than to women, if we temporarily ignore the huge discrepancy in this trend regarding women speaking to women in the first period (with 66.7 per cent thou). Such trends would hint that, in the second period at least, if taking the aforementioned discrepancy into consideration, women lead in the promotion of the neutral form you, and/or that thou has some special usage associated with men. However, the pronoun usage behind the figures needs examining, and especially that of women addressing other women in the first period. In the drama comedies of the period 1560–1600, one use of thou is found which has not hitherto been mentioned in the study: thou is often used to “address” another who is absent or otherwise out of hearing. Stein (in the present volume) shows thou is the unmarked pronoun in such contexts, in his study of King Lear and As You Like It. This use of thou accounts for all the examples of women addressing women with thou in the data (and also very slightly affects the figures for men addressing men). When speaking face to face women address other women, including their servants, with you, which would thus actually point to a slight increase in the use of thou between women in the second period. It should be noted, however, that, for the first period, the number of examples for women speaking to women is only 12 in total (compared with 234 examples in the second period), which means that it is dangerous to draw any firm conclusions from this data. In the second period, women show an overwhelming preference for you (97.4%), and only use thou rarely to express affection. Regarding men speaking to women and vice versa, once again there is little evidence of the husband giving thou but receiving you in the period 1560–1600. There are several examples of thou used to address wives and lovers, but these are to mark affection. In these cases, the shift from you is temporary, and wives similarly use thou to address their husbands. In one case a husband and wife exchange thou during a bitter argument, which also occurs between a man and his spurned lover. Other examples of thou used by speakers to members of the opposite sex are motivated by the superior rank of the speaker, such as a queen to a courtier, and a man to a serving girl. There are no examples of reciprocal thou between members of the opposite sex who share the same low rank: in the one dialogue between servants reciprocal you is used.

 Terry Walker

Men speaking to male servants use thou, and receive you in return, and in two cases a character of unclear rank is addressed with thou but gives you to his “friend”: here it seems thou is used to express the superiority of the “friend”, illustrated in (7). (7)

[$ (^Pen.^) $] True, but by your friend. [$ (^Men.^) $] What, mine owne (^Peniculus^) ? [$ (^Pen.^) $] Yours (ifaith) bodie and goods if I had any. [$ (^Men.^) $] Why thou hast a bodie. [$ (^Pen.^) $] Yea, but neither goods nor good bodie. [$ (^Men.^) $] Thou couldst neuer come fitter in all thy life. [$ (^Pen.^) $] Tush, I euer do so to my friends, I know how to come alwaies in the nicke. Where dine ye to day? (Menaecmi 1595, B1r)

#

Men nearly always give thou to those of inferior rank, whereas women give you, the exception being the queen addressing the courtier, but even this is also tinged with exasperation or even anger, as shown in (8). (8)

(^Quee.^) Why thou saidest he wanted his cheerfull light. (^Lem.^) Of reason still I meant, whose light you knowe should cheerefully guide a worthie King, for he doth loue her, and hath forced her into a priuate roome where now they are. (^Quee.^) What mocking chaunges is there in thy wordes fond man, thou murtherest me with these exclaimes. (^Lem.^) Why madam tis your fault, you cut mee off before my words be halfe done. (^Quee.^) Forth and vnlade the poyson of thy tongue. (A Humerous Dayes Mirth 1599, ll. 1604 –13)

This would seem to be a difference dependent on the speaker’s gender, but this is misleading: there are actually very few examples of women speaking to those of lower rank, while this is not true of male speakers, there being much dialogue between a master and servant in two of the plays. As a result, it would be unreasonable to claim a gender difference in this case. Other than servants, characters of the lower ranks are rare, and thus reciprocal thou only occurs on one occasion, between males. Men speaking to men also use thou to express contempt, although in many cases, especially regarding young male adult speakers, this is ambiguous, and is

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues 

quite often in fact more likely to be a sign of male camaraderie or friendly teasing rather than contempt, as illustrated in example (9): (9)

(^Lem.^) Looke thee, here comes hither (^Labesha^) , (^Catalian^) , and I haue beene talking of thy complexion, and I say, that all the faire ladies in France would haue beene in loue with thee, but that thou art so blacke. (^Labe.^) O sir blacke will beare no other hue. (^Foy.^) O sir blacke is a pearle in a womans eye. (A Humerous Dayes Mirth 1599, ll. 1251-6)

The use of thou by men to men in the period 1680-1720 is similar to this: young members of the upper ranks use thou when speaking familiarly together, as shown below in (10): (10)

[$ (^Wild.^) $] If thou art weary already, what wilt thou be when # the Noose is fixt, and no kind relieving Hand can do thee the curtesy of unslipping it. [$ (^Wil.^) $] I confess, I have given the Town reason to # believe, I cou’d allow (^May^) and (^December^) the two ends of time, to meet in our expected Wedlock. [$ (^Wild.^) $] The Opinion of thy Sense was not forfeited by # that, we always believed, thou hadst enough to distinguish between the glittering Metal and the Alloy; (The Lost Lover 1696, 10)

In the second period, women of the upper ranks also very occasionally use a form of thou to express familiarity, as in example (11), but the shift to you is immediate, unlike the male usage shown in (10). (11)

[$Mrs. (^Sull.^) $] Ha, ha, ha, my dear Sister ; let me embrace thee, now we are Friends indeed ! for I shall have a Secret of yours, as a Pledge for mine – now you’ll be good for something, I shall have you conversable in the Subject of the Sex. (The Beaux Stratagem 1707, 22)

As in period one, men speaking to women express contempt with thou as do women to men, as exemplified below in (12) and (13) respectively:

 Terry Walker

(12)

[$ (^Wil.^) $] Am I indeed your Scorn, Proud, Fantastick Woman; thy liking was foul Lust; not Love: That gentle Name brings Happiness, but thou – Let me not think upon thee, for fear it force my Tongue to something worse, than shou’d be said of Ladies; (The Lost Lover 1696, 27)

(13)

[$ (^VVil.^) $] What have I done, that you shou’d wish to make me # Wretch’d? [$ (^Bel.^) $] What hast thou left undone to make me such? [$ (^Wil.^) $] Your Reputation yet stands fair, and uless your own Indiscretion betrays you the Secret shall be such, with me for ever. [$ (^Bel.^) $] But thy heart, Traytor, thy perjur’d Heart; tell # me, how shall I get it back? (The Lost Lover 1696, 26)

A citizen also consistently uses thou to address his wife who uses you in return, which is a use of thou which has not been found much in the corpus thus far. However, he seems to be stressing his dominance, to compensate for his (unfounded) fear that he has been cuckolded by her. Another example of a man giving thou but receiving you from a woman is when an old knight is making advances to a young heiress: in this the motivation appears to be an attempt to establish intimacy, which the girl politely rejects by using you. The use of thou to those of lower rank is not found by either male or female speakers in the second period. It must be taken into account that male speakers use approximately five times as many second person singular pronouns as do women in the drama texts of 1560 –1600, and thus one example of e.g. thou expressing contempt by a woman is equivalent to five examples of the same by men with regard to overall trends in motivation for the use of thou and you. Nevertheless, it appears that women use you unless expressing strong emotion i.e. fury or love, with only one case of thou to express superiority, which could also be interpreted as the expression of anger. Men, on the other hand, show a greater willingness to express themselves with thou, to express superior rank, to show positive and negative emotion, and familiarity. In the second period, the number of examples by male and female speakers is similar, and therefore more easily compared. All speakers show a strong preference for you, even in intimate exchanges. Men and women show contempt for each other with thou, but men also show contempt for other men in this way, and the upper ranks use the familiar thou of male camaraderie, whereas female expressions of affection are more rare, and fleeting. Also, there is some evidence of men using

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues 

thou to express dominance over women, who use you in return. However, it should be stressed that which pronoun is used by which character in a particular case must be influenced by the attitudes and artistic purpose of the author.

8.4 The handbooks In the handbooks, which have a didactic purpose, the ratio of thou to you is very low, except for women addressing women in the first period (42.1%), and men speaking to women in the second period (59.3%). In the period 1560–1600, thou is used among the lowest ranks, which are here only represented by women, thus explaining the high ratio of thou to you. Women of the middling ranks exchange you. In one case, a woman addresses her husband with you but receives thou, otherwise women of the middling and upper ranks use you to men on a reciprocal basis. Men address the aforementioned women of the lowest ranks with thou, but use reciprocal you to servants of both sexes, and to the middling ranks and above. Men rarely use thou to other men as they are mostly equals, only very occasionally are low ranking male servants addressed with thou. There are also a few examples of men addressing the supernatural (seen as male) with formulaic thou. In the period 1680–1720, there is a long dialogue with a man addressing his fiancée. The text is intended to instruct (as are all the handbooks), in this case teaching the correct and desirable roles and relationship between a man and his wife: hence the traditional use of thou by the man to express the dominance of the male in the husband/wife relationship, but the giving of you by the submissive female, which is illustrated below in (14): (14)

[$ (^John.^) $] Good morrow my dear (^Katy^) , methinks thou lookest coy to day; what’s the matter prethee. [$Kate.$] (^If I had been so at first to you I had been wiser.^) [$ (^Jo.^) $] Why so? [$Ka.$] (^Because I find you flatter me.^) [$ (^Jo.^) $] I scorn it, I am true to thee, in troth I am [$Ka.$] (^How shall I believe that, when every one you meet, you are courting and kissing them.^) (A Pleasant Dialogue betwixt Honest John and Loving Kate 1685, 3)

According to previous research (Barber 1976: 208–9), in the seventeenth century, this use of thou by husband to wife (or in this case, husband and wife-to-be) was not always employed, but this text is specifically teaching what the relationship

 Terry Walker

between man and wife should be; hence the great number of thou forms (134). There are some few examples of thou to express affection by the young woman addressing her fiancé, but aside from this one dialogue, the examples of thou are limited to one example of affection between ladies, and the previously mentioned example of contempt by a gentleman speaking to a coachman. Otherwise you dominates as the neutral, default form. Thus in the handbooks, the only discernible gender difference in pronoun usage is the husband-to-be giving thou but receiving you, which is not very much in evidence in the other text types, and might be assumed to result from the prescriptive rather than descriptive nature of the dialogue on the perfect marriage. Interesting to note is that the two language teaching handbooks (one from each period), although containing male and female speakers of a range of ranks clearly prescribe you as the form to be used.

. Concluding remarks This study has investigated the distribution and usage of you and thou in the periods 1560–1600 and 1680–1720 according to both text type and the gender of the speaker/addressee. Before offering my conclusions relating to gender, I will summarise my findings according to text type alone. The trial texts witness the use of thou to express negative emotion, and the social superiority of the speaker. Also the formulaic use of thou in phrases following the reading of the indictment and preceding the judgement is evident. In the court environment, it would be unlikely for there to be examples of thou expressing positive emotion, or reciprocal thou, and indeed the ratio of thou to you in the trial texts is generally low. The unexpectedly high number of thou forms in the period 1680–1720 is explained by the unusually long and emotional attack on a witness by a judge. Excepting this dialogue, the number of thou forms used does decrease in the second period. The deposition texts reveal thou being used for the three main reasons mentioned earlier, that is, expressive thou, reciprocal thou among the lower ranks, and thou used to show social superiority. There are also formulaic uses of thou, of which troth-plighting might be said to be specific to this text type. The ratio of thou to you shows great variation in this text type, due to two distinct kinds of deposition texts: those limited to one case, and thus with few deponents, perhaps from only one social rank, yielding little data, in contrast to deposition texts with deponents from several levels of society, reporting on a variety of cases, with more direct speech recorded. For the same reason, no conclusions can be drawn about changes over time in this text type.

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues 

The comedy dramas, which often include emotional exchanges, supposedly represent everyday speech, and contain characters from different social ranks, show the three uses of thou described above. A use of thou which is found in this text type especially is the expression of affection and intimacy. This text type shows the decline in thou usage predicted by previous studies. The handbooks have a much more limited use of thou, due to the didactic nature of these texts. The expressive use of thou is rare, as is the reciprocal thou of the lower ranks. Where the speakers have the role of instructor and instructed one might expect the former to employ thou, but usually reciprocal you is used. A change over time can be seen in the English language handbooks, which should be expected to reflect the “correct” usage of their time: thou is no longer automatically used to address servants in the later period. In sum, expressive thou is the most persistent in the texts across time, while the use of thou by the powerful to address social inferiors is the use shared by all the text types, but used less consistently in the period 1680–1720. The reciprocal use of thou by the lower ranks is most likely to occur in the depositions and drama comedies, and during the earlier period. The gender of the speaker/addressee clearly plays a role in the choice of pronoun, therefore the study was extended specifically to investigate the influence of the gender variable on pronoun usage. I present here a general summary of the possible trends relating to the gender variable indicated by the quantitative data, and comment on the apparent differences between male and female speakers regarding the use of you and thou. The ratio of you to thou according to the gender of the speaker/addressee in each text type seems to suggest certain overall tendencies. The first is that you is clearly the preferred pronoun by both sexes. A further trend is for the ratio of thou to you to be lower in the second period, with a more marked decrease in thou usage by female speakers. Previous research has pointed to thou being limited by the end of the seventeenth century to expressing strong emotion, male camaraderie, and only rarely being used to indicate the speaker’s superior rank, which is borne out by the examples in the corpus. Male speakers seem to use thou to express contempt more often than do women, and also use thou as a sign of in-group membership within the upper ranks, which women apparently do not. Moreover, as this is also true of the first period, this could explain the general tendency in the data towards men using more thou forms to men than to women, and male speakers generally using more thou than women speakers. Thus the main explanation for the decrease in thou over time is not clearly related to the influence of gender, but perhaps the less frequent application of the status rule, where the powerful give thou but receive you. Related to this, is the finding that there is little evidence of men expressing superiority over their wives or fiancées in this way excepting the one

 Terry Walker

handbook dialogue where this use is promoted: otherwise where it does appear in the corpus, it is found to be a sign of the man trying to force an intimacy, or assert a dominance which he does not have. Thus in general, the fact that men use more thou than women cannot be explained as men giving thou but receiving you from women. The final trend is that the fewest thou forms are used between women, allowing for the reciprocal use of thou between the lowest ranks. A suggestion is that women were more sensitive to the implications of thou and chose the “safer” pronoun, supported perhaps by their using you in anger more than do men. Otherwise there is no real evidence to support that women were promoting the spread of reciprocal you: both sexes of all but the lowest ranks appear to use reciprocal you in both periods. It should be remarked again here, however, that to some extent the high percentage of thou forms for male speakers could be a result of men being better represented in the corpus, giving more opportunities for variation in pronoun usage. It should also be noted that the data, even that relating to the so-called authentic dialogues, cannot be taken as reliable evidence of real speech in the Early Modern period: the inaccuracy of deponents’ reports, and the influence of scribes and editors, as well as that of the authors of the constructed dialogues, means that the pronoun usage constitutes usage only in these speech-related texts. Further research into the gender influence on pronoun usage is underway. The next stage is to quantify the data according to the sociolinguistic variables of age, rank and social closeness, all of which have been shown to affect the choice of pronoun. It is hoped that this will result in the emergence of clearer patterns of usage. Another obvious step is to collect data from the period 1600-1680, to allow the study of changes over time. Using the material from the CED, it will also be possible to extend the study to cover the period after 1720, to investigate whether the uses of thou still present in the post-1700 texts persisted in the standard language longer than previous researchers claim. Moreover, linguistic factors, such as those mentioned earlier, should also be quantified and investigated. The ultimate aim is to define pronoun usage in less general terms than is commonly the case, adding to our knowledge of an area of English historical linguistics that has intrigued many scholars: both through the investigation of new data and the use of a new methodology embracing the fields of historical pragmatics, corpus linguistics, social historical linguistics and variationist theory.

Notes . Thou refers to the second person singular forms thou, thee, thy, thyself, thine (including variant spellings), and you refers to all the second person forms you, ye, your, yourself and yours (including variant spellings) used in the singular.

You and thou in Early Modern English dialogues  . I use the term “authentic” to refer to dialogues based on records of an actual speech event. . The difference between thou/you distributions for each individual text type in the period 1560 –1600 compared with the period 1680 –1720 is statistically significant at the <0.001 confidence level. . For each text type and period, the difference in thou/you distribution between the texts is statistically significant at a <0.001 confidence level, with the exception of the deposition texts. The explanation for this variation between individual texts within the text types can be found in the discussion in this section. . These three deposition texts, and “Depositions Respecting an Affray at Norwich” (introduced in Table 9, Section 6) are drawn from printed nineteenth-century editions. An investigation into the mss. behind these editions has revealed some you forms erroneously transcribed as thou, and vice versa, where these forms are abbreviated. However, these errors are limited to seven instances only, which is why it has not been deemed necessary to recalculate the figures. . This text contains only male speakers. . Using the data from Tables 11a and 11b, 12a and 12b, the chi-square values were calculated for the cells with the same speaker/addressee combination and the same text type for each period. The thou/you distribution is statistically significant at a <0.05 confidence level in all cases except men addressing women in depositions, and both men and women addressing men in the handbooks. However, in four groupings (women speakers in depositions, and women addressing women in comedies and handbooks), some expected values are less than 5, and thus the chi-square may not be valid. . Chi-square values were calculated to compare the pronoun distribution for male and female speakers with the same addressee, text type and period (using the relevant cells in the tables above). The pronoun distribution is statistically significant (<0.05) for male and female speakers in comedies, and in handbooks where addressees are female. Note that the chi-square may not be valid for speakers addressing women in the period 1560 –1600.

References Barber, Charles 1976 Early Modern English. London: Andre Deutsch. –––––– 1981 Thou and you in Shakespeare’s Richard III. Leeds Studies in English. New Series 12, 273–89. Brown, Robert, and Albert Gilman 1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 253–76. –––––– 1989 Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in Society 18, 159 –212.

 Terry Walker

CED = A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560 –1760 Forthcoming. Compilers Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University) and Merja Kytö (Uppsala University). Finkenstaedt, Thomas 1963 You und Thou: Studien zur Anrede im Englischen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Holmes, Janet 1995 Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman. Hope, Jonathan 1993 Second person singular pronouns in records of Early Modern ‘spoken’ English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen XCIV(1), 83–100. Labov, William 1972 Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Nevalainen, Terttu 1996 Gender difference. In: Terttu Nevalainen, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds). Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 77– 91. Palander- Collin, Minna 1999 Male and female styles in seventeenth-century correspondence: I THINK. In: Minna Palander-Collin. Grammaticalization and Social Embedding. I THINK and METHINKS in Middle and Early Modern English. [A cumulative Ph.D thesis]. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 228–53. Trudgill, Peter 1972 Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1, 179–95. Wales, Katie 1983 Thou and you in Early Modern English: Brown and Gilman re-appraised. Studia Linguistica 37(2), 107–25. Walker, Terry 2000 The choice of second person singular pronouns in authentic and constructed dialogue in late sixteenth century English. In: Christian Mair, and Marianne Hundt (eds). Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 375 –84.

Rectifying a standard deficiency Second-person pronominal distinctions in varieties of English Raymond Hickey Essen University

.

Introduction

The history of English contains many twists and turns. Among the more unusual of these is the loss of a distinction in number for second-person pronouns, something which the standard of the language accommodated without any therapeutic change but which in spoken forms of English throughout the world led to shifts, borrowings and internal developments to rectify the deficiency and fill the gap in the pronoun paradigm. The current chapter attempts to trace the changes which took place in nonstandard English and to establish historical links, if justified, with input varieties to the anglophone locations overseas which distinguish formally between a second-person singular and plural pronoun.1 To my knowledge a holistic treatment has to date not been presented with the important exception of Wright (1997) which goes a long way on this path. My approach is somewhat different and takes other data into account, especially at the source areas in the British Isles and so can hopefully be seen as carrying on an enterprise Susan Wright initiated so well. The stress here is on speech because most varieties which may have more distinctions than the standard do not tend to exhibit these in written forms where the standard exercises its greatest influence. The outset for the present considerations is the early modern period for two main reasons: 1) the dyadic system of secondperson pronouns, i.e. thou/thee and ye/you, was still present in south-eastern British English, although on the decline and 2) this is the period, the beginning of the 17th century, just before the spread of English to areas of the world outside the British Isles (Hickey (ed.) 2003). English in Scotland and Ireland are special cases in this respect and will be dealt in the course of this chapter.

 Raymond Hickey

. The demise of address honorifics It is well-known that English used to possess a dyadic system for address pronouns with a singular form thou, on the one hand and a plural form you on the other (Finkenstaedt 1963) with plural used for deference with singular addressees. This system probably went back to French influence during the Middle English period. Historically, the plural form was ye but at the beginning of the early modern period the form used for deferential address was you, formally the accusative of ye. The distinction between the singular for familiar and the plural for polite address did not establish itself in as unshakeable a manner as it did in the languages of continental Europe. As is well-known, Shakespeare exploited the flux in the address system of his time and in Hamlet and Richard II, to mention just two prominent cases, thou and you could be used with one and the same person, depending on the situation, indeed on some occasions within the same stretch of speech. The details of this usage are not relevant to the current theme (see the other chapters in the present volume which treat this matter). What is important to grasp is that English had a system in which the pronoun of address could be decided upon by evaluating the actual speech context. All European languages which have retained a dyadic address system, German, French, Russian, Greek, etc., have systems where the use of a particular pronoun of address is fixed for any individual at any one time and does not rely on the pragmatic assessment of the speech context (see Hickey, this volume). The demise of deferential honorifics in English had a double consequence: 1) the language lost a dyadic address system with pronouns, and 2) it lost a specific form for the second-person singular (in the form of south-eastern English out of which the later standard arose). This is all the more remarkable as this distinction is maintained for the first and third persons and English is the only Germanic language to lose the second-person singular pronoun, all others having some element which derives from the Germanic ©u-, which is the etymological source. The developments just mentioned in (1) and (2) are two separate issues and need to be distinguished carefully for the following discussion. The decline in the use of you for deference is one thing and the disappearance of thou is another, although historically linked. Of course what happened in the south-east is that you came to be used with singular reference (Lutz 1998), thus making thou superfluous. The loss of thou in the history of English should not be taken for granted. It is linked both to its relative rarity in the south-east and of its situational use at the beginning of the early modern period. As one can see from any literature which discusses pronominal forms in English, thou has quite a wide distribution in the north (as [°u:]) and the west/south-west of the country (as [°au]), Upton and Widdowson (1986: 66f.), Ihalainen (1994: 213), Lass (1987: 229–35); Hope 1993).

Rectifying a standard deficiency 

The situation in England had a peculiarity which may have furthered the decline of thou. This is the fact that the oblique forms of second-person pronouns were also to be found in subject position (Baugh and Cable 1993: 235f.), often as part of a general substitution of subject forms by oblique forms in the west and south-west of England, i.e. one had thou-SG-SUB, thee-SG-OBL, ye-PL-SUB, you-PL-OBL as possible subject pronouns of address with a staggered temporal and geographical distribution. But perhaps what dealt the death blow to thou was its association with disrespectful usage. As is well-known from studies on address systems (Brown and Gilman 1960, Brown and Levinson 1987; Wales 1983), the informal pronoun, the T form in a T/V dyadic system, has a double and contradictory function as an indicator of solidarity or low-status — this is something which Joseph Wright still maintained for those dialects with thou at the end of the 19th century (Wright 1905: 272). The solidarity function is firmly entrenched in European languages but in English the low-status associations of thou, frequently including address for wives (Barber 1997 [1976]: 153), may well have outweighed and in time led to the demise of the form in the south-east and in urban centres in general. One might expect that the spread of English during the colonial period would have led to some extraterritorial varieties having the pronoun thou and distinguishing it from you, seeing how thou occurs in the north of England and in previous centuries had certainly a wider distribution. However, this is overwhelmingly not the case (but see the discussion of American English below) and this fact lends credence to the view, propounded above all by Roger Lass, see Lass (2003), that the varieties taken overseas during the colonial period were essentially southern in character although there is a clear difference between southern and northern hemisphere varieties of overseas English. By northern here is meant the north of England.

. The situation in Scotland Scotland, and Ulster which received input from the Scottish Lowlands, are separate cases. This part of Britain has shown itself to be more innovative than the north of England. In Scotland one finds the lowering and unrounding of early modern English short /u/ as in but /bLt/ and not /bυt/. One also finds the generalisation of you and the loss of thou, although this pronoun has been maintained immediately south of the border with England. The deferential address system did exist in the English of Scotland and there, as in southern England, is assumed to have received impetus from French. In fact this system was found in both languages of Scotland and in Scottish Gaelic sibh ‘you-PL’ could be used for deference. This is a specifically Scottish Gaelic usage and may well go back to French influence in the period of the Auld Alliance (the alliance between Scotland and France from 1296 to 1560,

 Raymond Hickey

McClure 1994: 30–3). Parallel usage is not found in Irish (from which Scottish Gaelic is derived historically) where the forms tú ‘you-SG’ and sibh ‘you-PL’ simply differ in number. As the spread of Scots from Scotland (usually via Ulster) is of importance for the development of American English in the 18th century it is worth considering what the distribution of second-person pronouns was like in 17th century Scots. To this end The Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots compiled by Anneli Meurman-Solin of the University of Helsinki was examined. For the fourth subperiod of the corpus, 1640-1700 (Meurman-Solin 1997) the following figures were obtained. (1) thou ye you 189 187 999 Occurrence of second-person pronouns in 23 texts from 1640–1700 in The Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots The text types cover a range of genres with diaries well represented for this subperiod. If it is further subdivided and one examines the five diary texts from the second half of the 17th century then the following picture emerges. (2) thou ye you 22 1 4 Occurrence of second-person pronouns in five diary texts from 16401700 in The Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots These figures reveal a certain amount about the situation before the emigration to the United States. One can see that thou was available and readily used in various texts (though its high occurrence in the diaries may be due to the conventions of contemporary letter writing). More importantly for later developments in American English is the presence of ye as the second-person plural pronoun. In the diary texts this does not occur because the addressee is always singular (the only example occurs in a religious quotation). But where it is relevant, in the texts of a public character, in effect the non-diary texts in the subperiod 1640–1700 in Meurman-Solin’s corpus, ye is used freely. Ye also transferred to Ulster and the south of Ireland and to this day is an option for the second-person plural, though in the north of the country it tends to have been replaced by youse as the vernacular plural pronoun (see 4.5 below).

. Filling a gap The loss of thou in southern England left a very definite gap in the pronominal system of English2 and one which is cross-linguistically very unusual. For instance, there is no other European language which does not have separate forms for the

Rectifying a standard deficiency 

two second-person pronouns. It is only to be expected that with the development of new varieties of English the desire for a distinction in the second person for pronouns would lead to new paradigms arising. As noted above, the loss which is later made good has nothing to do with the deferential address system which disappeared in England. No variety of English, which was taken overseas, developed a T/V system of address as is common in the continental languages of Europe. This is true although some varieties were in contact with languages which did have such systems. In this context one can mention (central) Canadian English in contact with French in Quebec, South African English in contact with Afrikaans, various creoles or diaspora varieties of English, e.g. Sranan in Dutch Guyana, African American English formerly in contact with Spanish on the Samaná Peninsula of the Dominican Republic, creolised forms of English in contact with French in Cameroon or American English in the Lower South, formerly in contact with Louisiana French, or in general American English in the south-west of the United States in contact with Spanish. Despite the non-appearance of anything like a T/V system in these contact varieties, when one looks closely at the options which are available to the overseas varieties of English then one notices that certain elements of deferential address systems are indeed present, if only in embryonic form. This is particularly true of forms like youse and y’all, an important function of which is as informality markers (with backgrounded pronominal character) in the varieties in which they occur.

. Ireland as a starting point There are good reasons for starting the discussion of pronominal distinctions with a look at the situation in Ireland after having considered Scotland (see above). Apart from Scotland (if this is considered a valid case), Ireland is England’s oldest colony, certainly its first overseas colony. Settlement began in the late 12th century and it is clear from the main document of the medieval period, the Kildare Poems (Heuser 1904) that thou and ye were available for singular and plural reference in the English of Ireland at this time. The use of thou survived in different ways in Ireland. In the isolated dialect of Forth and Bargy it was present — in the expected oblique form of the south-west of England — as late as the beginning of the 19th century (Dolan and Ó Muirithe 1996: 52), though this is only a curiosity of history nowadays. The early modern English texts collected and analysed by Alan Bliss show that thou was quite common in Ireland at the onset of the early modern period (early 17th century, see Bliss 1979). Indeed it is attested well into the 18th century in plays by such authors as George Farquhar and Richard Brinsley Sheridan as the material in A Corpus of Irish English (Hickey forthcoming) clearly attests.

 Raymond Hickey

. The loss of thou There are standard views on the non-survival of thou in Ireland. Hogan (1934: 146) noted that thou was moribund at the time of Ireland’s Anglification. Hence the use of the second-person singular pronoun did not establish itself in Ireland. By ‘Anglification’ Hogan meant the renewed and vigorous plantations which were started during the Elizabethan period, i.e. the end of the 16th century (Hogan 1927: 52). It is a moot point to what extent thou was not present in the input varieties to Ireland on the eve of the early modern period. This input derived from the west and north-west Midlands in England, regions where thou was definitely available at the time of the plantations. Furthermore, those Irish authors who use thou were writing two centuries later and, notwithstanding the fact that their style might have been somewhat archaic, a considerable time elapsed between renewed input to Ireland and the latest attestations of thou from the hand of an Irish writer. The key to the loss of thou in Ireland may well lie in the ultimate reason for its demise in England itself. If it is true that thou was dropped in south-eastern English because it was disrespectful in tone, then this could have been all the more reason for it not to be used by the Irish who were acquiring English in fairly large numbers as of the beginning of the 17th century. There is no data on the demise of thou in Ireland. But it would appear that it was no longer present in Irish English by the mid-17th century to any appreciable extent. In the early 1650s Oliver Cromwell had many thousands of native Irish sent to the Caribbean, specifically to Barbados (Connolly 1998: 549f.). These deportees came from the towns on the east coast as the west was filled with those Irish who were uprooted and banished there. The relevant linguistic point here is that the east coast was first colonised by the English in the late Middle Ages and assuming that there was at least a modicum of continuity in English on the east coast, then speakers from this region would be most likely of all the Irish to have thou in their variety of English. But this did not transfer to the Caribbean: the earliest records of English in Barbados do not show thou. Importantly, later attestations for the established creole forms on the various anglophone islands (see relevant section below) all show a borrowing from an African language for a plural pronoun and not the use of thou for the singular and ye or you for the plural. The only explanation for this situation is that either thou did not exist any longer in the Irish and English dialect input to the Caribbean in the early 17th century (on Barbados as of 1627, see Harlowe 1969) or that it was lost after transportation with a subsequent pickup of input forms from African languages to create symmetry with the personal pronouns in both numbers. In the texts examined by Rickford and Handler thou does not seem to occur. One text from 1676 contains a sentence

Rectifying a standard deficiency 

addressed to a slave where you is the form used (Rickford and Handler 1994: 226), this being a situation in which thou would be expected, if it were available in this early form of Barbadian speech.

. The rise of alternatives The demise of thou in Ireland was not without internal consequences. To understand this one must appreciate that the majority of the Irish at the beginning of the 17th century were monolingual speakers of Irish, a language in which secondperson pronouns are distinguished for singular and plural. With the demise of thou, you came to be understood as the pronoun with singular reference and the gap to be filled therefore was that in the plural. The Irish second-person plural pronoun is sibh [∫iv], phonologically unlike anything available in English then or since.3 The Irish solution was to find a form which was different from you and which could function as a plural pronoun. Basically there were two pathways open at that time. The first was to use the inherited ye as a marker of second-person plural. The second, and apparently later option, was to create a synthetic plural by appending the regular plural suffix -s to the already present you, yielding youse [ju(:)z]. Later a combined form arose, yez [jiz] which due to phonological reduc4 tion of the vowel in unstressed position can appear as [jez] or [j z]. For the possible transportation of English abroad it must be noted that there is a chronological sequence involved here: e

(3)

Plural second-person pronouns in Irish English a. ye (from 12th century) b. youse (not before 19th century) c. yez (not before mid 19th century)

The justification for the ordering given derives from the attestation of the first two forms in extraterritorial varieties of English, see subsections below.

. The survival of ye The form ye is doubtlessly the continuation of the inherited pronoun from medieval Irish English. It has continued to this day and in the south of Ireland it is the non-stigmatised variety of English for plural second-person reference. Analogical possessive forms, yeer and yeers, developed with the use of you for the singular because the related forms your and yours came to have exclusive singular reference. However, these must have been quite late developments, The possessive forms are not attested anywhere in the plays contained in A Corpus of Irish English. This might be an accident of documentation, but given the widespread occurrence

 Raymond Hickey

of ye, one would expect in a collection of over 50 plays that the possessive forms would occur if they existed. The presence of yeer and yeers in contemporary southern Irish English means, that for lack of historical attestation, one must assume that these are recent forms. The supraregional use of ye in the south of Ireland is noteworthy. This fact would suggest that the form was always accepted and hence naturally entered the non-stigmatised variety of Irish English which developed in the late modern period. The source of the supraregional variety in the south of Ireland has always been non-vernacular usage in Dublin, given the dominant position which the city has had through the entire history of English in Ireland. Dublin was settled by the English from the very beginning and thus had access to ye in the earliest forms of English there which of all locations in Ireland had least break between the medieval period (late 12th to late 16th century) and the modern period (from the beginning of the 17th century).

. The origin and dissemination of youse The situation with youse is quite different. Its vernacular character in present-day Irish English and its non-occurrence in corpus attestations of British English (see following paragraph) points to an origin in Irish, that is to those Irish speakers in the main period of language shift from the 17th to the late 19th century for whom English would have been a second language and which would have shown a high degree of transfer from Irish. Youse can then be seen as a regular plural formation by simple attachment of suffixal -s to the existing pronoun you. This assumption is supported by other instances of analogical extension which can be seen in Irish English, e.g. the use of negative epistemic must, as in He musn’t be in his office for He can’t be in his office and is in line with other such phenomena in adult second language acquisition. If one is making a case for youse being a specifically Irish development then one must exclude any English source. With the help of available text corpora this issue can be resolved with reasonable certainty. For instance, the Early English Correspondence Corpus (Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (eds) 1996; Nevalainen 1997) does not reveal a single instance of youse, although ye and thou abound (thou is by far the most common second-person pronoun, 372 instances, with ye occurring 19 times). This holds for the 23 texts in the public domain version of this corpus, covering letters from the end of the 16th to the end of the 17th century). Equally in the 138 texts of the Early Modern English section of the Helsinki Corpus of English there is not a single instance of yous(e) or ye(e)z. The situation for Ireland can be seen by examining A Corpus of Irish English. Here the form 5 yous(e) occurs abundantly in the plays of John Millington Synge (1871–1909) and

Rectifying a standard deficiency

with later writers like Sean O’Casey (1884–1964) and Brendan Behan (1923–1964). If one looks at earlier writers then the picture is somewhat different: Maria Edgeworth (1767–1849) in her novel Castle Rackrent (1800), which attempts to display the speech of the native Irish realistically, has many instances of ye but not a single one of yous(e). A further fact can be cited here to underline the Irish origin of youse. The form is found in England in only a few areas, Liverpool (Trudgill 1986: 139–141), Newcastle (Beal 1993) and in Scotland in Glasgow and spreading out from there in central Scotland (Macafee 1983: 51). It is hardly a coincidence that these are the areas of greatest Irish influence. Granted, the influence has been different in each case: Newcastle experienced immigration during the early 19th century; in Liverpool the immigration was somewhat later and of people who were fleeing the famine in Ireland. Glasgow obtained Irish immigrants from seasonal movements for work up from Ulster (whereas in England the source in Ireland was south of Ulster). To sum up, the form youse is assumed to derive from (rural) Irish speakers during the period of language shift which lasted in the main until the end of the 19th century (see the documentary maps in Ó Cuív 1969). The form ye stemmed from two sources: 1) medieval Irish English through continuation in the towns of the east coast and 2) from the English speakers (planters and their families) who came to Ireland in large numbers as of the early 17th century. This interpretation correlates with the distribution of youse in the urban centres of the northern United States, Australia and New Zealand, all locations which had significant Irish input in the 19th century from rural Ireland, after youse can be taken to have arisen.

. Ye, youse, yez and vernacularisation In contemporary Ireland, and from the 17th century onwards, one must clearly distinguish the north of Ireland from the south. The former is an area which had considerable input from Scotland, resulting in a distinctive variety of English termed Ulster Scots, and from northern England, the continuation of which is spoken in the middle of the province of Ulster (Mid-Ulster English) in which the present state of Northern Ireland is contained. For northern Irish English in general one can state that there is a somewhat higher occurrence of youse than in the south, cf. Harris (1993: 139f.) who states clearly that the plural in the north of the country is youse, not mentioning the use of ye which is widespread in the south of Ireland. In the Republic of Ireland today, the supraregional form of English shows ye alongside you as second-person plural. A switch from you to youse is quite possible as part of a general process of vernacularisation whereby one adds a little local



 Raymond Hickey

flavour to one’s language. Those speakers, however, for whom youse or the doubly marked form yez is native, are stigmatised as non-standard. The following reason for this can be surmised: speakers of fairly standard varieties of a language, at least of a supraregional variety, tend to employ colloquial forms to create a more relaxed and less formal atmosphere. Speakers of a standard variety can use colloquial forms with impunity as long as it is clear to their interlocutors that this is just a temporary sortie into the vernacular. It is the native use of the vernacular which evokes stigma. The situation with ye in present-day Ireland can be compared to that of y’all in the southern United States. Montgomery (1992: 359) makes the central remark that y’all in southern American English is a “tone-setting device to express familiarity and solidarity” and is thus pragmatically to be distinguished from yóu all.

. Pronominal usage in overseas English The literature on the transportation of English is quite considerable but the issue of the present chapter has not been taken up in a dedicated study so far, despite many insightful treatments of the transportation of English overseas.

. The new world In their inventory of socially diagnostic structures, Wolfram and Schilling-Estes (1998: 343) list y’all, youse and you’uns as the three means of providing a form for the second-person plural pronoun slot in American English. These forms, with variations in unstressed positions which favour cliticisation, represent the expression of the second-person plural in Anglo-American English with the marginal exception of Irish-derived Newfoundland English which still shows ye. In Caribbean English and formerly in African-American English a pronoun was used in this slot which derived from the corresponding pronoun in the Niger-Congo languages which often formed the linguistic background of the original slaves transported from West Africa. These forms will be dealt with here according to the region in which they are most prevalent.

.. Canada: Newfoundland English The position of Newfoundland English is unique in the anglophone world as it is known precisely what English dialect input was available in the formative period of English on the island. There are two sources, a south-east Irish one and a southwest English one (Clarke 1993). These two areas are in fact historically related as the south-west of England provided the majority of English speakers during the

Rectifying a standard deficiency 

settlement of Ireland in the late Middle Ages (Hickey forthcoming b). However, the pronominal systems in these two areas of the British Isles differ essentially. In the south-west of Britain (Devon, Somerset) there is a central distinction between stressed and unstressed forms (Kirwin 2001). These look like subject and object forms, e.g. I : me, we : us but are often phonologically reduced when unstressed, she : (h)er, they : (th)em. In the case of the third person singular the unstressed form is a relic of the Old English accusative hine ‘him’-ACC, i.e. un, ’n. This south-west British distinction overrides that of subject and object form which is the dividing line between pronominal realisations for other varieties of English. The south-west British system was apparently present in those communities on Newfoundland which derive from this English input, though the stressed/unstressed distinction for pronouns is recessive there. In the Irish community on Newfoundland a distinction was also to be found, that between singular you and plural ye and this is still present in vernacular varieties there. This fact is of significance for the occurrence of ye and youse in Ireland. It is known from investigations of the emigration patterns to Newfoundland (see the contributions in Mannion (ed.) 1977) that the Irish input came from the city of Waterford and its hinterland within a radius of approximately 30 miles of the city (Clarke 1997: 208f.). This area is part of the east coast which was settled originally by English in the late 12th century. That the immigrants from this corner of Ireland should have taken ye (and not youse) to Newfoundland offers further support for the view that youse is a regular analogical formation which has its source in those regions of Ireland (south-west, west and north-west of the country) where the Irish language was most robust and where the language shift lasted longest.

.. United States: southern American English In his comprehensive overview of British and Irish dialect input to various forms of English in the United States, Montgomery (2001) looks at the area of pronouns and considers the specific forms to be found in the United States in respect of possible British or Irish antecedents (Montgomery, 2001: 131, 149f.). The first point to note is that thou and ye do not appear to be attested in the United States (but see remarks on history below). The second is that the specific plural forms in American English derive from processes of cliticisation in which a quantifier was attached to the pronouns you/ye as host with attendant phonetic reduction. Whether this took place in America or was present in the source areas of the dialect speakers is difficult to decide. Certainly there were some extensions on American soil (see below) and in vernacular forms of American English the distinction between second-person singular and plural is quite in evidence. The quantifiers which cliticised onto you were either all or uns (deriving from a plural of one). The former led to y’all which Montgomery sees as stemming from

 Raymond Hickey

the phrase ye aw in Ulster Scots (Montgomery 1992). He furthermore distinguishes between yóu all (with initial stress) and y’all in American English which, while identical in reference, are different in their pragmatics. The northern Irish English source for this is also considered by Lipski (1993) and Maynor (1996).

... The origins of y’all. First of all one must distinguish between phrasal you áll and pronominal yóu all with initial stress (Montgomery 1992: 357). The former is often found in mainland Britain and in historical English documents from this region. There was a category shift, perhaps already in the British Isles, and certainly evident in the United States, from phrase to pronoun and it is the latter which is the subject of discussion here. As authors like Montgomery (1992: 356) and Tillery and Bailey (1998: 257f.) stress, most of the discussion of you all has been about whether this can have singular reference or not, the matter having been the subject of over 30 articles in the past century or so. This aspect of you all is secondary to the present paper and is touched upon below but not given central attention. Y’all f ye aw/all6 is the derivation favoured by Montgomery (1992: 362f.) because it can best account for the fact that not all is reduced but the pronoun which precedes it. This is Montgomery’s primary reason for rejecting a derivation of y’all from pronominal yóu all. However, one shortcoming of this hypothesis is that a contraction to yóu’ll would have resulted in homophony with the contracted future tense and hence may have been avoided even with you, and not ye, as pronominal input. The essential point of this analysis for the present chapter is that the underlying pronominal form is ye, the inherited second-person plural of Middle English. Support for the existence of this pronoun is available in present-day Ireland as this is the supraregional form of the pronoun in the south of Ireland. Furthermore, the forms yez/yiz are, contrary to the assumptions of other scholars, combinations of ye /ji/ + {S} /z/ with shortening of the vowel for weak forms, i.e. [jiz] as is usual in English anyway. Yez/yiz are obviously cases of double marking like children, brethren, etc. and were created by native speakers of Irish, switching to English in the period of language shift, who did not recognise ye /ji/ as already marked for plural and who appended the productive plural suffix {S} /z/ to it. ... African-American usage. Scholars are divided on the status of y’all in historical forms of African American English. First of all one can note that Holm (1991: 242) in his comparison of the ex-slave recordings (Bailey et al. 1991) does not see any continuation of the Caribbean distinction between yu ‘you’-SG and unu ‘you’-PL which, after Bailey (1966: 22), he sees as basilectal Jamaican Creole. However, the situation is not quite that simple as unu occurred in Gullah and is

Rectifying a standard deficiency 

attested in Turner’s famous monograph of 1949. In addition, with regard to the exslave recordings, Michael Montgomery (personal communication) rightly points out that the narrative structure of the recordings is such that second-person plural pronouns are not likely to be found. The demise of unu, or some phonetically similar form, in early African American English can unfortunately not be traced satisfactorily and we may well be dealing with an instance of decreolisation where unu, or something similar, came to be replaced by a form connected with y’all. The existence of y’all in early African American English is generally recognised and the African American diaspora on the Samaná Peninsula of the Dominican Republic, which was settled in the 1820’s (Poplack 2000: 7), appears7 to have had you all (Poplack and Sankoff 1987: 294). This would give the form in this set of varieties considerable vintage, i.e. at the very least back to the beginning of the 19th century. Lipski’s (1993: 45) view that y’all in its present pronominal form is of African American English origin is doubted by other scholars, notably Montgomery (1992). What one can nonetheless note is that African American English and Caribbean creoles tend to have a distinct second-person plural form. This can be due to convergence of input from Niger-Congo languages, which mostly share a V+N+V phonological skeleton for the second-person plural pronoun (Heine and Nurse 2000), e.g. unu just mentioned above, and of the very general tendency for this slot in the pronominal paradigm to be filled anyway. This still leaves the question unanswered whether y’all in African American English is (i) the result of diffusion from early forms of Anglo-American English, specifically Scots-derived varieties in lower Appalachia, or (ii) an independent development based on restructuring in which the quantifier all was attached to the undifferentiated pronoun you to yield a solely plural form. Supportive evidence for the latter scenario comes from an unlikely quarter, South African Indian English, as is shown below. Of course, as always, convergence of the two forces may well be closer to the elusive historical truth.

... Singular reference with plural pronouns. Edwards refers to the singular use of y’all as a familiar second-person plural pronoun and continues to remark that “it is occasionally (and informally) applied in the singular to symbolize solidarity” (Edwards 1974: 15). In a recent corpus-based survey, Tillery and Bailey have shown that y’all has spread to virtually every corner of the south of the United States and that its scope has also expanded to include singular uses for some individuals (Tillery and Bailey 1998: 275). Given the fact that y’all is an informal feature of southern speech it may be that in some instances its primary function is as a vernacularisation device and not as a pronoun, or at least that this aspect is foregrounded in certain

 Raymond Hickey

speech contexts. An interpretation of y’all as simultaneously plural pronoun and informality marker with either of these characteristics backgrounded or highlighted, according to the pragmatics of the concrete situation, helps to make sense not only of singular reference but also of double marking. When one considers the form which in Irish English has the same twopronged function, youse, one sees that there are many attestations in which singular reference or double marking occurs: (4) a. What do youse [j z] think you’re doing? (with a single addressee) b. Are the both of youse [j z] having a drink? e

e

Indeed the function as informality marker is particularly clear in the first sentence where the second instance of you has no final sibilant.

... Integration into the pronominal paradigm. Lipski (1993: 51) notes the ungrammaticality of contrast between you and y’all as in the following sentences; note the similar restriction in Irish English. (5) *Did you or y’all want to come to my party? *Did you or ye want to come to my party? Did he or she want to come to my party?

(American English) (Irish English)

But the restriction here may well have to do with discourse pragmatics and not the pronominal paradigm as such. For Irish English it would be much more common to have a sentence like Did both/all of ye want to come to my party? The form y’all has a much greater phonological weight (Lipski 1993: 46) than the ye of Irish English. The lack of phonological profile is probably one of the reasons for its acceptance in the supraregional variety of southern Irish English, speakers can move on a scale with [ju:] at one extreme, [ji:] at the other and values like [ju, jυ, j , ji, ji] in between. This also helps to explain the curious fact that y’all does not appear to be acceptable in tag questions (Lipski 1993: 48), whereas ye is. Compare the following two sentences.8 e

(6) a. Ye’re going to the pictures, aren’t ye? b. ??Y’all going to the movies, aren’t y’all?

(Irish English) (American English)

... Youse in American English. The occurrence of youse in American English is a typically urban feature of the north (Montgomery forthcoming). This geographical distribution again lends support to the view that it is a product of the language shift in Ireland which was not really completed until the early 20th century and indeed is still not for a few Irish-speaking districts in the west of modern

Rectifying a standard deficiency 

Ireland. During the 19th century, as a result of famine and depletion of agricultural resources, large numbers of southern Irish emigrated to the United States (anything up to two million by the First World War, Dudley-Edwards 1973: 149–55; Duffy et al. 1997: 102f.). These speakers were from poor rural areas which in effect in the Ireland of the time meant that they were speakers of Irish with English as a second language. The 19th century emigration of Catholic southern Irish to the United States is essentially different from the 18th century Ulster-Scots, Presbyterian emigration to the Midland (the inland region in the east/south-east of the United States, Montgomery 2003). The later southern Irish settled in the urban north-east of the United States and account for the large numbers of people of Irish ancestry in cities like New York and Boston. But it is precisely the urban north where youse occurs as the realisation of the second-person plural, thus supporting late modern Irish English as the source of this form.

... The form you’uns. The fusion of you and uns to you’uns, yinz, yunz is taken by Montgomery to have its roots in Scotland and/or Ulster. In the section on Scotch-Irish grammatical features, Montgomery notes “The pronoun you’uns ‘you’ (plural) ... as in ‘you’uns make yourselves at home’, was found by Kurath ‘in the folk speech in Pennsylvania west of the Susquehanna, in large parts of West Virginia, and in the westernmost parts of Virginia and North Carolina’ (Kurath 1949: 67). This form is attested in Scots (Scottish National Dictionary, s.v. ane/yin III 2), but apparently as a phrase (with yin encliticized to various pronouns), not as a pronoun. In Ulster speech today yous (and in Ulster Scots the hybrid yuz yins, according to Fenton 1995: 182, s.v. yin) are employed as second-person plural pronouns. The tendency to attach ’un and ’n to pronouns, adjectives (as big’un), and nouns remains productive on both sides of the Atlantic today. This process was brought by Ulster emigrants, and it is probable that pronominal you’uns arose in North America.” Montgomery (2002). The form thus offers evidence for a process of structural expansion which took place on the American side as so often happens with dialect input to an extraterritorial location. ... An unanswered question in English pronominal systems? In her treatment of youse in the anglophone southern hemisphere, Wright (1997: 181f.) mentions what she sees as a temporal hiatus between the demise of the thou-SG – you-PL distinction and the rise of new distinctions such as you-SG – youse-PL or you-SG – y’all-PL. For the southern hemisphere the matter is not a riddle as these varieties only began to appear at the end of the 18th century (Australia) and at the beginning of the 19th century in earnest (South Africa) and youse may have arisen

 Raymond Hickey

a generation or two after the initial anglophone settlers, if one allows for the time lag between settlement and first attestations of youse (later in the 19th century). The apparent time gap is more fundamental with the northern hemisphere varieties of English. The question then is how long did vernacular American English last without a distinction between second-person singular and plural pronouns? This depends on how far back one posits the initial occurrence of the various means of expressing a pronominal plural for the second person. With youse the matter is fairly simple. This form appears to have been taken to the United States during the 19th century by southern Irish Catholic emigrants and cannot be assumed to be older than the beginning of that century, even in Ireland. The form y’all would appear to go back somewhat further. For both White Southern English and African American English Lipski (1993: 32) states that the first reliable attestations do not appear until the 19th century. Montgomery in his interpretation of y’all from ye aw in Ulster Scots quotes a letter by a Scotch-Irish emigrant from 1737 (Montgomery 1992). However, he does not by any means suggest that the y’all was established in the 18th century in southern speech. For lack of any firm evidence one cannot posit the existence of y’all at any considerable time before 1800. One can view this phenomenon from another perspective, namely from the earliest forms of American English. Here distinctions and distributions are available which are strongly reminiscent of the situation in England at the time of initial immigration. In the early 17th century the old second-person singular thou was fast declining in normal usage. As outlined above, the reason for this decline may well have to do with the disrespectful tone of thou. The switching between you and thou within a single stretch of speech also weakened the position of a dyadic pronominal address system in English based on thou (T-form) and you (V-form). It is fair to say that thou, while present in the speech of the early emigrants, especially in closely-knit religious groups like the Quakers, never established a firm foothold in North America. In her careful examination of the language of the Salem Trials from 1692 Merja Kytö (2003) looked at the attestations for secondperson pronouns and found that the form was still present in some cases there though a minority form. Depositions from the middle of the 17th century reveal a common situation where thou is used contemptuously and where switching between thou and you is common (Hope 1994). In the context of the present discussion it is not necessary to examine such attestations (see Walker this volume for further details). Suffice it to say that the moribund thou probably did not survive much beyond 1700 in American English. The upshot of these considerations is that a considerable time elapsed in American English before the establishment of y’all. Even a generous early dating cannot posit anything better than the late 18th century. Before that one can take it that Anglo-American speech did not have a distinct plural pronominal form for

Rectifying a standard deficiency 

the second person. The situation with African American English depends on how much affiliation and continuity one is prepared to assume between historical forms of this variety and Caribbean creoles.

.. The Caribbean: Jamaican and Barbadian English The anglophone settlement of the Caribbean began with the island of Barbados in the late 1620’s with settlers from England. Sometime later, in the early 1650’s Irish deportees arrived on the island. This initial settlement antedates the arrival of African slaves and so any consideration of dialect survival must start at this point. Recent work on Caribbean English, e.g. Winford (1997–8: 123), assumes that creolisation in the Caribbean only began with the establishment of a sugar plantation economy with African slaves.9 As is well-known, English spread from Barbados to other locations in the Caribbean, not least to Jamaica which in time became the largest anglophone location in this area. If ye was to be found in the 17th century input varieties of English to the Caribbean (both from Ireland and England) then the reason it did not survive may be that it was not phonologically clear enough for the Africans acquiring English. Rather the plural was realised by importing an element from substrate languages. If youse had been present it could have survived because of its phonetic salience and morphological transparency so that its non-appearance in the Caribbean could well be taken as evidence that it is a late development in Ireland, i.e. after the 17th century Irish input to this region. In present-day forms of Caribbean English one finds yu ‘you-SG, your-SG’ with unu ‘you-PL, your-PL’ (Jamaican) or wuna (Barbados). This can vary within a single location and/or with derivative varieties. Thus LePage and Tabouret-Keller (1985: 179) show unu for basilectal Jamaican English and yu or unu for London Jamaican English. Pidgins related to English from West Africa down to South Africa all show a form for the second-person plural which has the phonological skeleton (A)VNV, A = approximant, /j/ or /w/, V = vowel, N = nasal usually /n/. This form is also the default plural pronoun for the second person in creole forms of English in the Caribbean. The authorities on this latter area, above all John Holm, assume that the source of unu was probably Ibo unu (phonologically the nearest form to the Jamaican and Barbadian pronouns) and the cognate plural pronoun forms from other Niger-Congo languages (Baker and Huber 2000) which provided input into the Caribbean such as Yoruba, Wolof, Kongo, Mbundu (Holm 1994: 379, 2000: 222ff.). This assumption is supported by literature on pidgins in present-day Africa. For instance, Faraclas (1991: 511ff.) in his discussion of the pronominal system of Nigerian Pidgin shows una as the second-person plural. When discussing Cameroon Pidgin Todd (1984: 7, 130) cites the use of wuna for ‘you’-PL.

 Raymond Hickey

. The Southern Hemisphere A curious fact of the main anglophone locations of the southern hemisphere — South Africa, Australia and New Zealand — is that all of them record the use of youse for ‘you-PL’. If, for argument’s sake, one leaves aside the possibility of this being a shared independent development for a moment, an historical line can be traced which links up the three southern anglophone locations.

.. South African English Wright (1997) claims that the use of youse in Irish (and Scottish) English is a nineteenth century10 innovation which resulted from the increasing split between rural and urban varieties in Ireland and Scotland. The timing mentioned here is undoubtedly correct, although the reason postulated can be called into question. Youse is more likely a case of restructuring by Irish speakers learning English in a situation of uncontrolled adult second language acquisition. Wright continues to mention that youse occurs in “extreme” South African English, i.e. the most local and vernacular form of English. She furthermore assumes that its occurrence in South Africa may have been influenced by the presence of Irish English speakers (1997: 180).11 This assumption is not without its difficulties as the numbers of Irish emigrants to South Africa has always been small, not more than 1% (other authors, such as Rajend Mesthrie (personal communication), regard youse as very peripheral in South African English). Given this very slight input, the possibility of youse being an independent development in South African English, possibly with convergent influence from Afrikaans which has a pronominal distinction with second-person pronouns, becomes more compelling. Independent developments in South African English may well be seen with another phenomenon which is reported for another subvariety of English in this region. In his discussion of the forms of English spoken by the Indian population of South Africa (chiefly in Kwa Zulu-Natal), Mesthrie (1992: 200) remarks that “One instance of all is fully grammaticalised in SAIE (South African Indian English RH) - the second-person plural pronoun y’all (from you all) is used in all lects, including informal acrolect. It has a genitive equivalent yall’s.” He further notes the widespread use of all as a general pluraliser in South African Indian English (Mesthrie 1992: 199f.). (7) How’s mother-all? ‘How are your mother and the others at home’ That-all they must pay. ‘They must pay for those things’

Rectifying a standard deficiency 

My chest-all paining. ‘My chest and the organs in it are sore’ Injection-all they gave me. ‘They gave me injections and things’ The existence of a genitive form yall’s is clear evidence that y’all is pronominal and not phrasal in this variety of South African English. The use of the quantifier all as a clitic may well betray the origin of y’all here. If all can cliticise onto a lexical host then a slight extension of this to include a pronominal host could allow the formation of you-all, with further contraction to y’all. The opposite pathway would require an analysis of y’all as PRO + all and then the separation of all to become an independent element which could subsequently attach freely to lexical hosts as a clitic. The possibility of all as a pluralising clitic in South African Indian English being an independent development is strengthened, not only if one considers that all is a widespread and semantically transparent pluralising quantifier in English, but also that there are similar cases in phonology. For instance, the phenomenon of diphthong flattening whereby /ai/ is realised as [a:], e.g. wide [wa:d], with practically no upglide is a prominent feature of South African English in general (Branford 1994: 481f.). But this very general feature is one which it shares with southern American English although it would be untenable to suggest that the two realisations are linked historically. Mesthrie seems to think along similar lines as he remarks, with regard to y’all, that “similarities with the English of the American South are coincidental; what is involved here is the regularisation of an irregular TL (= target language, RH) paradigm, possibly reinforced by substrate regularities – ‘you’ (sg.) versus tu – lo –g ‘you’ (pl.), literally ‘you people’)” (Mesthrie (e.g. Bhojpuri tu 1996: 89).

.. Australian English In the discussion of Anglo-American English above it was pointed out that youse in American English is a typical feature of the urban north. This can be traced to 19th century Irish English input. A similar source can be postulated for the appearance of youse in Australia and New Zealand. Recall that the anglophone settlement of the southern hemisphere started (with Australia) in the late 18th century and got under way fully at the beginning of the 19th century. This also true of South Africa, claimed by the British in 1795 and experiencing waves of emigrations in the decades after this, e.g. in the 1820’s. The existence of both youse and of negative epistemic must in Australian English would lend support to the view that these are two features which derive from

 Raymond Hickey

considerable Irish input there during the formative period at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century (Trudgill 1986a: 139–41, Trudgill 1986b). In the section ‘The sociolinguistic reconstruction of A(ustralian) E(nglish)’ (1985: 36–40) Horvath discusses the early form of Broad Australian English. Here she quotes a study by Ward (1958) which stresses the importance of the influence of the Irish on the incipient Australian ethos and also the fact that the settlement of the entire continent began with a spread outwards from New South Wales. The latter fact would appear to account for the similarities between various forms of Australian English. Horvath notes a number of features which are found in Ireland and which still exist in Australia and explicitly mentions the use of youse /juz/ as a second-person plural pronoun (Horvath 1985: 39).

.. New Zealand English New Zealand was settled somewhat later than Australia. In 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between representatives of the British government and a number of Maori chiefs. With that act New Zealand effectively became a British colony and the number of European settlers rose sharply from a few thousand in 1840 to upwards of 60,000 within 20 years and to half a million by 1881 (Gordon and Trudgill 2003). For the crucial first 40 years of anglophone settlement Gordon and Trudgill offer a breakdown of the population in which the Irish component was assumed to be around 20%, certainly sufficient for an influence on the incipient variety of New Zealand English, all other factors permitting. In his overview of New Zealand English Bauer (1994: 400f.) notes the use of ‘plural yous’. He is quite certain the form is Irish, although he mentions that Maori has dual and plural second-person pronouns. The influence of Maori on New Zealand English is taken to be very slight and most obvious in the lexicon so that it can be ruled out as a source. In New Zealand English there does not appear to be any evidence of restructuring processes which could have led to the cliticisation of -s /z/ onto you /ju:/, so that the likelihood that youse is the result of transfer from Irish English input to the region is considerable.12 .. English in the Pacific area A category expansion of all from quantifier to clitic is significantly attested in South African Indian English and in pidgins of the south-west Pacific. Indian English in South Africa arose when those emigrants who were transported there between 1860 and 1911 shifted from their native Indian language, usually Bhojpuri, to English. Now language shift and pidgin/creole scenarios have in common (Hickey 1997) that, of all scenarios of new dialect/language formation, they tend to trigger restructuring the most. Hence it is not surprising to find that a derivative of all was/is attested in certain Pacific pidgins as a clitic signalling plurality.

Rectifying a standard deficiency 

Romaine (1988: 131) remarks on ol (< all) which was used as a plural marker in combination with the pronouns mi, yu, em in Samoan Plantation Pidgin before ol was replaced by pela (< fellow)13 as a pluraliser in the course of the late 19th century. The point here is that one has a clear attestation of a pidgin which came to use its derivative of all as plural marker, seemingly independently of input varieties of English and most certainly independently of southern American English. Holm in his study of substrate diffusion (1986: 266) notes that “Pitcairnese and Norfolk have the remnants of Polynesian distinctions in their pronominal systems (partly shared with Tok Pisin because of their common Austronesian substratum)” - the reference here is to jo:li ‘you’-PL which incorporates the quantifier all as plural marker.

. The functions of plural pronouns In the section on singular reference with plural pronouns above it was suggested that such pronouns can serve non-pronominal purposes by highlighting additional elements of their use and backgrounding any strictly morphological function. Just what these additional elements are needs to be established for each variety with second-person plural pronouns but if one views the varieties as a group then certain generalisations can be attempted. All of these have to do with the application of the pronouns in certain discourse situations. At least three additional uses can be recognised as listed below, a fourth one exists but does not rely on a non-standard plural pronoun. (8) (i) Informality marker Are youse going to the disco this evening? (ii) Non-specific address Which of youse (guys) is going to pay? (iii) Institutional address Do ye have bicycle tyres? (shop) Do ye see outpatients on a Saturday? (hospital) (iv) Presupposed general knowledge It’s not just your average pizzeria, no way, it’s really great. The use as an informality marker derives from the fact that varieties with a secondperson plural pronoun are vernaculars and relate to the standard along a formality cline on which they are at the informal end. The use of second-person plural pronouns for non-specific address is linked to a general desire for indirectness as part of politeness strategies (Brown and

 Raymond Hickey

Levinson 1987: 198f.). Basically, this usage allows the hearer to decide whether he/she is being addressed or not and in this context has certain parallels with the established T/V systems of continental European languages. The third use above is part of a general perception of individuals associated with an institution as part of a group. The plural reference stresses the view of the addressee as a member of a large entity. The usage in (iv) above shows how the second-person pronoun can be used (in standard English) as a deictic element pointing to a known quantity referred to in a pragmatic context (Wales 1998: 310–4).

7. Conclusion Examining varieties of English across the world shows that in their vernacular form, most of them show a tendency to have a special realisation of the secondperson plural in the pronominal paradigm. None of the standard forms of English which have developed overseas, e.g. in the United States, has adopted this vernacular distinction so that inherited you is either singular or plural. Vernaculars tend to have a specific plural form like ye, youse, y’all, unu, yupela, etc. There are four possible sources for these latter forms: (i) dialect input from the British Isles (England; Scotland; Ireland, north or south) as with ye / youse, (ii) substrate languages in the case of Atlantic pidgins with unu or some similar form from African input in their formative period, (iii) restructuring of English input in Pacific pidgins in the case of yupela, yutupela and (iv) an independent development based on the semantic transparency of the quantifier all as in South African Indian English. The last case overlaps formally with the first as the form y’all in South Africa can hardly be traced to dialect input whereas in southern American English this would appear to be the case. These considerations show that, while separating out different sources is useful for linguistic analysis, the convergence of different contributory factors, notably dialect input and independent developments, may well be what happened in the evolution of these overseas varieties of English.

8. Tables The following tables give a rough indication of the distribution of second-person pronouns in vernacular varieties of English. For more details, please consult the discussions in the relevant sections above. With the exception of those conservative dialects of northern English which retain thou/thee, there are no special object forms of these pronouns. A genitive form may, however, be found as with y’alls in South African Indian English.

Rectifying a standard deficiency 

Table 1. Second-person pronouns in varieties of English

English Irish English Scottish English Newfoundland English Southern American English African American English Caribbean English South African English Australian English New Zealand English Pacific Creole English

Singular

Plural

thou (N), thee (W, SW) you you you2 you you you you you you yu

you, ye ye, youse, yez yous, yous yins ye3 y’all, y’uns4 you, y’all unu, wuna, yina, etc. youse, y’all5 youse youse yupela6

1

. Care must be taken to distinguish orthographic ye as a reduced form of you [j ] and as a continuation of older /ji/, the nominative second-person plural pronoun. The ye reported for Newcastle (Upton and Widdowson 1996: 66) is reduced you [j ] with /ji/ occurring as a plural form (Beal 1993).

e

e

. Here as elsewhere you is reduced in unstressed position to [j ]. In conservative Newfoundland British English the unstressed position tends to have a series of alternatives to equivalent stressed forms.

e

. This form is primarily associated with conservative usage in the Irish-derived community of Newfoundland. . Y’uns and related forms are in the minority vis à vis y’all and more clearly related to British English antecedents, in this case Scottish English, probably via Ulster.

Table 2. Sources for pronominal distinctions in varieties of English English Irish English Scottish English Newfoundland English Appalachian English African American English Caribbean English South African English Australian English New Zealand English Pacific Creole English

Beal (1993), Trudgill (ed., 1984, 1986), Upton & Widdowson (1996) Harris (1993), Hickey (1983, forthcoming b) Macafee (1983), McClure (1994) Clarke (1997), Kirwin (1993, 2001) Lipski (1993), Montgomery (1992, 2001) Mufwene (1998), Winford (1997) Holm (1994) Mesthrie (1992, 1996), Wright (1997) Horvath (1985) Bauer (1994) Holm (1986), Romaine (1988)

 Raymond Hickey . The form y’all would seem to be particularly characteristic of South African Indian English, see discussion above. . This is just one form, but the most common. It can have an infixed numeral as in yutupela when two people are being addressed.

Notes . In an article of this nature the author is dependent on the help of colleagues in the field of variety studies. Help and advice were available from various quarters here and I would like to express my appreciation to the following for their assistance with what may have seemed to them very obvious questions: Sandra Clarke, Susan Fitzmaurice, Elizabeth Gordon, William Kirwin, Merja Kytö, Rajend Mesthrie, Michael Montgomery, Sali Tagliamonte, Peter Trudgill and Walt Wolfram. Michael Montgomery and Walt Wolfram were both particularly helpful in many email discussions on the nature of second-person plural distinctions in American English. As always the author has only himself to blame for shortcomings. . In regional dialects of British English structures arose which expressed second-person plurality, e.g.“you......together”, something which has been noted in the literature (Trudgill 1990). . Note that Irish speakers acquiring English did not choose to use sibh as a loan to fill the gap. This can be contrasted with forms of Caribbean English which show a transfer from West African languages to realise the second-person plural formally (see discussion of Caribbean English below). . In a personal communication, Michael Montgomery points out that yez could simply be a phonetically reduced form of youse (analogically, the same would apply to yeer, but this time from your). While there is reduction of youse in informal speech, the existence of yez with [i], a non-centralised high front vowel, would point to its origin in ye + {S}. . Writers on the language of Synge are divided about how authentic it is. Certainly he manipulated the speech of the peasants and fisherfolk he was representing. But, this quantitative issue aside, all the features typical of Irish English are to be found in Synge’s plays, such as habitual aspect with do + be, an immediate perfective with after + V-ing, and, noticeably a consistent distinction between second-person singular and plural, see Grene (1975: 60–83 ‘The development of dialect’ where he considers such matters as the progressive, the copula, reported speech, second-person plural pronouns like youse. Grene concludes that Synge took the language of the peasants as a starting point from where he then undertook a radical reshaping to arrive at a poetic diction which bore the stamp of his individuality as a writer. . The aw shows a vocalisation of /l/ which is typical of Ulster Scots from which the form is taken by Montgomery to stem. . The two main scholars who have worked on this diaspora variety of African American English are Shana Poplack and Sali Tagliamonte. The latter maintains that you all in the Samaná recordings is disyllabic (Sali Tagliamonte, personal communication) and that the question of phonological contraction to y’all is not entirely clear from the material.

Rectifying a standard deficiency  . There would appear to be some disagreement on this. Michael Montgomery (personal communication), who has y’all in his native variety of American English (which John Lipski does not apparently), finds the use of y’all in tag questions possible and acceptable. . Campbell (1993: 98) when dealing with ‘the component parts of the population’ says that he found no mention of female Negroes before the 1640’s which means that for the first generation of English settlement on Barbados (from the late 1620’s) there was not only a preponderance of whites but no black families with children born there who could have initiated the creolisation process, even assuming that the social scenario was already suitable then (before the establishment of large sugar plantations). . In her discussion Wright quotes the earliest attestation of yiz [j z] in the Oxford English Dictionary which comes from Samuel Lover’s Handy Andy. A tale of Irish life (1842).

e

 Wright (1997) does not deal with ye /ji/ as a pronoun separate from reduced you /ju/ g [j ] in unstressed position. But as present-day southern Irish English shows the two forms are quite distinct and conflating them leads to a lack of nuance in tracing the development of second-person pronouns in varieties of English.

e

. Having said this, I should mention that a search through the Mobile Recording Unit sound archives for New Zealand English, kindly done on my request by an assistant of Elizabeth Gordon of the Department of Linguistics, University of Canterbury, apparently did not reveal any instance of youse in these seminal recordings of early New Zealand English. Not having access to the material it is difficult for me to assess this result, especially as I do not know how many, if any, of the interviewees were of Irish origin. . Todd (1984: 192) mentions the use of pela to form a plural with yu in Tok Pisin, possibly with infixed tu for a reference to two individuals, i.e. yupela and yutupela respectively.

References Algeo, John (ed.) 2001 The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 6: North America. Cambridge: University Press. Bailey, Guy, Natalie Maynor and Patricia Cukor-Avila (eds) 1991 The Emergence of Black English. Text and Commentary. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bailey, Beryl 1966. Jamaican Creole Syntax. A Transformational Approach. Cambridge: University Press. Baker, Philip, and Magnus Huber 2000 Constructing new pronominal systems from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Linguistics 38, 5: 833–66. Barber, Charles 1997 [1976] Early Modern English. Edinburgh: University Press. Bauer, Laurie 1994 English in New Zealand. In: Burchfield (ed.), 382–429.

 Raymond Hickey

–––––– 1997

Attempting to trace Scottish influence on New Zealand English. In: Schneider (ed.) 257–72. Baugh, Albert C., and Thomas Cable 1993 A History of the English Language. 4th edition. London: Routledge. Beal, Joan 1993 The grammar of Tyneside and Northumbrian English. In: Milroy and Milroy (eds), 187–213. Bliss, Alan J. 1979 Spoken English in Ireland 1600 –1740. Twenty-Seven Representative Texts Assembled and Analysed. Dublin: Cadenus Press. Branford, William 1994 English in South Africa. In: Burchfield (ed.), 430–96. Brewer, Jeutonne 1980 The WPA slave narratives as linguistic data. Orbis 29: 30–54. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman 1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 253–76. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: University Press. Burchfield, Robert W. (ed.) 1994 The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. 5: English in Britain and overseas: Origins and development. Cambridge: University Press. Campbell, P. F. 1993 Some Early Barbadian History. Barbados: Caribbean Graphics. Cheshire, Jenny (ed.) 1991 English Around the World. Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: University Press. Clarke, Sandra 1997 The role of Irish English in the formation of New World Englishes: The case from Newfoundland. In: Kallen (ed.), 207–25. Clarke, Sandra (ed.) 1993 Focus on Canada. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Connolly, Sean J. (ed.) 1998 The Oxford Companion to Irish History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DeCamp, David, and Ian Hancock (eds) 1974 Pidgins and Creoles. Perspectives and Prospects. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Doane, Nick, Joan Hall and Dick Ringler (eds) 1992 Words of Honor: Essays Presented to Frederic G. Cassidy. New York: Garland Press. Dolan, Terence P., and Diarmuid Ó Muirithe (eds) 1996 The Dialect of Forth and Bargy. Dublin: Four Courts Press. Dudley-Edwards, Ruth 1973 An Atlas of Irish history. London: Methuen.

Rectifying a standard deficiency 

Duffy, Sean et al. (eds) 1997 An Atlas of Irish history. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan. Edwards, Jay 1974 African influences on the English of San Andres Island Colombia. In: DeCamp and Hancock (eds), 1–26 Eliason, Norman 1966 Tarheel Talk. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Faraclas, Nicholas 1991 The pronoun system in Nigerian Pidgin. In: Cheshire (ed.), 509–17. Fenton, James 1995 The Hamely Tongue. A Personal Record of Ulster-Scots in County Antrim. Newtownards: Ulster-Scots Academic Press. Ferguson, Charles A., and Shirley Brice Heath (eds) 1981 Language in the USA. Cambridge: University Press. Finkenstaedt, Thomas 1963 You und Thou: Studien zur Anrede im Englischen. Berlin: de Gruyter. Grene, Nicholas 1975 Synge. A Critical Study of the Plays. Ottawa: Rowman and Littlefield. Gordon, Elizabeth, and Peter Trudgill 2003 The English input to New Zealand. In: Hickey (ed.). Harlowe, Thomas V. 1969 [1926] A History of Barbados 1625-1685. New York: Negro University Press. Harris, John 1993 The grammar of Irish English. In: Milroy and Milroy (eds), 139–86. Harris, John, David Little and David Singleton (eds) 1986 Perspectives on the English Language in Ireland. Dublin: Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Trinity College. Heuser, Wilhelm 1904 Die Kildare-Gedichte. Die ältesten mittelenglischen Denkmäler in anglo-irischer Überlieferung. Bonn: Hanstein. Bonner Beiträge zur Anglistik, Vol. 14. Heine, Bernd, and Derek Nurse 2000 African Languages. An Introduction. Cambridge: University Press. Hickey, Raymond –––––– 1983 Remarks on pronominal usage in Hiberno-English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 15: 47–53. –––––– 1997 Arguments for creolisation in Irish English. In: Raymond Hickey and Stanis/ aw Puppel (eds). Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on his 60th Birthday. Berlin: Mouton-de Gruyter, 969–1038. –––––– 1999 Ireland as a linguistic area. In: Mallory (ed.), 36–53. –––––– forthcoming a. A Corpus of Irish English in Corpus Presenter. Processing software for language analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

 Raymond Hickey

–––––– forthcoming b. The Atlantic edge. The relationship between Irish English and Newfoundland English. English World-Wide. Hickey, Raymond, Merja Kytö, Ian Lancashire, Matti Rissanen (eds) 1997 Tracing the Trail of Time. Proceedings from the Second Diachronic Workshop. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hickey, Raymond (ed.) 2003 The Legacy of Colonial English. A Study in Transported Dialects. Cambridge: University Press. Hogan, James Jeremiah 1927 The English Language in Ireland. Dublin: The Educational Company of Ireland. –––––– 1934 An Outline of English Philology Chiefly for Irish Students. Dublin: The Educational Company of Ireland. Holm, John 1986 Substrate diffusion. In: Muysken and Smith (eds), 259–78. –––––– 1991 The Atlantic creoles and the language of the ex-slave recordings. In: Bailey, Maynor and Cukor-Avila (eds), 231–48. –––––– 1994 English in the Caribbean. In: Burchfield (ed.), 328–81. –––––– 2000 An introduction to pidgins and creoles. Cambridge: University Press. Hope, Jonathan 1993 Second-person singular pronouns in records of Early Modern ‘spoken’ English, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen XCIV/1: 83–100. –––––– 1994 The use of ‘thou’ and ‘you’ in Early Modern spoken English: Evidence from depositions in the Durham ecclesiastical court records. In: Dieter Kastovsky (ed.). Studies in Early Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 141–52. Horvath, Barbara M. 1985 Variation in Australian English. The sociolects of Sydney. Cambridge: University Press. Hudson, Nicholas 1993 Modern Australian usage. Oxford: University Press. Ihalainen, Ossi 1994 The dialects of England since 1776. In: Burchfield (ed.). 197–274. Jucker, Andreas H. (ed.) 1998 Historical Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kallen, Jeffrey (ed.) 1997 Focus on Ireland. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Varieties of English around the World, G21. Kirwin, William. forthcoming. Newfoundland English. In: Algeo (ed.)

Rectifying a standard deficiency 

Klerk, Vivian de (ed.) 1996 Focus on South Africa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kurath, Hans 1949 A word geography of the Eastern United States. (Studies in American English 1). Ann Arbor, Mi: University of Michigan Press. Kytö, Merja 2003 The emergence of American English: Evidence from 17th-century records in New England. In: Hickey (ed.). Lass, Roger 1987 The Shape of English. Structure and History. London: Dent. 2003 South African English. In: Hickey (ed.). LePage, Robert, and André Tabouret-Keller 1985 Acts of Identity. Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: University Press. Lipski, John M. 1993 Y’all in American English: From black to white, from phrase to pronoun. English World-Wide 14,1: 23–56. Lutz, Angelika 1998 The interplay of external and internal factors in morphological restructuring: The case of ‘you’. In: Jacek Fisiak and Marcin Krygier (eds.). Advances in English Historical Linguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 189–210. Macafee, Caroline 1983 Glasgow. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Varieties of English Around the World. Mallory, James P. (ed.) 1999 Language in Ulster. Special issue of Ulster Folklife (45), Holywood, Co. Down: Ulster Folk and Transport Museum. Maynor, Natalie 1996 The pronoun Y’all. Questions and some tentative answers. American Speech 24, 4: 288–94. MacAulay, Donald et al. 1992 The Celtic Languages. Cambridge: University Press. Mannion, John (ed.) 1977 The Peopling of Newfoundland. Essays in Historical Geography. St John’s: Memorial University of Newfoundland. McClure, J. Derrick 1994 English in Scotland. In: Burchfield (ed.), 23–93. Mesthrie, Rajend 1992 English in Language Shift. The History, Structure and Sociolinguistics of South African Indian English. Cambridge: University Press. –––––– 1996 Language contact, transmission, shift: South African Indian English. In: de Klerk (ed.), 79–98. Meurman-Solin, Anneli 1997 Text profiles in the study of langauge variation and change. In: Hickey et al. (eds), 199–214.

 Raymond Hickey

Miller, James 1993 The grammar of Scottish English. In: Milroy and Milroy (eds), 99–138. Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy (eds) 1993 Real English. The Grammar of English Dialects in the British Isles. London: Longman. Montgomery, Michael 1989 A note on y’all. American Speech 64: 273–5. –––––– 1992 The etymology of y’all. In: Hall, Doane and Ringler (eds), 356–69. –––––– 1996 The future of Southern American English. SECOL Review 20: 1–24. –––––– 2001 The British and Irish antecedents of American English. Manuscript and forthcoming chapter in Algeo (ed.). –––––– 2003 Solving Kurath’s puzzle. Establishing the antecedents of the American Midland dialect region. In: Hickey (ed.). Mufwene, Salikoko, John R. Rickford, Guy Bailey and John Baugh (eds) 1998 African-American English. Structure, History and Use. London: Routledge. Mufwene, Salikoko 1998 The structure of the noun phrase in African-American vernacular English. In: Mufwene et al. (eds), 69–81. Muysken, Peter, and Norval Smith (eds) 1986 Substrata Versus Universals in Creole Genesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Nevalainen, Terttu, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds) 1996 Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies Based on the Helsinki Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Nevalainen, Terttu 1997 Ongoing work on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. In: Hickey et al. (eds), 81–90. Ó Cuív, Brian (ed.) 1969 A View of the Irish Language. Dublin: Stationery Office. Poplack, Shana, and David Sankoff 1987 The Philadelphia story in the Spanish Caribbean. American Speech 62: 291–314. Poplack, Shana 2000 Introduction. In: Poplack (ed.), 1–32. Poplack, Shana (ed.) 2000 The English History of African American English. Maldon: Blackwell. Richardson Gina 1984 Can y’all function as a singular pronoun in southern dialect? American Speech 59: 51–9. Rickford, John R., and Jerome S. Handler 1994 Textual evidence on the nature of early Barbadian speech, 1676–1835. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 9, 2: 221–55.

Rectifying a standard deficiency 

Romaine, Suzanne 1988 Pidgin and Creole Languages. London: Longman. Schneider, Edgar (ed.) 1997 Englishes Around the world. Studies in honour of Manfred Görlach, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Spencer, Nancy J. 1975 Singular y’all: American Speech 50: 315–7. Tillery, Jan; and Guy Bailey 1998 Yall in Oklahoma: American Speech 73: 257–78. Todd, Loreto 1984 Modern Englishes. Pidgins and creoles. Oxford: Blackwell. Trudgill, Peter 1986a Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell. –––––– 1986b The role of Irish English in the formation of colonial Englishes. In: John Harris, David Little and David Singleton (eds), 3–7. –––––– 1990 The Dialects of England. Oxford: Blackwell. Trudgill, Peter (ed.) 1984 Language in the British Isles. Cambridge: University Press. Trudgill, Peter, and J. K. Chambers 1991 Pronouns and pronominal systems in English dialects. In: Trudgill and Chambers (eds), 7–10. Trudgill, Peter, and J. K. Chambers (eds) 1991 Dialects of English. Studies in Grammatical Variation. London: Longman. Turner, George 1994 English in Australia. In: Burchfield (ed.), 277–327. Turner, Lorenzo 1949 Africanisms in the Gullah Dialect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Upton, Clive, and John D. Widdowson 1996 An atlas of English Dialects. Oxford: University Press. Wakelin, Martyn 1984 Rural dialects in England. In: Trudgill (ed.), 70–93. Wales, Katie 1983 Thou and you in Early Modern English: Brown and Gilman re-appraised. Studia Linguistica 37,2: 107–25. –––––– 1998 Your average generalisations. A case-study in historical pragmatics. In: Jucker (ed.), 309–328. Whatley, Elizabeth 1981 Language among black Americans. In: Ferguson and Heath (eds), 92–107. Winford, Donald 1997–8 On the origins of African American Vernacular English - a creolist perspective. Diachronica 14, 2 305–44; 15,1: 99–154.

 Raymond Hickey

Wolfram, Walt, and Natalie Schilling-Estes 1998 American English. Dialects and Variation. Oxford: Blackwell. Wright, Joseph 1905 The English Dialect Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wright (now Fitzmaurice), Susan 1997 ‘Ah’m going for to give youse a story today’: remarks on second-person plural pronouns in Englishes. In: Jenny Cheshire and Dieter Stein (eds). Taming the Vernacular. From Dialect to Written Standard Language. London: Longman, 170–84.

Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish Eeva-Leena Seppänen The Research Institute for the Languages of Finland

.

Introduction

In Finnish, the normal and most basic way of addressing someone is to use a second-person singular form. Second-person plural forms have been widely used as polite address forms, and although their use nowadays is not as common as earlier, they still form quite a safe way of addressing people whom the speaker does not know well, at least in formal situations. Together with them, a variation of third-person address terms are used: it is not uncommon in contemporary Finnish conversations to refer to the addressee in the third person using as an address term e.g. the addressee’s name, a common noun or a demonstrative pronoun; or a combination of these elements (cf. Seppänen 1998). The second-person singular is considered to be the original address form in Finnish, and other forms of address are said to have developed under Swedish influence. However, the second-person plural pronoun te (and its dialectal variant työ) has been used as a polite address pronoun in all dialects of Finnish. In the western dialects the second-person plural was normally used e.g. by children to address their parents. In the eastern dialects the second-person plural had a more restricted use and belonged only to a very respectful mode of address. Together with the second-person plural, third-person forms have been widely used for addressing in Finnish colloquial speech (cf. Yli-Vakkuri 1986: 106–7, 128–9). Some early syntactic descriptions of spoken Finnish language, based on data collected at the end of the nineteenth century, pay attention to certain third-person forms of address which consist of (some morphological variant of) a demonstrative pronoun tämä ‘this’, tuo ‘that’ or se ‘that, it, the’ together with a nominal expression, e.g. the addressee’s personal name or some person-referring noun, e.g. (1) Lähtiskös tää Tuomas nuotalle? go-CON-Q-CLI this 1nameM fishing net-ALL ‘Now would this Tuomas like to come with me and have a look at the fishing net?’

 Eeva-Leena Seppänen

(2) Mistee päen se vieras kävelöö? where from the visitor walks ‘Now where does the visitor come from?’ (‘Now where then is the visitor walking from?’) Researchers give these utterances as examples of address forms: the idea of what is said there could also be freely translated as “Tuomas, would you like to come fishing?” and “Where might you be coming from, visitor?” if we take them as they are given. These forms were considered to be different from the addressing forms typical of the standard language, against which the dialect researchers compared their findings. It also seems to have been difficult to explain the meaning and use of these forms to the researcher who usually was not a native speaker of the studied dialect: thus different interpretations are given in different studies. Two writers regard these forms as polite address forms, one gives them as examples of jocular speech, and one explains them as a slightly sarcastic way of address (cf. Paasonen 1890: 190–1; Latvala 1894: 46, 1899: 50; Sirelius 1894: 97–8; Kannisto 1901: 189–90). Language planning at the time and even later discouraged the use of thirdperson forms of address; the recommended polite address form was the secondperson plural (see e.g. Paasonen 1890: 190; Tarkiainen 1900; L. Hakulinen 1937). Yet in contemporary conversational Finnish it is still quite usual to refer to one’s co-participants with forms which contain a prenominally used demonstrative pronoun, although some other third-person forms of address have become rare; one of the important issues is whether all of these forms should be considered as addressing or mainly referring. In this paper I will take a closer look at these forms, first as they are described in the early syntactic studies of Finnish dialects and then as they occur in a few examples of present-day conversational language. In the early studies there is very little context for the expressions, and thus it is quite difficult to say whether the analyses of their conversational meaning given there are correct. But when comparing those analyses with the examples of contemporary data, where it is possible to pay attention to the context as a whole, it will at least be possible to explain how these interpretations might have been made and why it is possible to find such different explanations for the implications these address forms give. For analyzing the present-day conversational data, I will use the method of ethnomethodological conversation analysis. The interpretation of address terms always depends on the context in many different ways. One benefit of the analytical method of conversational analysis is indeed that it offers a conceptual framework that can be used in analyzing the entire context in which the linguistic phenomenon that is under investigation occurs. In addition to the linguistic and the content level, it is possible to take into account how the element under inves-

Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish 

tigation is located in relation to the conversational structure at the level of turns and the larger sequences formed by these turns. For address terms, a particularly important part of the context is formed by the participation framework of the moment, which includes the recipients of the talk as well as the speaker (see Goodwin 1987; Goodwin and Goodwin 1990). By comparing newer data that has been analyzed in this way with the older data, I attempt to add a new perspective to diachronic research. Results obtained through using the method of conversational analysis can be applied to the interpretation of historical data and in this way we may attempt to clarify controversial interpretations of historical linguistic research. Another central aim is to show that the concept of address itself needs more careful defining than has been customary in linguistics.

. Observations and interpretations based on dialects spoken at the end of the nineteenth century In Finland, a number of morphological and syntactic studies have been undertaken concerning the observation and interpretation of dialects spoken at the end of the nineteenth century. These studies were based on observations of spoken language collected by means of field work conducted in different dialect areas. The authors of these studies also paid attention to such forms of address that they considered to be deviant from general language usage. The second-person forms were considered to be forms of standard language, whereas the third-person forms were in use in the vernacular. In some studies, the address forms have only been recorded. However, a few researchers also provide interpretations of the meaning of the forms they recorded. As such, it is noteworthy that dialectologists considered the contemporary standard language to be the established norm through which the deviant forms were analyzed, because standard Finnish was only established during the nineteenth century when a conscious effort was made to develop Finnish into a fullyfledged language of higher culture that could be elevated to the status of the official language of Finland alongside with Swedish which already held that position. The basis for this work to develop the Finnish language was the written language that had evolved in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The written language was based on the western dialects of Finnish and was also influenced a great deal by foreign models, particularly Swedish. It was this written Finnish that in the nineteenth century was used as the basis of development, for example, through the addition of elements from spoken, folk dialects originating from a wider area. The norms of the standard language became slowly established, often through discussions and even disputes. (See e.g. Hovdhaugen et al. 2000: 232–6.)

 Eeva-Leena Seppänen

Finnish language scholars in the nineteenth century focussed on dialects as their central research interest, partly for just this reason: they were used to finding in them material for both the development of the standard-language vocabulary and grammar. Towards the end of the century, the interest in dialects increased and deepened, and by means of the grants given by the Finnish Literature Society, several scholars of the Finnish language concentrated for some time on conducting field research. The model for the syntactic description of dialects was established by an 1883 study by E.N. Setälä concerning the north-eastern Satakunta dialects in the western part of Finland. It was used by other scholars at the end of the nineteenth century as a model for classifying their observations (Hovdhaugen et al. 2000: 246). These dialect studies give plenty of examples of third-person address forms. Using the third-person category as a form of address seems to have been quite common in Finnish dialectal speech in the nineteenth century: almost every dialect researcher made some observations about it. The address term included in these third-person forms is most often reported to be the third-person singular pronoun hän ‘he/she’; also some variant of the addressee’s name or title (e.g. isäntä ‘master’, emäntä ‘mistress’) or a person-referring noun like vieras ‘guest, visitor’ are usual. In many cases these address forms are explained to be “polite” (Latvala 1899: 50) or “respectful” (e.g. Kannisto 1901: 161), or to appear in a “shy way of speaking” or in addressing strangers (Brax 1890: 247). The third person singular pronoun hän ‘he/she’ as an address term is sometimes characterized also as “playful” (Sirelius 1894: 98) or a “lazy way of addressing” (Reijonen 1893: 35). Five syntactic studies on dialects single out the third-person address with the pre-nominally used demonstrative pronoun as part of the address term. What kind of addresses are these, and when are they used? How do they differ from the other third-person address forms? The Finnish demonstrative system has three pronouns. Tämä (and its colloquial variant tää) is roughly an equivalent of English this; Finnish speakers use it to specify referents which they consider to be in their own sphere. Tuo (and its colloquial variant toi) is used to point to referents outside the speaker’s sphere. Se is the most important anaphorical pronoun in Finnish, and it is also widely used as a third-person personal pronoun in spoken colloquial Finnish. Furthermore, se is on its way to being grammaticized into a definite article (cf. Laury 1991, 1997).1 Just like English this and that, the Finnish demonstratives can be used both independently and prenominally. What is different from English is that the Finnish demonstratives can be used independently to refer to human referents; they do not require a person-referring noun as a head.2 Observations of cases where the demonstrative pronoun tämä (tää) ‘this’, tuo (toi) ‘that’ or se ‘that, it, the’ used as part of a form of address are given by Paasonen

Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish 

(1890: 190–1), Sirelius (1894: 97–8), Latvala (1894: 46; 1899: 50) and Kannisto (1901: 189–90). Paasonen and Kannisto provide more specific interpretations of the flavor of the addresses including a demonstrative. However, their interpretations are contradictory. For instance, Paasonen gives the following examples, collected in southern Savo (a county in eastern central Finland): (3a) Joks se Matt on miten vanha? already-Q-CLI that/the 1nameM is how old ‘How old then is that Mat actually?’ or: ‘Is that Mat then how old, actually?’ (3b) Lähtiskös tää Tuomas nuotalle? (given as example (1) above) Paasonen comments on examples with the demonstrative pronoun together with the first name of the addressee, and argues that they represent a polite form of address: In the same way, the third person is very prevalent among the people in the countryside when another person is being addressed by mentioning the person’s name. The demonstrative pronoun resembling an article is frequently placed in front of the name. This form of address is more polite than using the second-person singular address (Paasonen 1890: 190–1).

Yet Kannisto observes that while, on the one hand, the third person is used when speaking respectfully of people who are less known to you, on the other hand, when speaking of people whom you know well and even of animals, this address has a slightly sarcastic connotation, and particularly in this latter use, “the address word is sometimes defined by an article such as the demonstrative pronoun, se ‘that, it, the’, toi ‘that’, or tää ‘this’ (Kannisto 1901: 190). The only example, however, that contains a demonstrative is the following, which was collected in Häme, western Finland: (4) Missäs toi Heinonen tän aamun on ollu? where-CLI that Lname this-ACC morning-ACC has been ‘Where then has that Heinonen been all morning?’ In addition, the above example has been explained by the interpretation: “Heinonen was generally made fun of by others”. Kannisto provides no examples of the use of other demonstratives. Besides the differences in the interpretations given by Paasonen and Kannisto, what is noteworthy in these examples is that they include the demonstratives tää ‘this’ and toi ‘that’. The three remaining dialect syntaxes include only those examples containing the demonstrative se ‘that, it, the’ as part of the address. Sirelius, as one of the authors of these syntactic dialect studies, presents his observations

 Eeva-Leena Seppänen

about addresses including a demonstrative pronoun together with addresses that include a hän ‘he’ or ‘she’ pronoun. Sirelius (1894: 98) calls these types of address occurrences “jocular”. The following are his examples, which he collected in southeastern Finland: (5a) Mitäs se Antti pemuaa? what-CLI that/the 1nameM plays ‘I wonder what that Antti is up to?’ (5b) Mihi se poika o mänöllää? where the boy is going ‘Where then is the boy going to?’ (5c) Joks se mummo lähtöö nyt siitt? already-Q-CLI the grandma leaves now there-ELA ‘Is the grandma about to leave already from there?’ (5d) Syöpik se Ratto (koira) tätä? eats-Q that/the 1name (dog) this-PAR ‘Now does that Ratto (dog) eat this?’ Moreover, Latvala presents only examples with the pronoun se ‘it’. These examples were collected in two different areas, Satakunta and northern Savo (counties in western and eastern-central Finland) in 1894 and 1899. The western data include these examples: (6a) Eikö sillä pojaall’ oo piipputupakkii? NEG-Q the-ADE boy-ADE is pipe tobacco-PAR ‘Does not the boy have any pipe tobacco?’ (6b) Mistäs kaukaa se viaras on? where-CLI from far the visitor is ‘How far does the visitor come from?’ The eastern examples include the following: (7a) Mittees se Anna juoksentelloo? what-CLI that/the 1nameF runs around ‘Why is that Anna running about?’ or ‘What is that Anna running around for?’ (7b) Mistee päen se vieras kävelöö? (given as example (2) above) Latvala characterizes the eastern examples as polite uses, whereas he does not comment on the flavor of the western dialects.

Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish 

. Questions arising from the observations of dialectal usage and their interpretations One hundred years later, it is now possible to look for new explanations for the observations discussed in the previous section: the entire old dialect material is available, as well as the different contemporary interpretations reported by earlier scholars. What is most important, present-day scholars have at their disposal new methodologies and theoretical frames, which make it possible for them to pay attention to such features of language and interaction that were not noticed before. We now have a chance to compare the old dialectal material with other types of data analyzed in a wider perspective. Particularly two questions need to be explained. First, why do most of the observations concern the pronoun se ‘that, it, the’? For instance, Latvala actually deals exclusively with the pronoun se (“the pronoun se is often used as a kind of article defining the name of the addressee”, Latvala 1899: 50), Sirelius (1894: 99) states that he will only give examples of the use of “address” names instead of the second-person singular pronoun sie ‘you sg.’ or työ ‘you pl.’ without paying any attention to the role of the pronouns in the address. Paasonen and Kannisto, in turn, discuss the demonstratives in general. Both give only one example in which the pronoun is something other than se. It would thus seem that the pronoun se is far more frequent than any other demonstrative pronoun in a prenominal position as part of the address. Is this so, and what then is the reason for the frequency of se? Furthermore, how does se differ in this particular context from the pronouns tämä ‘this’ and tuo ‘that’? Secondly, how do such different interpretations arise of a phenomenon that seems to be more or less the same in all instances? Paasonen and Kannisto, who expressed their views most clearly, discuss the phenomenon on a more general level. They do not comment on the use of a particular demonstrative or a particular discourse context; they only discuss addresses including a demonstrative pronoun. Paasonen considers these to be polite, whereas Kannisto thinks that they are sarcastic. Moreover, both of them give examples of informal situations, where the speakers know each other well. Is it possible to explain why the interpretations are contradictory? One explanation is to claim that the contradiction is due to differences between the dialects. Finnish dialects are traditionally divided into two main categories: eastern and western dialects. Paasonen’s examples come from the province of Savo, whereas Kannisto’s from the province of Häme. The Savo dialect is eastern and the Häme dialect western. (See e.g. Rapola 1963). What if the address with the demonstrative is polite in Savo but sarcastic in Häme? However, no support has thus far been found for this explanation. Another possible reason is that differences

 Eeva-Leena Seppänen

depend on the particular pronoun used. In this instance, the pronouns tää ‘this’ and se ‘that, it, the’, which were given by Paasonen, would be used in polite addresses and the pronoun toi ‘that’, which was only documented by Kannisto, would contribute to a sarcastic flavour. This explanation is not supported by the compilers’ own interpretations: both scholars maintain that they are discussing demonstrative pronouns in general and not particular pronouns separately. However, later I will show how the newer collections support this interpretation. The third explanation, which I personally consider the most crucial and likely, is that the situations in which the demonstrative address type was used were too complex to note down in their entirety, particularly for a researcher who was an outsider to the community, taking notes without a tape recorder. The pattern or model, applied by scholars conducting field work (and which was essentially based on Setälä’s syntactic dialect study from 1883) guided the scholar to observe morphologically or syntactically interesting dialectal features in particular which were deviations from standard language practice. At that time it was not the custom to note down detailed observations about the discourse contexts in which the usage was observed. Scholars therefore commented on the contexts of the addresses in general terms only and mainly paid attention to whether the addressee was known or unknown to the speaker and whether the speaker approached the addressee in a polite manner or not. It was certainly easy to observe that a stranger was addressed differently from a familiar person: the address used with strangers was often actually directed at the compiler himself, as is shown by such recorded words of address as maisteri ‘magister’ and possibly also vieras ‘visitor, guest’. It is also easy to find information about the forms of address used internally in the local community indicating differences in status if, for example, the vicar is always addressed as “the vicar” but the vicar himself used the second-person singular in his replies. Thus, the actual speech situation itself received little attention and as such, factors relating to the discourse context were not recorded and could not be used as a basis for interpretations.3 For instance, the compilers do not normally tell whether there were two people present or whether a house full of people were participating in the speech situation, nor was the discourse context of the utterance recorded: was the addressee actively involved in the discourse or a silent participant following the conversation of others? The interpretation of an address is ultimately always dependent on the context. Even though the context in which the address occurs has affected the interpretations made by the compilers, there were no means to analyze this effect. The syntactic structure of the utterances that have been treated as address forms is always the same: they are interrogatives. This is probably the reason why these utterances have ended up in the compiler’s net who has been collecting address forms deviating from general language. If the demonstrative pronoun referring to

Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish 

the speaker’s co-participant has occurred in another syntactic structure, it has not been regarded as an address. In statements, such references to the discourse participant can naturally not be interpreted so that the third-person form is used instead of the second-person form. This is obviously also the reason why scholars have not paid attention to them. Thus the broader phenomenon, the use of demonstrative pronouns in structures referring to co-participants in conversation, has been defined so that only interrogatives have been included in the study. The phenomenon can, of course, be defined in a different way as well; so that all the situations in which a discourse participant is addressed by a structure including a prenominal demonstrative are included. This angle was not, however, in focus when the nineteenth-century scholars presented their material according to the syntactic model that was prevalent at that time. Later on, even other scholars have interpreted similar or corresponding examples. Rapola (1954: 1) discusses instances where the address includes the prenominally used pronoun se. For example: (8a) Mistä se pehtori kaikki tietää? where from the estate manager everything knows ‘How then does the estate manager know everything?’ (7b) Mistä se rovasti sen on kuullut? where from the Dean that-ACC has heard ‘Where then did the Dean hear about it?’ Rapola comments: “It is easy to notice that the speaker in these examples tries to avoid excessive directness, – even though the use of the third-person form instead of the second person address already has the same implication.” According to this interpretation, then, the third-person form address with se is even more polite than using an address form without a pronoun because it is even more indirect.4 But where does this interpretation actually stem from? Yli-Vakkuri (1986: 110–1), who has collated previous interpretations of address forms with a demonstrative pronoun, comments on these contradictions. Her explanation is that the demonstrative pronoun always adds an intimate, familiar flavour to the address. Yli-Vakkuri also emphasizes the importance that context has on the interpretation: “In any case, the addition of a pronoun emphasizes the address. The linguistic and ultimately the pragmatic context reveals how this emphasis should be interpreted in relation to the correlation of politeness and intimacy” (111). My own observations about the use of demonstrative pronouns in discourse to refer to a person are very similar to those of Yli-Vakkuri. In the next section, I will use conversational data as a means of discussing in greater detail how references

 Eeva-Leena Seppänen

to a person in the discourse situation function in interaction and what kind of contexts are needed for the different types of interpretations. My starting point is the observation that in group situations address is by no means a straightforward concept: in situations in which address is, according to traditional terminology, “avoided”, the question might actually be, for the speaker, a question of orientation towards more than one listener.

. What is address? “Address” is a concept that is straightforward in conversations with two participants. In two-party conversations, when the speaker refers to his/her partner in conversation, it is clear who the referent is. Then it is also easy to regard the secondperson forms as addressing forms, and the third-person forms, if they are used to refer to the person present, as forms that help to avoid or replace direct address. In linguistics and interaction research, however, “addressing” is used to mean two different aspects of speech. On the one hand, linguists who focus mainly on the overall linguistic code use it to refer to the use of a particular form category, the second-person singular, as the recipient of speech. On the other hand, in interaction research “addressing” is used to refer to the actual addressing of speech to a single person or, in group situations, to the selection of one participant as the primary recipient of speech so that the speaker directs his/her words specifically to this participant and also expects him or her to react to this address in one way or another, for example, by taking the next turn to speak. This way of addressing does not necessarily involve the use of the second-person but can materialize by e.g. looking at the participant in question. (See Goffman 1981: 133.) This sense is the primary one used in conversation analytic studies of interaction. These two uses can coincide in a speech situation, and the most common pattern is that the speaker refers to the co-participant in the conversation by means of a second-person form and at the same time directs his or her words to the same co-participant. Participants in the conversation can, however, refer to each other also by other means than by the second-person pronoun forms and, furthermore, the turn can be given to a particular co-participant in many other ways than by direct reference. (See e.g. Goodwin 1981; Lerner 1996.) Even if a specific reference is used during the turn, for example, a name, the target of the reference, is not necessarily the person who is intended as the primary recipient of the turn. In group situations, the question of the interpretation of the third-person form that includes a demonstrative revolves around the issue of whom the turn is directed at and what the position is of each participant in the speech-situation frame (cf. Goffman 1981: 133). When the second-person form is used, the participants have

Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish 

to be able to decide on the target of the second-person reference and thus the addressed recipient (cf. Lerner 1996: 281). The situation is even more complicated with the third-person forms, because the speaker then directs the turn to a number of recipients at the same time. In my opinion, all the forms collected by the dialect researchers were not necessarily actual addresses in the sense that they would have been directed at one particular recipient with the intention that this recipient uses the next turn, since it was not customary to analyze the speech situation from the point of view of the number of participants in it, nor from the point of view of the status of the participants in the discourse situation. The recorders do not tell whether the data comes from two- or multi-participant conversations. The “address words” occurring in the recorded turns (e.g. first names) do, however, reveal that most of the addresses or references are not directed at the compiler himself. In those cases, there were at least three persons present: the speaker, the addressee and the compiler.

. Observations and interpretations based on conversational material from the 1950s and 1980s The present-day researcher has access to collections in which the whole context can be described. Observations based on this type of material clarifies the overall picture of the form of address under discussion, even though descriptions of the older contexts are based on deductions only. In the following pages, I will present a few analyses of situations in which the speaker refers to one of many co-participants with a structure that includes a prenominally used demonstrative pronoun. The structure is the same as in the nineteenth-century examples, but it is used as an address term only in part of the cases. The situations come from recordings of conversations which include informal, multi-person face-to-face conversations. Some of the recordings date back to the 1980s, some to the 1950s. The material from the 1980s is also available on video tape.5 The collection from which the following examples have been extracted consists of six hours and twenty minutes of different dinner-table or coffee-table conversations, at home or in a restaurant. Because my intention is not to give statistical results, but to analyze interesting cases and to offer cautious generalizations based on them, the size of the material or the total number of cases is not significant as such. Nevertheless, a few figures need to be given as a background. All three Finnish demonstrative pronouns occur in this material in the function studied in this paper, i.e. prenominally in structures used by the speaker to refer to a co-participant in the conversation. Even so, these structures are relatively

 Eeva-Leena Seppänen

rare as references to a co-participant: the structure with se is used four times in my material, the structure including tämä ‘this’ or the plural form nämä ‘these’ also four times, whereas the structure with tuo ‘that’ occurs only once. Instead, the corresponding structure is much more common in references to a person who is being discussed but not present in the speech situation. The structure with se occurs 159 times, the structure with tämä 48 times and the structure with tuo 23 times.6 The figures are very deviant when compared with each other. These structures are rarely used to refer to a person present in the speech situation; in most cases these structures are used to bring into the conversation or to discuss in the conversation people who are not present in the situation. It can thus be said that they actually indicate the absence of the referent rather than his or her presence in the speech situation. This characteristic also explains how the interpretations have come about concerning these structures as indicating presence. In the following, I will present an extract from the 1980s’ collection which includes both the pronoun tämä (in this case in the plural form nämä) and the pronoun se in a prenominal construction used to refer to a co-participant or coparticipants in the conversation. In syntactic terms, only the utterance with se corresponds to the examples from the dialect collection. The pronouns tämä and tuo do not occur in question clauses in the conversational material and the utterances analyzed below may seem to be very different from the cases in the dialect material to which they are compared. Yet, the phenomenon is very much the same: the co-participant or co-participants are referred to by means of a structure which has a prenominally used demonstrative. The extract is from a situation in which a group of relatives are sitting at the coffee table drinking coffee together. Matti, the host, and Maija, the hostess, are taking care of serving. Before the beginning of the extract, Maija has asked Matti to serve some pie and Matti has passed the pie plate around saying that they are serving “spring pie”, which “makes the fluids flow faster”, when you eat it.7 (9) 01 Sirpa

: Mitä jos mäki otav vaar rohkeesti?= ‘Well, maybe I should also help myself to a proper-size piece?=’ 02 (Sari ) : =hi[hi 03 ( ) : [heh= -> Matti : Tääl onki Touko ihmeissään nyt ku nää kaikki here is-CLI 1nameM wonder-PL-INE-POS now when these all ‘Touko here looks surprised now that all these’ -> kolme undulaattii vetää piirakkaa [naamaan three budgerigar-PAR take pie face-ILL ‘three budgerigars are devouring [the pie’

Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish 

06 ( ) : [ehh hehh 07 ( ) : heh heh heh 08 Touko : Täytyy ottaa varmaa ittek kans hhh ‘I think that I need to have some myself hhh’ 09 Matti : Täytyy saadaa palo[kunta ( - - - ) ‘We need the fire [brigade ( - - - )’ 10 Maija : [Joo. Sun täytyy ottaa kans ‘[Yes. You must have some too’ 11 pari palaa. Ota pipparii ja. ‘a couple of pieces. Take ginger bread too.’ 12 (Sirpa) : .eeh heh 13 (0.3) 14 (Sirpa) : heh heh -> Maija : Mites se mummu? how-CLI the grandma ‘What about the grandma?’ 16 (0.5) 17 Helmi : Kiitos, Tää riittää minulle kyllä, ‘Thank you, I think this is enough for me,’ (Christmas coffee: Spring pie) I will at first analyze the structure nää kaikki kolme undulaattii ‘all these three budgerigars’ on lines 4–5. (Nää is a colloquial plural variant of nämä, cf. tämä – tää) With this structure Matti refers to three women sitting at the table: to Sari, Tyyne and Sirpa. Each of them has in turn been offered a piece of this “spring pie” advertized by Matti and each of them has accepted the offer. At the same time each of them has given their opinion of the possible effects of the pie: Sirpa’s comment, who was the last to take a helping, is given on line one, when she was in the process of helping a piece onto her plate. The eating of the pie has been turned into a jointly shared joke. On lines 4–5 Matti directs his attention to a new participant, Touko, by referring to him by name. At the same time, he directs the attention of the group to the new participant. The reference to Touko is generated by the pragmatic situation: now it is Touko’s turn to get some pie, and the pie plate is handed to him. At the same time, however, Matti continues to joke about the effects of the pie by implying that Touko should get worried about the women’s pie eating. Matti’s turn is directed to a number of co-participants at the same time: he draws into the conversation a new participant, Touko, but keeps at the same time his earlier partners in the conversation, Sari, Tyyne and Sirpa, within his attention. From the point of

 Eeva-Leena Seppänen

view of interaction, Touko is in some sense the primary recipient of the utterance, because the utterance includes an offer directed at him to have some pie. This can also be deduced from the reactions of the listeners: Touko accepts (on line 8) both a piece of pie and a conversational turn. In this extract, therefore, three co-participants are referred to by means of a structure that has the plural pronoun nämä, the quantifiers kaikki ‘all’ and kolme ‘three’ defining the scope of the reference, as well as the noun undulaatti ‘budgerigar’, which is used to characterize the referents. Both the situation, in which the turn is located, and the choice of the word undulaatti show that this turn has a teasing tone. The teasing is directed at the three women as well as to Touko, who is closely related to the women. The short laughs accompanying these utterances give support to the interpretation of a jocular and teasing tone. This reference could, in Yli-Vakkuri’s terms, be characterized as adding an intimate tone. The characterizations of jocular (Sirelius) and slightly sarcastic (Kannisto) used in the older syntactic treatises are brought to mind in this context. I would not describe this reference as being polite, nor particularly addressing, either. Instead, the turn with the pronoun se (line 15) has a very different tone. The jocular tone has given way to a more serious way of speaking. When Touko has expressed his wish to have some pie (line 8), Matti continues in a joking fashion (line 9). Maija, in her turn, opts to take her hostess duties more seriously (lines 10–11). She continues serving by explicitly asking Touko to have some pie, and even pressures him to accept ginger bread. After this, she turns to Helmi sitting next to Touko to make sure that even Helmi will have everything she wants to have. Maija refers to Helmi by the words se mummu ‘that/the grandma’. Strictly speaking, Helmi is not Maija’s grandmother, but her mother-in-law. The use of mummu is based on the position of Helmi in the family. The turn on line 15 is a question directed at Helmi which includes an offer. Questions and offers are turns that function as first-pair parts in an adjacency pair in conversations. The first-pair part sequentially implicates a suitable second-pair part for the conversation: a question requires an answer, an offer an acceptance or a rejection. (See e.g. Schegloff and Sacks 1973: 295–6). Maija’s reference se mummu ‘the grandma’ explicates the person who is supposed to provide the second-pair part. Helmi’s expected answer, then, comes on line 17. Because the turn is explicitly directed at Helmi, so that she is expected to take the next turn in the conversation, it can be claimed that Maija, in this situation, through her reference to Helmi by se mummu, actually addresses Helmi. Se x would thus be a clearly addressing structure and in this sense used in a different function from the structure with the pronoun nämä, which was discussed above and which was not used to generate a reaction from the referents. Furthermore, it seems that se mummu is used as a genuine question without any implication of

Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish 

teasing or joking. Thus, Maija’s utterance is a straightforward question which expects a straightforward answer. The use of a third-person formulation, however, positions this offer, presented as a question, as part of the series that is in progress: the offerings on the table have in turn been presented to Sari, Tyyne, Sirpa and Touko (they are sitting at the table in this order, and the pie plate is handed over from one person to the next), and now Maija, in a way, voices a silent question in her mind, of what Grandma Helmi would like to do in this situation. The pie plate is not in Maija’s hand so the other people at the table should also know whether the plate should be handed over to the grandma. In this sense, the turn is directed at several recipients. The above reference to the co-participant could very well be characterized as “a polite way of avoiding excessive directness” (cf. Rapola 1954: 1). The politeness is, to a large extent, based on the fact that the referent is treated as one of the group and on the fact that also other members of the group are taken into consideration. Valma Yli-Vakkuri (1989: 56) has pointed out that the pronoun se in most cases occurs “in an interrogative clause which is, in a wider sense, an expression of will to the addressee”. Yli-Vakkuri regards this use as a softening sign when entering another person’s territory. My observations support the interpretations given by Rapola and Yli-Vakkuri and also explain why the structure se x is “softening” or “polite” when used in reference to a co-participant. In my own material, all se x structures referring to a co-participant also occur as first-pair parts which presuppose a second-pair part in particular from the referent. In addition, the structure se x seems to have a syntactic restriction: it only occurs in such first-pair parts that are in interrogative form even if the content is an exhortation. The syntactic environment of the structure se x is thus the same as in the dialect examples discussed above. In an interrogative form utterance, the structure se x will not be the first constituent but it is preceded by a question word or a question particle which immediately helps the recipients interpret the turn clearly as a first-pair part. In other contexts it would be difficult to interpret this structure as referring to a coparticipant, because the structure is so much more general when used to refer to an absent person, for instance, in carrying on a narrative. It indicates the absence of the referent and this interpretation must be overturned by means of the context before it can be used as a reference to a co-participant. Since se x is predominantly an index of absence when used in references to persons, it can be used to indicate the exclusion of the referent from the conversation in progress. The question or the exhortation thus become semi-rhetorical with the implication that no answer is directly expected. The speaker presents his or her question or demand as if they were his or her own thoughts which require no reaction from somebody

 Eeva-Leena Seppänen

who has been excluded from the situation. This is a very cautious way of referring to a co-participant. The structures tämä x or tuo x, instead, do not occur in utterances in which the next turn in the conversation would be projected specifically onto the recipient. This situation rather reflects a case in which the recipient is placed in the limelight to be observed and commented on by the other participants. The only example in my material with a tuo pronoun comes from the 1950s. The 50s’ material consists of conversations recorded in a restaurant.8 The group consists of four men who are colleagues at work. In the following extract, the men have ordered cigars and Pekka is helping the inexperienced Veli to learn how to smoke a cigar. Tauno comments: : No vedä n:yv viel sitte, hhe[heheh ‘Go ahead and inhale, hhe[heheh’ Veli : [hehh hehe °(to-) (—) [(mä vien sen tonne)°. ‘°(eh-) (—) [( I’ll take it there)°.’ Tauno : [Kato. ‘[Look.’ -> Tauno : Katos se (.) se on kun luotu tohon Veliin look-CLI it (.) it is as if created that-ILL 1nameM-ILL ‘Look at that(.) it looks as if that Veli had been born with it’ saatana se ei o ensimmäinen sikari devil it NEG is first cigar ‘damn it, it’s not the first cigar’ ku siitä [kourasta palaa. which that-ELA hand-ELA burns ‘burning [in that hand.’ Pekka : [Hei tää on (ny) phhh hyvin ‘Listen this is (now) phhh very’ viileetä (kuulkaa [tää nyt on) (.) vetää, ‘cool (listen [this is now) (.) inhale,’ Veli : [No niin. ‘[That’s it.’ (Alko group 13, free conversation 1: 57–66)

(10) 01 Pekka 02 03 04

06

07

08 09 10

Tauno refers to Veli on line 5: he observes Veli’s actions and appraises them. The second-person imperative kato (from the verb katsoa ‘look’) in turn is directed at another participant: Tauno also exhorts someone else to look at how Veli is coping

Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish 

with the cigar. Thus Tauno does not direct his turn at Veli, but rather places Veli in the limelight for others to observe. Earlier on in the conversation, Veli has expressed his unwillingness to smoke, so the characterization “se on kun luotu” ‘it looks as if … had been born with it’ is clearly ironic. The tone of this situation is close to Kannisto’s interpretation of “slightly sarcastic”, which he (Kannisto 1901: 190) gave specifically in the context of the tuo pronoun. (Missäs toi Heinonen tän aamun on ollut? ‘Where then has that Heinonen been all morning?’, cf. example 4.) In the following, I shall briefly deal with one more se x example and one tämä x example from the 1950s’ material. The time and the situation are different from the 1980s’ material discussed above and this makes it worthwhile to compare the use of se and tämä pronouns in these two collections. As material, the 1950s’ data falls somewhere between the older and newer material in an interesting way. This is so because the two examples come from situations in which, in addition to the men, a co-participant in the conversation is a waitress who is a young woman. In the 1950s, restaurant behavior in Finland was socially controlled in multiple ways and it was not customary to use the familiar, second-person singular address to a waiter or waitress. The men used the second-person plural and a number of third-person references to address the waitresses. The norms of address applying to a formal situation thus play their part in these situations. In example 11, Matti is elaborating on a work-related matter when the waitress appears to pour drinks in the glasses. On line two, she tries to say something that cannot be clearly heard from the tape, and on line eight, Kaarle asks her what she wanted to say. The answer is given by the waitress on lines 11–12. [niinku#:# >noita< (.) noita: (.) Sisuja : samaa ‘the same [like#:# >those< (.) those: (.) Sisuja (a type of truck)’ Waitress : [(—-) Matti : ja >kaikkii< ni, ‘and >all< so,’ (2.0) ((sounds of the waitress walking around, a glass clinking)) Matti : niitä huo‘those ne-’ (2.0) ((sound of a drink being poured)) Matti : saa (niit porata) [nii tiukkaa ni et, ‘need (to be drilled) [so tight that,’ -> Kaarle : [>Mitä sen neidin what the miss-GEN ‘[(>Miss (sen neidin),what’

(11) 01 Matti

02 03 04 05 06 07

 Eeva-Leena Seppänen

09

piti sanoo<.= had to say ‘did you want to say?<=’ 10 Matti : = loppuilopuks se hal[kee. ‘=in the end the thing br[eaks’ 11 Waitress: [Me tarjoomme teille ruokaa ‘[We will offer you food’ 12 viis yli kahdeksan. ‘at five past eight.’ (Alko group 2, free conversation, 165–7) In this context, the reference sen neidin (a genitive case form of se neiti ‘that/the Miss’) is thus directed at the waitress who is asked to repeat what she said. In the same way as in the previously discussed se example, the reference is also expressed here in a question clause which presupposes that the next turn is taken specifically by the referent. The reference se neiti is thus used to address the waitress and to hand the next turn to her. The form of address sounds clearly polite. The noun used is neiti (Miss), which in the 1950s was the usual way to address a waitress and was also generally suitable when addressing an unknown woman. The situation proceeds as expected, the waitress accepts the turn and begins to discuss the food orders with the men. In this next example, the expression tämä herra Mentolainen (line 8, 10) refers to one of the co-participants, Veijo. : <Mutta ettekö te suostu että kokeillaan pukeeks ‘<But wouldn’t you agree that we should try to see whether’ tämä tei:tä.> ‘this looks nice on you.>’ Ville : hehehmihi ‘heheh wh-’ Waitress : No sit loppuillalla. ‘Okay maybe later tonight.’ (.) Waitress : [Ei vie:lä (.) ei se vielä pue. ‘[Not yet (.) it won’t look nice this early.’ Veijo : [Sit vasta. ‘[Ok, later.’ -> Martti : .h Kuulitteks te muu[te(n) ku tämä: #ö#] (.) hear-PST-2PL-CLI you(PL) by the way when this ‘.h By the way, did you hear when this: #ö# (.)’

(12) 01 Martti 02 03 04 05 06 07

Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish 

09 Veijo : [°(—-)° ] -> Martti : herra Mentolainen kysy et jouduitteks te mister Lname ask-PST that get-PST-2PL-CLI you(PL) ‘Mister Mentolainen asked if you’ 11 naimisiin juur tämän huoneen takia. married just this room because of ‘got married just because of this room.’ 12 (1.3) 13 Waitress : >Minäkö<, ‘>Me<,’ 14 Martti : mm. (Alko group 5, free conversation 1a: 112–7) On lines 1–2, Martti teases the waitress who has come to take drink orders – he suggests to the waitress that she try the coffee cosy on the table to see if it looks nice on her. Despite the teasing content, the address pronoun in this turn is the formally polite, second-person plural pronoun te (teitä in the partitive). The waitress then politely rejects the suggestion (lines 4 and 6). On line 7 Veijo joins in the teasing. After Veijo’s turn, Martti introduces a new topic by asking the waitress whether she heard what Veijo asked her when she came into the room the previous time (lines 7–11). Martti refers to Veijo with the NP tämä herra Mentolainen ‘this Mister Mentolainen’ in which some hesitation can be heard between the pronoun and the nouns (a creaking ö-sound and a pause), as if Martti at first was going to use only the demonstrative as the reference but then decides to complement the expression with a title and a name. He names the referent even though it is unlikely that the waitress would have known the names of the men. At this stage, the turn acquires a tone that seems to indicate that Martti is introducing Veijo to the waitress and thus bringing him to her attention. Again, the means of reference fulfills the norms of formal politeness, but placed in this context the reference now becomes slightly ironical: the careful formality of “Mister Mentolainen” occurs in a turn in which the waitress is asked a very personal question. Martti does not ask this question in his own name but places it in the mouth of “Mister Mentolainen”. Thus the expression tämä herra Mentolainen refers to the comments uttered by one co-participant earlier on in the conversation, while the speaker himself is addressing a second co-participant, the waitress. The address, which sounds formally polite, also has a teasing tone which is directed at both co-participants. By collating the analyses made on the basis of the conversational material collections, it is possible to make the following observations. The example with the se x structure (se mummu, ‘that/the grandma’) in the material from the 1980s is a

 Eeva-Leena Seppänen

polite question which presupposes an answer from the referent. Yet, the question is presented as part of an action in which the different co-participants in turn are presented with the offerings of the table and the answer is also needed as guidance for the other co-participants. In the material from the 1950s, the se x structure is also part of a question, again in a turn that in neutral terms seems to ask for an answer from the referent. In this situation, in which the customer addresses the waitress, the referring structure is most likely part of the formally polite tone of the question. In both cases, also the noun which the pronoun defines creates a type of distance: it is not the name of the referent but a family relation term mummu ‘grandma’ or a general term neiti ‘miss’ suitable for polite addresses of unknown women. In the 1980s’ material the tämä x reference, nää kaikki kolme undulaattii ‘all these three budgerigars’, for its part occurs in a turn which does not expect a reaction from the participants referred to as budgerigars, but rather from Toivo, who is also mentioned by name. Tämä x is thus not an addressing structure but rather a structure that occurs in turns which comment and report on the actions of other people. A teasing tone is clearly present in this example, and it is already present in the choice of the noun. The example from the 1950s also has to do with teasing, even though the reference includes an element which is formal as such, herra + Mentolainen, Mister + surname. The only case in the material with tuo x, tohon Veliin saatana ‘that Veli – damn it’ from example (10), is a teasing reference commenting on the actions of another person, which can in no way be interpreted as being polite. All in all, in the light of this material, it seems the se x has at least been a means of polite address between people who do not know each other and it is still possible in cautious addresses. Tää x hovers between politeness and bantering, whereas tuo x has probably never been polite. A clear difference is discernible between se and the other pronouns.

6. Discussion Let us turn back to the utterances Lähtiskös tää Tuomas nuotalle ‘Now would this Tuomas like to come with me and have a look at the fishing net?’ and Missäs toi Heinonen tän aamun on ollu ‘Where then has that Heinonen been all morning?’. It is most likely that these expressions were uttered in multi-person contexts and not in situations where only two people were present. They are not addresses in the sense that answers (the following turn) would be expected only from Tuomas or from Heinonen. The use of the pronouns tää and toi distances from the speech situation and in a way refers to an absent person. This means that when Tuomas is asked to go to the fishing net, the speaker also asks the other participants if they feel

Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish 

it suitable that Tuomas goes to the fishing net. Heinonen, for his part, is most likely placed in the limelight to be teased by drawing attention to him. He is more of an object to be observed than an addressee. It is thus not surprising that turn-of-the-century compilers have predominantly detected addresses with se. It seems, in the light of the modern material, that of the three possible structures, only the structure se x can be regarded as actually addressing when it is directed at a participant in question clauses which function as first-pair parts in an adjacency pair. Se x has been and is still an excellent way of asking questions without them sounding too intrusive, because se x in other contexts strongly indexes the absence of the referent. The structures with tää x and tuo x are not addressing and were also not necessarily addressing at the end of the century. The older material has the highest number of se x examples because they are not ambiguous. If the compiler is looking for ways in which second-person pronouns are avoided in the vernacular, the se x examples are an easy solution. Tää x and toi x are more complicated, which is indicated by the fact that there are only few examples of their use in the material and that their interpretations caused problems for the compilers. Yet, this vernacular-style of addressing the co-participants in a situationdefined, roundabout way has remained in use at least for a hundred years, even though language planners have from time to time tried to totally eradicate the third-person address forms. Apparently, these forms are still alive because they are not addresses that have a single interpretation but are multipurpose references in multi-person conversational situations.

Notes . Other descriptions of the Finnish demonstrative system can be found in e.g. Setälä (1891); Penttilä (1957); Itkonen (1979); Larjavaara (1990). . In the data discussed in this paper, the person-referring nominal head is always there – clearly, the dialect researchers did not consider independently used person-referring demonstrative pronouns as cases of address forms. . There are, however, some very interesting comments on the discourse context in Sirelius (1894: 96). . This can be seen as a case of conventional indirectness, cf. Brown and Levinson (1987: 132). . For a more detailed description of the materials, see Seppänen (1998). The database is drawn from the corpus of Finnish conversations at the Department of Finnish Language, University of Helsinki. . These figures include both the singular and the plural pronoun forms.

 Eeva-Leena Seppänen

. The transcription symbols are those developed by Gail Jefferson and customarily used in conversation analytic literature, cf. Atkinson and Heritage (1984, Introduction). A list of the symbols used here will be found in the appendix. . The original purpose of these recordings is a test setting for a sociological study in which the group relaxes between tasks by engaging in eating and free conversation. For further discussion see Hakulinen (1989).

Appendix: Key for the transcription and glossing symbols . , ? here : £ # °oh ° <> >< hh le(h)t .hh (0.3) = [ ] () (( )) ACC ADE ALL CLI CON ELA GEN ILL INE Lname NEG PAR

falling final intonation level final intonation rising final intonation emphasis lengthening of the sound smile voice creaky voice silent talk talk inside is done at a pace slower than the surrounding talk talk inside is done at a faster pace than the surrounding talk audible aspiration talking through laughter audible inhalation silences timed in tenths of a second no silence between two adjacent utterances utterances starting simultaneously point where overlapping talk stops talk not discernible comments by the author Accusative case Adessive case Allative case clitic conditional Elative case Genitive case Illative case Inessive case last name negation Partitive case

Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish 

PL POS PST Q 1nameF 1nameM 2PL

plural possessive suffix past tense question particle first name, female first name, male second-person plural

References Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and John Heritage (eds) 1984 Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brax, Pekka 1890 Pohjois-Savon kielimurteesta. Äänne- ja muoto-opillinen tutkimus. Suomi III(3), 227–56. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987 Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goffman, Erving 1981 Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Goodwin, Charles 1981 Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press. –––––– 1987 Forgetfulness as an interactive resource. Social Psychology Quarterly 50(2), 115–131. Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin 1990 Context, activity and participation. In: Peter Auer, and Aldo di Luzo (eds). The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 77–99. Hakulinen, Auli (ed.) 1989 Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I (Kieli 4). Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki. Hakulinen, Lauri 1937 Armeija hyväksynyt teitittelyn. Virittäjä 41, 25. Heritage, John 1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hovdhaugen, Even, Fred Karlsson, Carol Henriksen and Bengt Sigurd 2000 The History of Linguistics in the Nordic Countries. Jyväskylä: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Itkonen, Terho 1979 Zur Semantik und Pragmatik der Finnischen Demonstrativa. In: Christoph Gläser, and János Pusztay (eds). Festschrift für Wolfgang Schlachter zum 70.

 Eeva-Leena Seppänen

Geburtstag (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 12). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 113–28. Kannisto, Artturi 1901 Lauseopillisia havaintoja Etelä-Hämeen kielimurteesta. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Larjavaara, Matti 1990 Suomen deiksis (Suomi 156). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Latvala, Salu 1894 Lauseopillisia havaintoja Luoteis-Satakunnan kansankielestä. Suomi III, 12. –––––– 1899 Lauseopillisia muistiinpanoja Pohjois-Savon murteesta. Suomi III, 17. Laury, Ritva 1991 On the development of the definite article se in spoken Finnish. In: Maria Vilkuna, and Arto Anttila (eds). SKY 1991. Suomen kielitieteellisen yhdistyksen vuosikirja. Helsinki: Suomen kielitieteellinen yhdistys. –––––– 1997 Demonstratives in Interaction: The Emergence of a Definite Article in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lerner, Gene 1996 On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: “Second person” reference in multi-party conversation. Pragmatics 6, 281–294. Paasonen, H. 1890 Lauseopillisia havaintoja verbin ja konjunktionein alalta. Suomi III(3), 185–226. Penttilä, Aarni 1957 Suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: WSOY. Rapola, Martti 1954 Erään tyylipiirteen taustaa. Virittäjä 58, 1–17. –––––– 1963 Johdatus suomen murteisiin. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Reijonen, Erkki 1893 Nurmeksen murteesta. Äänne- ja muotohistoriallinen tutkimuskoe. Suomi III(6), 1–84. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1984 On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In: J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage (eds). Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 28–52. Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks 1973 Opening up closings. Semiotica 8(4), 289–327. Seppänen, Eeva-Leena 1998 Läsnäolon pronominit. Tämä, tuo, se ja hän viittaamassa keskustelun osallistujaan. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Setälä, E.N. 1883 Lauseopillinen tutkimus Koillis-Satakunnan kansankielestä. Suomi II(16), 1–235.

Demonstrative pronouns in addressing and referring in Finnish 

–––––– 1891 Suomen kielen lauseoppi. 3rd revised ed. Helsinki: K. E. Holm. Sirelius, U.T. 1894 Lauseopillinen tutkimus Jääsken ja Kirvun kielimurteesta. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Tarkiainen, Viljo 1900 Yleiskielemme puhuttelusanoista. Virittäjä 4, 91–92. Yli-Vakkuri, Valma 1986 Suomen kieliopillisten muotojen toissijainen käyttö (Turun yliopiston suomalaisen ja yleisen kielitieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 28). Turku. –––––– 1989 Suomalaisen puhuttelun piirteitä. Äidinkielen opettajain liiton vuosikirja XXXVI, 43–74.

The German address system Binary and scalar at once Raymond Hickey Essen University

.

Introduction

The purpose of the present paper is to consider the address system of German from the point of view of its components, structure and its use in contemporary Germany.1 In addition, the apparent rigidity of the system will be dealt with to throw light on the way in which speakers cope with the tension which arises from a binary pronominal system which has to reflect complex social relationships linguistically. In essence, this study shows that while pronominally German has a reciprocal binary system of T and V-forms (du [T] ‘you-SG’ is the pronoun of familiar address and Sie [V] ‘you-3-P-PL’ that of formal address), this simple division does not do justice to the expression of those nuances with which Germans perform their social exchanges. For this reason there are two apparently contradictory adjectives in the subtitle: the term “binary” refers to the existence of two and only two pronouns of address, du and Sie, while the term “scalar” is a reference to all the linguistic devices which form part of the address system and which allow speakers of German to arrive at nuances not immediately obvious from the binary pronominal distinction.

. Generalisations concerning address systems At the centre of the politeness theory of Brown and Levinson is the assumption “that some acts are intrinsically threatening to face and thus require ‘softening’” (1987: 24). For example, they see the domain of honorifics as a microcosm which offers support for their view and show that a particularly sensitive use of honorifics is to be found in the potentially face-threatening scenario of requests. By and large the present-day German address system bears this out (Haase 1994), especially the parafeatures of the system which surround the choice of pronoun (see below).

 Raymond Hickey

The encoding of deference in language is based on motivated forms (Brown and Levinson 1987: 23), a conclusion the authors reach after examining crosslinguistic investigations of address systems. In their view, the means used to realise deference forms which are likely to occur can be given in the following order: (1) a. pluralisation b. substitution of third person for second person c. other person switches, e.g. first person plural as a deferential form confirming that the speaker belongs to the social system of the addressee. First person V-forms are attested for some countries outside of Europe. The frequent diachronic development of address honorifics from referent honorifics is widely attested. This view sees the rise of V address forms resulting from group references or third person references being applied to the addressee for reasons of social deference. In socially stratified societies the higher levels tend to use V-forms more (if a dyadic system exists) and the lower levels the T-forms. However, this is not an absolute universal; Brown and Levinson report on Canadian middle-class families which apparently use more internal tu than working-classes families (1987: 24). The factors which determine the use of T versus V-forms vary across languages, both in history and at the present. By and large today’s European languages have an absolute system where a given form is used for a certain individual and maintained until a possible switch is made. Switches are generally irreversible; indeed the only normal switch is from V to T with the important exception of teenagers becoming adults and experiencing this shift on the part of those who address them. Another orientation of the address system is conceivable. This would be where the speaker decides from the actual speech context in which he/she finds him/herself what form of address to use. In general, one can say that such systems tend to be unstable over time because of the considerable flux which they generate. As is well known, the address system of English did not survive and this may very well be because it was not absolute. In the early modern period, as attested, for instance in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, thou and you could be used for one and the same person, depending on the situation (see Mazzon and Stein in this volume). It is clear that address systems serve the function of giving linguistic expression to fairly stable aspects of social relationships, such as distance, solidarity or intimacy. But speakers often feel the desire to be more formal or less formal with certain individuals on certain occasions. If the direction the speaker wishes to take is not congruent with the T/V-form he/she uses, a tension arises which cannot be resolved simply in absolute systems but which can receive indirect expression in parafeatures which congregate around the address pronouns.

The German address system 

. The development of the German dyadic system The use of a plural of respect is commonly assumed to reach back to Latin and anecdotally to Caesar. The truth of this proposed lineage is irrelevant. However, the fact that the plural came to be used for a single individual is evidence of depersonalisation in address and so documents the encoding of social distance in language use. For German, the earliest record of the use of ihr ‘you-PL’ as a form of address goes back to Otfried von Weißenburg in the ninth century. Throughout the Middle Ages and well into the early modern period, this remained the only deferential pronoun of address. Its use was regulated by social status in the feudal system and later by class affiliation. By the end of the sixteenth century, the third person singular – er ‘he’ or sie ‘she’ – appears as an indirect address form indicating deference (Besch 1998: 94). A century later the use of Sie with plural verb forms is attested and would appear to be a combination of indirect address and respectful plural as augmented deference (Besch 1998: 94). There was considerable overlap so that in the eighteenth century an older ihr (2nd personal plural), an established er/sie (3rd person singular) and an innovative Sie (3rd person plural) were available.2 For the later discussion in this paper, it is important to bear in mind that the du/Sie address dyad in modern German came to replace the older du/ihr which was based solely on social position, specifically class (Polenz 1999: 383). In a much quoted speech, Friedrich Gedike proposed in 1794 to the Berliner Akademie that address terms should be restricted to du and Sie and not to further differentiate by class. He favoured the binary distinction as one which accommodated the Sprache des Herzens (du) ‘the language of the heart’ and the Sprache des Verstandes (Sie) ‘the language of the intellect’. Although Germans nowadays would have difficulty in recognising this distinction as that which underlies their address system, there is one key feature in both Gedike’s interpretation of the address distinction and contemporary German usage: both are inflexible, determined in principle for each individual and not variable in a given pragmatic context.3 Deliberations on address systems were seen, no doubt correctly, as the province of the middle classes, so that the working classes retained du as the internal address form acting as a symbol of class solidarity. To this day, this is the case and a readiness to use Sie can be easily interpreted among workers as putting on social airs and graces and indicative of social climbers.

. Views on the origin of address dyads Brown and Gilman (1960) already noted that there is an iconic relation between asymmetrical social relations and asymmetrical usage. Although Brown and

 Raymond Hickey

Levinson (1987: 45) maintain that this alone does not explain the direction in which particular pronouns are used, there is an interpretation in which this is, in fact, sufficient. If one assumes that the V pronoun is one used for respect and that respect in the public sphere is a salient characteristic of social relationships, then the use of the V-form for the socially superior individual is to be expected. The pronoun used for the V-form can be accounted for separately. For instance, there is a case to be made for lei (third person singular feminine) in Italian deriving from the word maestà ‘majesty’, which has feminine gender, through anaphoric usage. But cross-linguistically one finds that plural pronouns are predominant for the V-form. Again, there may well be a universal here that a plural address implies respect and that the singular pronoun implies a personal, i.e. intimate type of address. The plural for respect may itself have derived from the highly personalised and hence informal singular forms, i.e. one can maximise social distance and hence achieve respect by using a form which does not reflect a one-to-one social exchange as does the singular form. If this interpretation of the V-form as arising in deliberate contradistinction to the T-form is correct, then this would further account for the common use of the second person plural, e.g. in French, Russian, etc. Support for this interpretation is, of course, offered by the fact that T is historically the original form. One feature of the use of the plural for deference is that it allows the hearer to choose whether he/she is being referred to if more than one individual is being addressed (Brown and Levinson 1987: 198f.). In a way, this is like indirectness. It allows the hearer to opt out of the conversation. Just as an indirect request allows the hearer to decline without loss of face, the use of the respectful plural in groups allows individuals to assume that they are not being referred to directly. Now, while this situation is only a subset of those where V-forms are used, diachronically they may have lent support to the choice of plural pronouns for V in a dyadic system. The source of address systems may well have its roots in referent honorifics. An address system with a V-form supports indirectness and thus complies with a universal of human conversation that indirectness is highly valued. Another angle which is relevant in many societies has to do with the individual’s status as a group member. In many cases it is membership of an accepted group which confers status on the individual and so deference is paid to the group via the individual in that the speaker uses a plural pronoun to address him/her.

. The present-day German address system The system of address in a language is something which is learned consciously by children in their society and so is quite different from the acquisition of one’s native language. It seems to be a valid generalisation that children use the familiar

The German address system 

form with each other and with their relatives. However, they must learn (by five or six at the latest) that there is a marked formal form which is to be used with strangers. As opposed to the acquisition of other aspects of language (morphology, syntax, etc.), children require a fair degree of correction as they overgeneralise the du form to begin with. Very probably as a result of the fact that du is the original unmarked form, there is a general correlation between age and the use of the formal Sie. The du form is used among peers up to their twenties (unless some professional situation forbids this or the parties in a conversation are strangers). The right to expect strangers to use Sie is assumed to be reached by 15 or 16. Speakers over 30 will nearly always use Sie to any new acquaintances when first met on a neutral public occasion, i.e. not privately or in some special social setting such as in a club. Unless a suitable occasion arises, they maintain this even if the acquaintance becomes closer. This can lead to situations where two individuals who have known each other for decades, say, next-door neighbours, still address each other with Sie (and surnames).

. Kinds of social relationship In contemporary western societies, social relationships tend to be of one of four types as outlined below. There may be overlap; certainly (4) overlaps with (1–3) but the types can occur on their own, which is the reason for separating them in this classification. 1) Family members and relatives 2) Neighbours 3) Professional colleagues 4) Acquaintances In the (modern) German context, only (1) entails an automatic address form (though in the anglophone world, for instance, (2) and usually (3) entail informal address). There used to be non-reciprocal address between children and parents and this survived longest with parents-in-law, but in contemporary German, a speaker treats parents-in-law and their relatives on an equal footing with his/her own blood-relatives and gives them T.4 Religious usage is a separate case; deities, saints, etc. are always addressed with T. This has led to certain conventions such as referring to a deceased person during a funeral with T, termed the Universal-Du by Glück and Sauer (1997: 127). These situations can be regarded as extra-social and so are not affected by the rules of address etiquette.

 Raymond Hickey

.. Address as a political statement As a rule of thumb, one can say that mutual T is a sign of political liberality, i.e. it signifies abandoning the linguistic trappings of a power relationship. For instance, to non-Swedes it may appear quite natural that the Swedes should favour the general adoption of T as a single form of address, given the liberal political system in Sweden (but there has been a recent swingback, see below). The correlation between liberal political opinions and the use of the du form probably has to with the egalitarian principle, according to which all humans are equal and, if we are all equal, then we should all address each other with the unmarked form of address, the du form. There is another angle to this: if each individual deserves the respect of every other, then a language may choose to generalise the Sie form for non-personal address so that everyone expresses respect with his/her form of address. This development was to be seen during and after the Russian revolution where the vy form (= V-form) was generalised (Comrie and Stone 1978: 177) as a sign of respect to workers who had previously experienced non-reciprocal V-T usage from their social superiors. Official bodies which try to establish address usage by decree are usually not successful. For instance, in Russia the provisional government of 1917 prescribed the V-form for all militia, but this did not lead to any great change, as Comrie and Stone note in their discussion of modes of address in twentiethcentury Russian (1978: 172–99). This usage, specifically among the working classes, may vary, however. In Germany, the workers and the party which claims to represent them, the Social Democratic Party of Germany, favour the du form as a symbol of solidarity. This is in sharp contrast to the asymmetrical V/T usage, which employers formerly often used with their employees.

. Address in the professional sphere There are one or two fossilised address usages still remaining in German. One is the non-reciprocal address between apprentices and their superiors, another is the third person address which is restricted to certain professional encounters in service industries, e.g. between waiters and their customers as in, Hat die Dame noch einen Wunsch? ‘Does the lady have another wish?’ (Braun 1988: 11). The consciousness of this as an anachronism (apart from the catering area) is revealed in its ironical use by Germans today, e.g. in an instance recorded of a younger brother addressing his older sister in the home kitchen. In certain professions, the Sie form is obligatory as it implies a level of social control and seriousness which may not be present with the familiar form. Thus it

The German address system 

is almost unknown for colleagues in German banks to say du to each other, unless they know each other privately. German is remarkable, at least compared to English, in having specific professional address forms. Whereas in English these are generally restricted to academic titles or government positions, in German there is a tendency to use the position of an individual in address, e.g. Herr Pförtner, können Sie bitte die Tür aufmachen?; the literal translation as ‘Mr. porter, could you open the door?’ shows the inappropriateness of such a form of address in English. The generic and unspecific professional address in German is Herr Kollege, Frau Kollegin which can be used to anyone who shares one’s profession, though there is often a restriction to individuals who are on the same professional level as oneself, e.g. the question Sind Sie Kollege? ‘Are you a colleague?’ in the medical profession is a question as to whether one is (also) a doctor, and not a medical representative, for instance. In this context one should mention the asymmetrical use of first name and surname (more on this below). With nurses this is established with the preceding title Schwester as in Schwester Petra, können Sie mir kurz helfen? ‘Nurse Petra, could you help me for a moment?’, though in the anglophone world the use of Sister is restricted to nurses who also belong to a religious order. In many professions there is no default title and in some of these the bare first name can be used, e.g. by customers to hairdressers, the former always being addressed by Herr/Frau plus their surname. In general, this usage remains an exception, and the fashion for some foreign firms in Germany to supply their staff with name tags on which only the first name is written is a source of confusion, if not to say embarrassment, to German customers.

. Reasons for using V: Freedom from imposition Using V-forms maintains social distance and hence freedom from imposition. This is often a reason for not switching to T, i.e. use of V helps to maintain negative face (Brown and Levinson 1987: 62). This is especially clear in cross-gender usage where many speakers regard a too liberal use of T not just as an encroachment on one’s personal sphere but as a covert sexual advance. The sense of imposition is felt to be greatest where the use of T is a clear exception, e.g. when a lecturer uses T with one student in a group where V is the norm. This can evoke an impression of favouritism which is not wished by the addressee.

. Group exclusion As V is the default in adult German usage, it does not carry implications of unfriendliness (despite the frequent misinterpretation by English speakers), unless

 Raymond Hickey

a situation has a very high expectancy of T, e.g. in leisure activities. Where there is a possible choice between V and T the use of V can carry negative overtones. One such situation would be where a new individual who joins, or wishes to join, a group is addressed with V. Such address is interpreted as an attempt to exclude the individual in question (Clyne 1984: 126).

. Reasons for using T: Identifying with another individual There is no doubt that the mutual use of T in German carries implications of identity/solidarity between two speakers. This is often referred to by outsiders in critical commentaries, e.g. Sie sind Duz-Freunde ‘They are Duz-friends’, Sie duzen sich ‘They say Du to each other’, imputing cloak-and-dagger behaviour to the individuals concerned. Whether or not this is the case, the assumption of personal sympathy is generally valid, certainly for those individuals who use T by choice and not automatically, as with all students. Group affiliation is an extension of individual identification: the group is a collection of individuals, each of which one associates with. However, in this situation the question of personal sympathy is waived. For instance, bus drivers/train conductors use the mutual T, irrespectively of whether they know each other or feel any personal affinity. The notion of group should be broad enough to encompass common activity. This comprehensive notion of group would explain why, for instance, it is extremely unlikely that one would experience V when going to a disco. In such cases, age differences are overridden by common affiliation and/or activity.

. The misinterpretation of T The use of T has a double function as a marker of solidarity and of familiarity. These two elements frequently go hand in hand, but not always: it is possible to have the former without the latter and it is this which underlies the use of T in the Social Democratic party in Germany and which did underlie the use among communists in the former German Democratic Republic before 1989. On an individual level, the use of T may be misinterpreted in a concrete speech situation if it is intended as an expression of solidarity by the speaker but understood as overt familiarity by the addressee who feels this is not appropriate with the speaker in question. Of course, the use of T, where there is a choice, can be motivated by the desire to be seen as relaxed, uninhibited and not unduly concerned with formality. The dividing line to appearing intrusive is very fine here and accurate judgement of the situation in which one wishes to switch to T is required.

The German address system 

. Usage with groups This is a particularly thorny question in modern German as it involves a decision which is potentially a source of embarrassment. The reason is as follows: in any group which one may address there may be some individuals to whom one uses V and some to whom one uses T. The group address is normally not critical if one group is in the clear majority. For instance, if there is one individual in a group of ten to whom one says Sie, then one can address the group with ihr (T plural) with impunity. If the group consists of two to whom one gives V and T respectively, the situation is quite delicate and Germans generally avoid the issue entirely by not addressing the group. It is a question of judgement here: if the individual(s) to whom one gives V is someone with whom one could imagine using T but has not got around to it – an informal situation has not presented itself – then ihr for the group is acceptable. But if there is no question of ever giving V to one half of the group, then direct address is avoided.

. Non-reciprocal usage In those cases where non-reciprocal usage is to be found, linguists assume that there is an iconic relationship between asymmetrical social relations and asymmetrical address usage (Brown and Levinson 1987: 45). The social relationship, embodied in non-reciprocal T/V usage, is one of power and has a small remnant in current German society. This is seen in the relationship of apprentices to their superiors, usually a single individual, such as a master craftsman, a foreman or an individual employer such as a dentist, electrician etc. The apprentice is addressed with T in all situations and must give V in return.

. Temporary switching This is virtually unknown in present-day German. For it to be acceptable there must be a situation which is so special and so unlikely to be conflated with everyday life that the switch can be tolerated only briefly. Historically, it was permissible to give T on specific occasions such as carnival (the period of celebration before the beginning of Lent in Catholic areas of Germany). The use of T was referred to as the Karnevals-Du and is alluded to in Thomas Mann’s Der Zauberberg, for instance. Another case where temporary switching is found is when speakers are under the influence of alcohol. As in all countries, inebriated individuals are regarded as imposing and their behaviour, including the unsolicited use of T, is rejected as a whole.

 Raymond Hickey

. Permanent switch from T to V The switch from T to V occurs in only one natural situation: an individual reaches a certain age, usually mid teens, in which he/she finds that adults begin to use the V-form as default address. In those situations where the addressing adult is known, e.g. a neighbour talking to a teenager, the switch usually requires a commentary, something like, Du bist ja mittlerweile richtig erwachsen; besser ist, ich sage jetzt Sie ‘You’ve got quite grown up; I think it is better for me to say Sie to you now’. This is not compulsory, however. If the older individual has known the younger from early childhood, for instance with domestic help of long-standing, then the continued use of T may well be accepted as a special situation. In official German usage this switch has been coded in law, at least as a recommendation of the ministries of education of the various provinces (Länder): the so-called Oberstufen-Sie demands that pupils be addressed with Sie by teachers, at the latest for the final few years of secondary school, i.e. for the period that they are in the Oberstufe (Polenz 1999: 384). Reverting to V among adults is usually the result of some irreparable rift in the relationship, such as a severe quarrel, a case of deceit or injury. Needless to say there is no ceremony for reverting to formal address.

. Permanent switch from V to T There is a general rule in all languages which have a T/V distinction that at the level of greatest personal acquaintance, reciprocal T tends to be used. For instance, this holds, synchronically at least, between siblings, husband and wife, lovers, etc. These instances are linguistically uninteresting as there is no choice involved. However, few social relationships are static and in as many cases as not, social distance is reduced on greater acquaintance. For languages with a T/V system, the question of a switch to T will surface sooner or later. Retention of V can often occur simply where individuals want to be on the safe side: stick to politeness and you cannot go wrong. The only risk is that if you overdo it, people might think you are inhibited or stand-offish. For both parties to be comfortable about a switch, attention must be paid to a number of factors.

. Who has the right to offer? What is essential to an unproblematic switching to the du form is that both individuals involved are agreed on it. Forcing the du form on someone is regarded as socially bad behaviour and is usually resisted by the other party in many situations in which there is a relationship of status: social superior versus inferior, professional

The German address system

superordinate versus subordinate, older versus younger or some combination of all three factors. It is up to the superordinate individual to take the initiative and propose the du form. This situation is a residue of the original power-based relationship when the more powerful members of society always gave T to the less powerful. Switching to the du form is never a matter which is abstractly decided but must take the personality of the parties into account. With personalities who do not harmonise, this may lead to conflict. There are individuals who welcome being addressed with du as they see this as a sign of naturalness in social exchange, while others feel that their privacy is being intruded on and that an unwanted identification with an unsympathetic individual has been established against their will.

. The amount of contact As V is the default for all adults in public encounters in German, any switch to T must involve a considerable reduction in social distance. This distance, however, tends to increase if the individuals in question have only infrequent contact with each other. Equally, considerable contact will minimise this distance and so create the essential precondition for the switch to T. For instance, if two individuals see each other daily in a private context, then the switch to T becomes quite compelling. The reverse of this is where there is a break in contact. For obvious reasons, such as moving to another area to live, contact can suddenly break off or at least be severely reduced. The more time that then elapses, the more the use of T seems inappropriate, particularly if it had just been introduced between two individuals when they separated. This is a curious aspect of the address system in German. Although the switch to T is instantaneous, it needs a certain amount of time for each member in a relationship to get used to it. This is all the more the case when the relationship was characterised for a long time by the use of V. When the individuals encounter each other for the first time after a long break, there is usually some reference to the use of T to confirm that it is still acceptable to both parties.

. Getting your timing right For German speakers, in the development of any personal relationship there is a time span in which the switch to T is natural and immediately acceptable. One can leave it too late to switch from V to T. Native speakers sense when the time has come; a natural situation, i.e. a setting of minimal social distance, such as a private gathering, a party, an outing, may give one the right surroundings for switching to the du form. It can happen, however, that no such situation arises and years go by. In such cases people simply adhere to the formal Sie.



 Raymond Hickey

Speakers do not like the decision being made for them, e.g. for a third party to insist that two individuals switch to the T-form. However, there may be situations in which the pressure cannot be resisted, e.g. in a clearly defined group in which using T is the norm, e.g. among unskilled workers.

. Accelerating a switch Extreme situations, such as those which are life-threatening, lead to an accelerated switch to the T-form, which is then permanent. Such situations are similar to the position with religious usage: they are extra-social so that the maintenance of V seems pointless. To resist the tendency to T, the normal inhibiting factors, social distance and/or personal incompatibility, must be overwhelming.

. Considerations of personality Despite the right timing and the appropriate social setting, many Germans decline to offer the T-form. This may be due to personality factors: one does not offer T to individuals to whom one does not feel at least a modicum of affinity, that is, to those one does not want to be identified with at any costs. The refusal to make a move may be the result of great caution; after all, if one remains with V, one has not committed any social faux pas and can at worst be judged to be distant in manner. For many Germans the irreversibility of the switch acts as a brake.

. The ritual change from V to T Some languages have a conventionalised ritual for the switch: Bruderschaft trinken ‘drink brotherhood’ in German and – as a borrowing – in Polish. However, the ritual, if it is practised, has an aura of quaintness in present-day German and is commonly restricted to offering T to females and is as often as not the expression of distinct sexual interest.

. Turning down an offer To decline the offer of T is normally considered insulting in German. If one party nonetheless feels that the retention of V is appropriate, then the refusal of the switch needs to be explained. Such explanations usually refer to social inappropriateness, e.g. when there is a great age difference, especially if the individuals in question are of the opposite sex. But the real motivation may not always be given. Frequently, the individual who is offered T does not want to be identified too

The German address system 

closely with the individual from whom the offer comes and hence declines. Another motivation which the present author has repeatedly observed is the fear that abandoning V could lead to a loss of respect, particularly if the relationship is asymmetrical in terms of social and/or professional status. A frequent reason mentioned by superiors is the inability to express criticism and have this accepted if a reciprocal switch to T is made, i.e. the option of reprimanding someone weighs heavily in deciding about a switch to T. This perceived inability is certainly a consequence of the very strong identification function of the T form in German, although the loss of authority which speakers fear is often more imagined than real.

. Cross-gender forms of address One of the more unfortunate aspects of the familiar form of address is that it may be interpreted as a covert sexual advance where it is not intended as such. For this reason one finds that there is a greater incidence of the du form among co-sexuals. Misinterpretation of the du form is, however, only possible in those situations in which there is an equal probability of the Sie form being used. And in some cases the use of du is indeed intended as just such an advance.

. Unsolicited T The problem with using T in German without the consent of the addressee is that it entails a lack of respect or a severe imposition. Ich hoffe, ich bin Ihnen nicht zu nahe getreten ‘I hope I did not impose on you’ is a common apology in German, but unsolicited T would suggest that one did just that. It also implies close identification and the addressee has a right to insist that this is only permissible with mutual consent, otherwise one’s behaviour is criticised as distanzlos ‘far too familiar’. Where there is a clear cline in social status, unsolicited T implies a lack of respect. This may frequently be the case, whether intended or not, and is the main reason why immigrant workers resent the use of T without being asked if this is acceptable to them.

. Using T as an insult The factor of respect is central in relationships characterised by asymmetry of status. For this reason unsolicited T is regarded as insulting. In situations of rage, a sudden switch is, however, particularly common, though paradoxically in controlled altercations, especially when legal measures are in the offing, V is the preferred mode of address, should there be a choice.

 Raymond Hickey

. The pragmatic manipulation of formality There is an inherent tension in absolute binary systems of address. Social relationships are scalar with a whole range of values on a cline from informal to formal. With a dyadic system the reflection of these relationships in language becomes difficult and speakers naturally search for means to express the nuances they experience in their social contacts.

. The desire to background formality The German address system, like those of other modern European languages, is not based on a pragmatic evaluation of the situation obtaining at the time of an exchange. It has a more absolute character as can be seen from the following generalisations for contemporary urban German.5 1) The form of address is fixed at any one point in time. To use the incorrect form, specifically to use the T-form to someone with whom this has not been agreed on, is a source of extreme social embarrassment. The only exception to this might be situations of great emotional excitement in which a blind eye might be turned for a short while. 2) The form of address is particular to each individual, except clearly defined social groupings, such as students. Furthermore, there are few social activities which automatically entail the use of the T-form. However, certain kinds of sports, such as football, do fall into this category. 3) The only change which is socially acceptable is that from V to T. There are social conventions on how this switch is initiated (priority given to age and social or professional status). All address systems which are independent of the discourse situation in which the speaker finds him/herself suffer from the drawback that one cannot switch to the T-form to temporarily reduce social distance. This is a step which German speakers consider carefully as it can only be reversed with considerable consequences for the relationship of the individuals in question. The following sections deal with what I choose to call “the pragmatic manipulation of formality”. By this is meant the reduction or increase of formality by various means apart from the use of T/V pronouns. The features involved are termed “parafeatures” as they are clearly associated with the T/V pronouns but critically do not show the absolute binary division which holds for the pronouns. Note that the following sections will not deal with paralinguistic elements such as gestures, body language or the linguistic level of prosody which by means of intonation

The German address system 

can help considerably to render the binary address system scalar. One should perhaps mention here a prominent non-linguistic correlate of the use of V: speakers who use the formal address have a much greater tendency to shake hands on meeting and parting than those who use T. In the following, those elements of discourse are discussed which can have a value on a scale of formality. All elements can go both ways, i.e. increase or reduce the degree of formality in an exchange.

.. Combinations of pronoun and name .. Sie and first name The use of this combination has generally been restricted to those situations where there is a fair degree of acquaintance between the interlocutors and – significantly – a difference in age of approximately a generation. A typical situation is where the parents of a child are addressing one of the latter’s friends. This combination may have arisen from a transition from first name + T-form, always used for children, to an adult system where the V-form is obligatory but in this specific situation the first name was retained due to the degree of acquaintance. This highlights a generalisation of the German address system: there is no situation in which a switch from surname to first name is made only; this is subsumed under the V to T shift. In fact Germans who wish to initiate a shift from V to T frequently invite the addressee to use the first name of the speaker, e.g. Sie können mich doch Hans nennen. ‘You can call me Hans’. This implies a switch to T, though it could be a source of potential ambiguity, i.e. an invitation to switch to Sie + first name, as the present author once experienced with an older female acquaintance who meant the offer literally, that is as an offer to use first names but not change to T. Although the practitioners of this type of address may not wish to admit it, the combination of Sie and first name is a continuation of a non-reciprocal V/T situation. It is the subordinate who is addressed by his/her first name while the superordinate is usually addressed by his/her surname, though not in this situation with an academic title as well, should he/she have one. The justification for the alignment as subordinate/ superordinate may derive from age (a generation gap, again between parents and the friends of their children) and/or profession, say with teachers and, more recently, with university lecturers and their pupils or students. In the latter case there is more room for manipulation, for instance the first name is not necessarily used when chiding a student, e.g. for not having done his/her work. Here, as in other situations, the Sie and first name combination may imply, or at least be interpreted as having, a sexual overtone when practised by a male teacher/lecturer vis à vis a female pupil/student. Mutual Sie and first name would seem to be rather the exception, again because the combination is a milder

 Raymond Hickey

form of the old non-reciprocal usage and if speakers are prepared to use first names, then they usually go the whole way and switch to T.

.. Du and surname This is a restricted combination which occurs in specific professional situations, e.g. in department stores between colleagues, on the shop floor so to speak (Clyne 1984: 126). It is not an option in the pragmatic manipulation of formality today. It was common in the military and in certain schools though in both these cases this is not accepted practice today. Occasionally, some specific social subgroups, such as male teenagers, may engage in this practice still. .. Phonetic reduction In a purely V environment any use of T is phonetically very salient. The long /u:/ of du does not occur in any situation where V is the norm. For this reason even the generic use of du can make others feel uncomfortable. One solution to this is to reduce the vowel of du to schwa. This increases the acceptability of a T form, generic or not, used in a V context. There is a certain tradition to this practice (see third example below which is a fixed expression) and the syncope with the verb form which attends it is generally given orthographic recognition as in the following examples where the suffixed -te (conflated with the verb ending) indicates the incorporated du /du:/ whose onset is devoiced by assimilation and where the vowel is schwa. (2) Siehste! Das hat man davon. ‘There you are! That’s what happens.’ (3) Weisste, die ganze Geschichte ist dumm gelaufen. ‘Well, you know, the whole thing went wrong.’ (4) Haste was, biste was. Lit. ‘If you possess something then you count as somebody.’

.. Reference honorifics Although German is not rich in reference honorifics there are one or two means of reference which are relevant to the degree of formality in a discourse. The highest degree of formality is shown by using the surname along with a possible academic title. In the mid range is the surname with a preceding Herr or Frau depending on sex. Distinctly informal, and frequently contemptuous, is the use of the definite article and surname (not translatable into English) as in the following scale. Decrease in formality ——> (Herr/Frau) Dr. Müller Herr/Frau Müller

Der/die Müller

The German address system 

.. Combinations of pronouns Any guide to pronoun usage in German will state that V is always Sie and that it requires the third person plural for manifestations of the verb. In colloquial German the picture is not so simple. There are limited means of decreasing formality on the fly, so to speak. The variable means of expression involve group address (see above) where the second person plural is used for more than one person, each of which may be addressed by Sie. 1) Pronominal Singular Sie, plural ihr So, und was haltet ihr von unserem neuen CIP-Pool? ‘So what do you think of our new computer pool?’ instead of: So, und was halten Sie von unserem neuen CIP-Pool? 2) Verbal Imperative 2nd person plural in a V context Jetzt kommt ihr, wir müssen los. ‘So come along now, we must go’ instead of: Jetzt kommen Sie, wir müssen los.

.. Group address again One way of indicating informality without taking the irretrievable step of switching to T presents itself with groups. As noted above, there is no clear guideline here: if the group is mixed with regard to terms of address, then ihr (T-plural) is possible but only advisable if the T individuals predominate in a group. However, one can send a signal of informality to a mixed group by deliberately using T. This is also a quantitative issue: repeatedly addressing a mixed group with T increases the signal value of this usage and is generally only found in private gatherings, e.g. when sitting together for a meal after work whereas in a board meeting at a firm or a faculty meeting at a university, the ihr address is inappropriate, even if there are colleagues one addresses individually by du. .. The generic du The Sie form is specific to single individuals. If one is making a general reference, although in the company of persons to whom one gives V, it is still possible to use a form I label “generic du”. By this is meant a pronoun which does not have a single individual reference. Take for instance the sentence Du kannst nicht durchfahren, die haben die Strasse gesperrt ‘You cannot drive through here. They’ve closed off the road’. Another example would be where the use of T stems from a type of inner monologue as when recounting a story, e.g. Dann habe ich mir gedacht, sowas kannst

 Raymond Hickey

du gar nicht machen ‘Then I thought, you just can’t do something like that’. In this case the person referenced by the T form is the speaker him/herself. In a speech context in which all parties are using T, such usage goes unnoticed. However, in either a mixed address context or an exclusively V situation one must be careful to ensure that the generic du is not misinterpreted as the du of address. Hence one should not have direct eye contact, not face the addressee directly and not be in close proximity. This usage in no way affects the V status of the addressee, but the common employment of generic du can be used unconsciously by speakers to create a less formal atmosphere.

. Parafeatures of the address system: Salutations and parting The discussion in the previous section concerned the variable use of address pronouns and verb forms, which are determined by person and number just like the pronouns. However, there are some parafeatures of the address system in German which can be manipulated to render the linguistic expression of formality scalar. The beginning and end of an exchange are points where one can manipulate formality. The beginning is marked by an opener, which can be a personal name, preceded by an honorific or academic title, a verb of greeting or a plain pronoun, all of which have different values on a scale of formality. In addition there are openers for reading style, as when giving a lecture, or when one is writing a letter, of course.

. Openers The use of personal names in formal contexts involves either the honorific Herr or Frau plus an academic title if the addressee possesses one. In general it is fair to say that Germans are fairly conscious of titles, so dropping one requires the tacit consent of the addressee, especially in professional contexts. For instance, students, if they are fairly well acquainted with a lecturer, may leave out the title in address, but usually need (non-verbal) reassurance that this is acceptable, at least on the first occasion. In certain cases, as in the medical profession, the title is never dropped (by patients). Medical doctors tend to address each other as Herr Kollege/Frau Kollegin. The standard verb of greeting is grüssen. The formula Grüß’ dich ‘(I) greet you-SG-T’ is well established and is expanded in certain cases to grüß’ Sie ‘(I) greet you-SG/PL-V’ or grüß’ euch ‘(I) greet you-PL-T’, depending on address context. Apart from greetings which involve a pronominal object, there is a whole range of others from a neutral Guten Tag “good day” through a more informal Hallo! (with stress on the second syllable) to distinctly informal (and often intentionally youthful)

The German address system 

Hi! Regionally, German shows many variations among openers, e.g. Grüß Gott is common in Bavaria and generally in the south of the country. The plain pronoun is often a common opener (Glück and Sauer 1997: 123), especially for questions or for drawing the attention of others. Here one can note differences, Du, darf ich mir einen Kaffee nehmen? ‘Say, can I help myself to coffee?’ is quite friendly, but Sie da, was machen Sie mit dem Auto? ‘You there, what are you doing to the car?’ is chiding, if not to say aggressive, as is Hallo! with initial stress (see below).

. Written usage Written-style address can be used in speeches and obviously in writing and has the basic neutral formula Meine Damen und Herren ‘ladies and gentlemen’ which has a slightly informal variant beginning with Liebe(r) ‘dear’ and followed by a noun appropriate to the group addressed, e.g. Liebe Hörerinnen und Hörer ‘dear listeners-FEM and listeners-MASC’ on the radio or Liebe Parteifreunde ‘dear party friends’ (but not: Liebe Parteifreundinnen, liebe Parteifreunde because Freundin means ‘girlfriend’) at a political rally. In very formal address there is a range of options restricted to certain addressees. Spectabilis refers to faculty deans, Magnifizenz, amongst others, to university vice-chancellors, Exzellenz, again amongst others, to ambassadors. But in everyday usage, the two most useful formulae in the manipulation of formality are Sehr geehrte(r) and Liebe(r) as in Sehr geehrter Herr Meyer versus Lieber Herr Meyer, both ‘dear Mr. Meyer’. The first is definitely more distant and at the very least implies caution on the part of the writer. In terms of currency, both formulae are equally possible and Germans often spend much thought on deciding which to use with a certain individual. By contrast the closing formulae in letters do not appear to carry the same weight, although there is also variation here. The standard formula is Mit freundlichen Grüßen ‘Yours sincerely’ and can be used for anyone in any situation. A more personal variant is Mit herzlichen Grüßen or Herzlichst while the use of Ihr(e) and the name of the sender, e.g. Ihr Hans Meyer, is quite distant in tone whereas the use of Dein(e) plus first name, when the receiver of the letter is addressed with T, is not. Older forms such as Ihr Ergebener ‘Yours devotedly’ or Hochachtungsvoll ‘With great respect’ are regarded as stiff and stilted nowadays.

. Anonymous address With strangers one is often in a situation where one does not know what the name of the individual is (or chooses not to use it). There is a slightly antiquated address for women, gnädige Frau, lit. ‘kind lady’ and a simpler form for men mein Herr, lit.

 Raymond Hickey

‘my sir’. There are difficulties with these forms, however. The first is old-fashioned and can be interpreted as cheeky and the later can be slightly aggressive in tone. Speakers thus often fall back on the forms junger Mann, junge Frau ‘young man, young woman’ which are quite neutral where appropriate. But these forms tend to be extended upwards on the age scale and the present author has frequently been addressed as junger Mann despite being in his mid-forties: So, junger Mann, Sie suchen CD-Rohlinge ‘So, young man, you are looking for blank CDs’. The general salutation Hallo is present in German, but is not as neutral as the term hello in English, from which it derives. Hallo in German (with initial stress) is not so much a general greeting as a call for attention, particularly among strangers and very often with a reproachful undertone, e.g. ‘Hallo, haben Sie schon bezahlt? ‘Hey, have you paid yet?’.

. Third person deixis Both Herr and junger Mann are available as neutral terms as is junge Frau for young females, e.g. Der Herr möchte bezahlen ‘The gentleman would like to pay’, Der junge Mann hat eine Frage ‘The young man has a question’, Die junge Frau wartet schon lange ‘The young woman has been waiting for a long while’. For women there is a distinction between Frau and Dame, the latter being more respectful irrespective of formality, e.g. Die Dame an der Kasse hat leider das Kleingeld vergessen ‘Unfortunately the lady at the cash desk forgot the change’.

. Ironical usage For the sake of completeness one can mention that some Germans take an ironical stance vis à vis their own address system. This consists of jocular reference harking back to now obsolete forms which would be part of the passive competence of most Germans, e.g. Werte Ehefrau, literally ‘valued wife’, Holder Schwiegervater, literally ‘gracious father-in-law’. The value of such forms is not perhaps quite as peripheral as one might think, a quick reduction in formality can be achieved by using a deliberately archaic address which in a gentle manner reminds the addressee of his overly formal character, e.g. Geschätzter Kollege, könnte er vielleicht den Brief doch noch unterschreiben?, literally ‘Admired colleague, could he perhaps sign the letter after all?’. Equally ironical are self-effacing references to the speaker him/herself, e.g. Meine Wenigkeit, literally ‘my smallness’, Euer ergebenener Diener ‘your devout servant’ can be used to ridicule a stiff addressee as in Meine Wenigkeit hat sich erdreistet, eine Frage zu stellen, approximately ‘My worthless self has had the temerity to ask a question’.

The German address system 

.. Saying goodbye: Tschüss versus Aufwiedersehen In everyday spoken usage, the area where a great deal of formality variation is to be found is with the two main parting formulae of German, Tschüss versus Aufwiedersehen.6 Historically, Tschüss derives from French Adieux and Aufwiedersehen simply means ‘until we see each other again’ (Aufwiederhören is the corresponding form used in telephone conversations and means ‘until we hear each other again’). Of the two formulae, Tschüss is definitely the more informal and has distinct overtones of friendliness. Aufwiedersehen is neutral in public situations of V address. However, because Tschüss is compatible with V usage – but T address and Aufwiedersehen are not – speakers have a choice of which formula they use. Thus the deliberate use of the one rather than the other can imply relative friendliness or relative distance, i.e. deliberately saying Tschüss to someone you address with the Sie form implies a slight slackening of the formality of V usage. However, here as with the choice between du and Sie in the first place, only the high-status individual, the person in a position of “power”, is allowed to say Tschüss first. If he/she says this, the other, low-status individual can reply in the same way. If the latter first utters Aufwiedersehen as parting formula and the high-status individual then says Tschüss, the low-status one is liable to reply by a second parting formula, this time Tschüss. This pattern is not, however, confined to situations with differences in status; it can occur simply where one individual wishes to signal friendliness vis à vis another. Furthermore, there are slight differences in the use of Tschüss which depend on pronunciation. The full phonetic form is [t∫y:s] but there is also a more colloquial form [t∫ø:] (especially in the north-west of Germany) which implies an even greater degree of familiarity, however, this is often judged to be a bit too offhand. The opposite to this situation is where one party deliberately says Aufwiedersehen/Aufwiederhören to express disapproval of his/her interlocutor. Again this is interpreted negatively only if the possibility of saying Tschüss is there to begin with. One should also mention here that foreign parting formulae are to be found colloquially in Germany. Ade, in the south-west of Germany, has a considerable vintage but no general currency in the rest of the country. Ciao (from Italian) and Bye(-bye) (from English) are used frequently by younger members of the population. The clear existence of a choice between the two parting formulae Tschüss and Aufwiedersehen in present-day German has become obvious in a recent change in public announcements with the railways. The standard commentary on the tannoy of German intercity trains just before reaching their destination has been changed of late and now runs something like the following: Wir wünschen Ihnen eine angenehme Weiterreise und würden uns freuen, Sie bald wieder als einen

 Raymond Hickey

unserer Gäste begrüßen zu dürfen. Tschüss und Aufwiedersehen. ‘We wish you a comfortable onward journey and would be pleased to be allowed to greet you soon as one of our guests again. So long and goodbye’. What is remarkable here is the use of both partings in an attempt to appear laid-back and friendly and still not offend putatively serious-minded passengers who regret what they see as the general Americanisation of German society in the too liberal use of informal terms. Nonetheless, the entire formula tends to backfire, not least because of the very stilted expression begrüßen zu dürfen ‘be allowed to greet’ which is quite incompatible with Tschüss which follows it.

8. Conclusion: Possible change in the German address system Although there may have been changes in certain professional groups, such as among sub-professorial staff in universities, as noted by Clyne (1984: 126f.), there is no question of a switch of the unmarked value among unacquainted adults from Sie to du (as opposed to the situation in Swedish, for example, see above). This has really only happened for students, a clearly defined sub-group of society, although a certain degree of flux has been noted for Germany.7 Specifically, in the years following the student unrest of 1968, an increase in the use of du was noted. During the general conservatism of the 1980s a reversal could be seen and Sie became established again, e.g. as virtually the only form of address between teachers and pupils, university lecturers and students. Such a pendulum movement is only to be expected because the address system of a language reflects – admittedly to a limited degree – the general climate of the society which uses it. This is true elsewhere as well. In Sweden a revival of the former second person plural pronoun ni can be observed, especially as a fashionable usage among young people. There is considerable confusion at the moment and it is uncertain whether the old dyadic system will re-establish itself, but this phenomenon does go to show that address systems can show a certain pendulum movement, certainly across generations. In order to establish for certainty whether there is genuine movement in the German address system, and what its nature is, linguists must concern themselves with the phenomenon. A glance at works treating tendencies in present-day German8 such as Stickel (1990), Heringer et al. (1994) or Rösler and Sommerfeldt (1997) reveals that none of the contributions in these volumes deals with the address system.9 Other issues are frequently discussed, typically the number of Anglicisms in present-day German, and perhaps the weight of these largely lexical changes overshadows any shift in the pragmatics of the address system.

The German address system 

Acknowledgement I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for many helpful comments in which he/she pointed out some further aspects of this subject and added some bibliographical items of value.

Notes . For other languages, see the representative collection in Winter (1984). . Surprisingly, German scholars writing on the history of their language do not always seem concerned with the development of the system of address (though the matter is usually treated in handbooks on stages of German, such as Middle High German). Polenz, for instance, in his comprehensive four-volume history of German does not deal with the historical issue at all but has a brief section on it in the volume on contemporary German (Polenz 1999: 383–5). On the other hand, Clyne, in his monograph on German language and society (Clyne 1984: 124–30), does deal with this area and indeed with the grey-areas in the German address system. This may be due to the higher awareness an anglophone would have of the address system, since it does not exist in English. . There may well be differences here between national varieties of German. These have been around for quite some time, e.g. the Austrian Offiziers-Du which came to be seen in contrast with the Prussian Sie at the end of the nineteenth century (Besch 1998: 101–3). . As an aside one can mention that animals are always addressed with T as the whole system does not apply to them. . The reference to “urban” here is deliberate as usage in rural communities is quite different. The occurrence of T-forms is generally greater in the country, probably because of the higher degree of acquaintance and social bonding which obtains there, the authority structure of rural communities notwithstanding. One could also mention in this context that Irish, which in its historical development is entirely a rural language, does not have a T/V system. . The remarks here are based on supraregional German which derives from northern usage. Southern German has slightly different forms: Aufwiederschauen often has much of the range of Tschüss as southern German does not use this but either Servus (Bavaria) or Ade (Swabia and south-west in general). Both of these latter forms are associated with high degrees of informality and tend to be associated exclusively with the T-form. . In this context, one could mention the behaviour of the mass media. Certainly with private television stations it is common for guests on any of the innumerable talk-shows to be addressed by T. This is a type of compulsive duzen where the individuals have no choice but to comply and from their non-verbal reactions it is frequently obvious that they are uncomfortable with this. However, given the position of power of the interviewer or host, the guests have no option but to conform.

 Raymond Hickey . Barbour and Stevenson (1990), despite its title, is largely concerned with dialectal variation in German. . It should be said, however, that there is a body of specialist literature on this subject. In many cases this has been (tellingly) by non-German authors such as Findreng (1976) and Yamashita (1990). Mention should also be made of the prize which was offered in 1989 by the German Academy for Language and Poetry concerning terms of address; see the collection of answers in Kretzenbacher and Segebrecht (1991).

References Barbour, Stephen, and Patrick Stevenson 1990 Variation in German. A Critical Approach to German Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Besch, Werner 1998 Duzen, Siezen, Titulieren. Zur Anrede im Deutschen heute und gestern. 2nd edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Braun, Friederike 1988 Terms of Address. Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brown, Robert, and Albert Gilman 1960 The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: T. A. Sebeok (ed.). Style in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 253–76. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987 [1978] Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clyne, Michael 1984 Language and Society in the German-Speaking Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard, and Gerald Stone 1978 The Russian Language Since the Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Findreng, Ådne 1976 Zur Kongruenz in Person und Numerus zwischen Subjekt und finitem Verb im modernen Deutsch (Germanistische Schriftenreihe der norwegischen Universitäten und Hochschulen). Oslo: Universiteitsforlaget. Gedike, Friedrich 1794 Über Du und Sie in der deutschen Sprache. Berlin. Glück, Helmut, and Wolfgang Werner Sauer Gegenwartsdeutsch. 2nd edition. 1997 [1990] Stuttgart: Metzler. Haase, Martin 1994 Respekt: die Grammatikalisierung von Höflichkeit. München: LINCOM Europa. Heringer, Hans Jürgen, Gunhild Samson, Michel Kauffmann and Wolfgang Bader (eds) 1994 Tendenzen der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

The German address system 

Kretzenbacher, Heinz Leonhard, and Wulf Segebrecht 1991 Vom Sie zum Du: mehr als eine neue Konvention? [Antworten auf die Preisfrage der Deutschen Akademie für Sprache und Dichtung vom Jahr 1989]. Hamburg/Zürich: Luchterhand. Polenz, Peter von 1999 Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Band III. Das 19. und 20 Jahrhundert. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rösler, Irmtraud, and Karl-Ernst Sommerfeldt (eds) 1997 Probleme der Sprache nach der Wende. Frankfurt: Lang. Stickel, Gerhard (ed.) 1990 Deutsche Gegenwartssprache. Tendenzen und Perspektiven. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Winter, Werner (ed.) 1984 Anredeverhalten. Tübingen: Narr. Ars Linguistica 13. Yamashita, Hitoshi 1990 Vom Sie zum Du? Eine empirische Erhebung zu Funktion und Gebrauch der deutschen Anredepronomen. Duisburg: LAUD (Linguistic Agency of the University of Duisburg).

Index of Subjects

A Adversion 17, 62, 64, 67, 78, 80 Altdeutsche (or Pariser) Gespräche 88 Anelida and Arcite 81 Apollon, king of Tyrus see O Apolonovi Ars dictaminis 9 Arthour and Merlin 41 As You Like It 19, 252-303, 333 Auchinleck manuscript 32 B Beaux Stratagem 335 Beues 41 Bohemian Land Laws see Práva zemská ≠eská Book of the Knight of the Tower 35 Bruderschaft 105, 412 C Cantar doe mio Cid 178 Canterbury Tales 10, 12, 30, 31, 40 Clerk’s Prologue 32 Clerk’s Tale 32, 33, 40 Franklin’s Tale 32, 33, 37, 40, 41, 80 General Prologue 33 Knight’s Tale 9, 16, 17, 32, 33, 61-78, 80, 81 Man of Law’s Tale 33 Merchant’s Tale 33 Pardoner’s Tale 33 Physician’s Tale 33 Prologue of the Prioress’s Tale 81 Reeve’s Tale 33 Shipman’s Tale 33 Squire’s Tale 33 Tale of Melibee 31, 41 Wife of Bath’s Prologue 30 Wife of Bath’s Tale 80

Castle Rackrent 351 Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles 48 Clerk’s Prologue see Canterbury Tales Clerk’s Tale see Canterbury Tales Cognitive grammar 94 Comedy drama 9, 20, 309, 310, 314-315, 321, 322, 324, 327-329, 333-337, 339 Confessio Amantis 31 Cooperative principle 93 Corpus of Early English Correspondence 18, 152, 163, 164, 208, 217, 350 Corpus of English Dialogues 9, 20, 309, 340, 342 Corpus of Finnish Conversations 395 Corpus of Irish English 347, 349, 350 Correspondence 9, 17, 18, 37, 147-163 Court records 8, 9, 15, 331, 332, see also Trials Courtly pronouns of address 64, 67, 91, 93 Courtly literature 89 Crowned King 35 Curteis speche 32 Curtesie 35, 36 Cymbeline 211 D Dalimil Chronicle 126 Data 7-10, 29 Deference 2, 150, 152, 214, 226, 402 Depositions 217, 309, 314-315, 319-321, 327-329, 330-333, 338, 341, 358, see also Witness depositions Der Rosenkavalier 115 Der Zauberberg 409 Dictamen 35, 39 Discernment 228 Don Quijote 190

 Index

Drama 5, 8, 19, 49-50, 251-303, 312, see also Comedy drama Duke Ernest see Vevoda Arno•t Durham Church Court Records 331, 332 E Epistre a Eustace Mourel 37 Euphony 258 Evangelienbuch 88 Exaptation 111 Expressive thou 313, 339 F Fabliaux 29, 33 face-threatening acts 11, 150, 227, 401 Franklin’s Tale see Canterbury Tales G Gaze 17 Gender 20, 309, 312, 324-338, 339, 340 General Prologue see Canterbury Tales Generic du 417 Genre 9, 29, 33 Germanic heroic tradition 87 Gestures 17, 35, 78 Gods, address forms to 69-78, 81 Grammaticalisation 4, 17, 87, 106, 110 H Hamlet 8, 19, 150, 194, 195, 223-241, 344, 402 Handbooks 9, 20, 309, 310, 314-315, 322324, 324, 327-329, 337-338, 339, 340 Handy Andy. A Tale of Irish Life 367 Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots 346, 350 Hildebrandslied 113 Historical pragmatics 7 Höflichkeitsform 115 Honorative address 107, 116, 117 Honorifics 32, 35, 154, 401, 402, 404, 416, 418 Humerous Dayes Mirth 334, 335 Hussite period 126

I Idiomatic usage 30 Implicatures, conversational 265 Impoliteness 11, 12 Indirect speech act 11 J Jeu d’Adam 49 K Karnevals-Du 409 Kildare Poems 347 King Henry The Fourth The First Part 198, 201, 205, 212 The Second Part 200, 211 King Henry The Sixth 209 King Lear 8, 19, 150, 194, 195, 223-241, 251-303, 333 King Richard The Second 200, 344 King Richard The Third 193, 201 Kinship terms 2 Knight s Tale see Canterbury Tales L Lai le Freine 33 Legend of St. Prokop 128 Letters 8, 9, 18, 29, 125-140, 147-150, 151, 177-188 Life of St. Catherine see ™ivot svaté Kateˇriny Lost Lover 335 Love language 237 M Macbeth 8, 150, 194 Man of Law’s Tale see Canterbury Tales Manuel des Pechiez 41 Manuscript variation 89 Markedness 12- 14, 19, 41, 254 Marriage pronoun 209 Menaecmi 334 Merchant s Tale see Canterbury Tales Merry Wives of Windsor 200, 212 Metaphor 94

Index 

Midsummer Night s Dream 205 Military ranks 2 Minnedienst 78 Mischstil 79, 89 Moral Balade 30 Much Ado About Nothing 194, 211 N Negative politeness see Politeness negotiable personalities 209 Nibelungenlied 8, 17, 90-94, 106 Nominal forms of address 2, 6, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 61, 62, 64, 67, 70, 71, 78, 95, 193-216, 223-241 Norm 12-14 O O Apolonovi 126 Oberstufen-Sie 410 Occupational terms 2, 19 Of Domestical Duties 150 Offiziers-Du 423 On Governing see Spravovna Openers 418-419 Othello 8, 19, 150, 194, 195, 202, 213, 223-241 P Pardoner’s Tale see Canterbury Tales Pennyworth of Wit 41 Petit Jehan de Saintré 48 Physician’s Tale see Canterbury Tales Piers Plowman 33, 35 Plays 8, 16, 18, 19, 150, 193-216, 223-241, 251-303, 309, see also Drama Pleasant Dialogue betwixt Honest John and Loving Kate 337 Pluralis reverentiae 67 Politeness 2, 9, 10-12, 17, 32, 37, 63, 8587, 93, 96, 99, 100, 111, 150-163 Continuum 152, 153 Negative and positive 11, 12, 18, 33, 148, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 160, 161, 195, 228

Scale 18, 155, 156, 214, 215 Strategies 87, 94, 98, 105, 309, 363 Theory 148, 150, 151, 195, 206, 215, 226, 227, 401 Politic behavior 11, 12 Politically correct 5 Positive politeness see Politeness Posture 17 Power 161, 182, 195, 253 Pragmatic variability 87 Práva zemská ≠eská 128 Prologue of the Prioress’s Tale see Canterbury Tales Protheselaus 49 Puritans 8 Q Quakers 27, 312, 358 Quinze Joies de Mariage 48 R Reeve’s Tale see Canterbury Tales Relevance 230, 254 Respect 4, 17, 35, 68, 85, 86, 98-99, 106-109, 110, 115, 131 Restoration Comedy 311, 316 Retractability of address 14-15, 226 Roman de la Rose 48 Romeo and Juliet 201, 207 Royal we 5 S Salem Trials 358 Salutation forms 18 Scale of formality 178 Scale of politeness see Politeness Scribal practices 8, 30, 35, 48, 91, 93 Seinte Resurecction 8, 13, 16, 47-57, 79 Self-reference 61, 78 Shipman’s Tale see Canterbury Tales Sir Gawain and the Green Knight 79, 80 Solidarity 68, 182, 253, 408 Songs of Songs 47

 Index

Sponsus 49 Spravovna 132 Squire’s Tale see Canterbury Tales Subscription formulae 3, 12, 18, 147-163 T Tale of Melibee see Canterbury Tales Taming of the Shrew 199 Tandarius 128 Tempest 205, 217 Terms of abuse 19, 212-214 Terms of endearment 19, 211-212 Text types 309, 324, 327-338, 341 Third person plural pronoun 100-111 Three Roundels 32 Titles 2, 4, 6, 150, 154, 214 of courtesy 19, 204 Titus Andronicus 209 Trial of the Lady Alice Lisle 319

Trials 20, 151, 309, 310, 314-315, 317-319, 324, 330, 338, see also Court records Tristram a Izalda 127, 128 Tristran and Izalda see Tristram a Izalda Troilus and Criseyde 28, 30, 31, 32, 80, 81 Tryal of John Giles 318 V Vevoda Arno•t 127 Volition 228 W Wife of Bath’s Prologue see Canterbury Tales Wife of Bath’s Tale see Canterbury Tales William of Palerne 31, 32, 79, 80 Witness depositions 9, 20, 310, 312, 324, see also depositions Z

™ivot svaté Kateˇriny 126

Index of Names

A Abbott, Edwin A. 219, 225, 229, 242, 243, 247, 272, 303, 304 Abney, Steven Paul 115, 118 Agha, Asif 115, 118 Ahlgren, Perry 22 Algeo, John 367 Aristotle 40 Ashby, William J. 47, 57 Atkinson, J. Maxwell 396, 397 B Bader, Wofgang 424 Bailey, Beryl 367 Bailey, Guy 354, 355, 367, 373 Baker, Philip 359, 367 Bamborschke, Ulrich 127, 128, 143 Barber, Charles 193, 217, 219, 225, 226, 238, 239, 242, 243, 247, 252, 255, 256, 304, 309, 311, 312, 316, 322, 325, 337, 341, 345, 367 Barbour, Stephen 424 Batts, Michael S. 90, 113, 117 Bauer, Laurie 362, 365, 367 Baugh, Albert C. 345, 368 Baugh, John 372 Bax, Marcel 4 Bayraktaroglu, Arin 11, 22 Bayyurt, Yasemin 11, 22 Beal, Joan 351, 365, 368 Behaghel, Otto 107, 118 Behan, Brendan 351 Beneke, Jürgen 252, 304 Benson, Larry D. 42, 78, 81, 82 Bentivoglio, Paola 9, 18, 164 Berger, Tilman 125, 141, 143

Berschin, Helmut 14, 22 Besch, Werner 403, 423, 424 Betsch, Michael 9, 17, 18, 135, 142, 144 Bevington, David 50, 57 Bianchini, Simonetta 57 Billanovich, Giuseppe 39, 42 Bishop Salomo of Constance 88 Blahoslav, Jan 134 Blake, Norman 79, 82, 270, 304 Bliss, Alan J. 347, 368 Bloomfield, Leonard 40, 42 Böhm, Annemarie 80, 82 Borg, Alexander 237, 247 Boyle, John Andrew 104, 118 Branford, William 361, 368 Braun, Friederike 1, 22, 79, 80, 82, 95, 118, 144, 406, 424 Brax, Pekka 378, 397 Breivega, Ola 57, 58 Breuer, Horst 2, 22, 80, 82 Brewer, Derek 42 Brewer, Jeutonne 368 Brook, G. L. 30, 42, 257, 304 Brown, Penelope 5, 10, 11, 18, 22, 33, 42, 93, 94, 96, 118, 148, 151, 175, 194, 219, 227, 345, 363, 368, 395, 397, 401, 402, 403, 404, 407, 409, 424 Brown, Roger 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 22, 28, 42, 47, 58, 61, 64, 79, 80, 82, 83, 89, 118, 150, 151, 155, 164, 175, 182, 190, 194, 212, 215, 219, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 239, 242, 247, 253, 303, 304, 309, 311, 312, 316, 341, 345, 368, 403, 424 Bruti, Silvia 227, 230, 248, 254, 304 Burchfield, Robert W. 368

 Index

Burness, Edwina 25, 249 Burnley, David 3, 8, 13, 16, 28, 30, 32, 42, 61, 79, 80, 82, 224, 238 Buscha, Joachim 100, 120 Busse, Beatrix 194, 216, 219 Busse, Ulrich 3, 8, 13, 18, 31, 79, 80, 217, 219, 240, 316 Byrne, Geraldine 193, 219, 256, 257, 259, 269, 304 C Cable, Thomas 345, 368 ¨áda, Franti•ek 128, 144 Calvo, Clara 5, 22, 209, 215, 219, 252, 305 Campbell, P. F. 367, 368 Canisius, Peter 101, 102, 116, 118 Caxton, William 35 ¨ejka, Mirek 134, 144 Cervantes de, Miguel 190 Chambers, J. K. 224, 249, 373 Chaucer , Geoffrey 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 80, 195 Cheshire, Jenny 368 Cicero, Marcus Tullius 39 Clarke, Sandra 352, 353, 365, 368 Clyne, Michael 408, 422, 423, 424 Collins, Daniel E. 9, 23 Comrie, Bernard 116, 118, 406, 424 Connolly, Sean J. 348, 368 Cooke, Joseph R. 114, 118 Cromwell, Oliver 348 Crow, Martin Michael 40, 42 Cukor-Avila, Patricia 367 Culpeper, Jonathan 7, 9, 23 Cysouw, Michael Alexander 115, 118 D Daˇnhelka, Jirí 126, 144 De Mauro, Tullio 177, 190 DeCamp, David 368 Del Castillo Mathieu, Nicolás 178, 188, 190 Deschamps, Eustache 27, 37, 40 Dickey, Eleanor 82 Diewald, Gabriele 110, 119

Dillon, Bert 42 Doane, Nick 368 Dolan, Terence P. 347, 368 Doyle, I. A. 43 Dubé, Ondrej 128 Dudley-Edwards, Ruth 357, 368 Duffy, Sean 357, 369 Dvorskß, Franti•ek 136, 138, 139, 144 E Eagleson, Robert D. 225, 243, 248 Edgeworth, Maria 351 Edwards, Jay 355, 369 Ehrismann, Gustav 89, 113, 119 Eisenberg, Peter 100, 119 Eliason, Norman 369 Erdmann, Oskar 88, 117 Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 42, 79, 80, 82, 237, 243, 248 Evans, William W. 42, 61, 82 F Faarlund, Jan Terje 110, 119 Faba, Guido 41 Faraclas, Nicholas 359, 369 Farquhar, George 347 Felixberger, Josef 22 Fenton, James 357, 369 Ferguson, Charles A. 369 Fernández Ruiz, Francisco 179, 180, 189, 190 Fernández-Sevilla, Julio 22 Fiedlerová, Alena 129, 144 Findreng, Ådne 116, 119, 424 Finkenstaedt, Thomas 28, 31, 36, 42, 61, 79, 81, 83, 209, 220, 255, 256, 257, 258, 295, 305, 312, 317, 320, 321, 342, 344, 369 Fischer, Andreas 2, 23 Fishman, Joshua A. 29, 43 Fontanella de Weinberg, María Beatriz 178, 188, 190 Ford, Marguerite 80, 82 Foulet, Lucien 47, 58 Fox, George 27, 36 Frago Gracia, Juan Antonio 178, 188, 190

Index 

Franz, Wilhelm 255, 256, 257, 305 Friedrich, Paul 9, 23, 243, 248 Fritz, Gerd 7, 23, 24 Furnivall, Frederick J. 34, 43 G Ganter, August 81, 83 García Mouton, Pilar 177, 188, 190 Garcia, Erica C. 254, 305 Gardner-Chloros, Penelope 47, 58 Gawain-poet 80 Gedike, Friedrich 96, 119, 403, 424 Gilman, Albert 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18, 22, 28, 42, 47, 58, 61, 64, 79, 80, 82, 83, 89, 118, 150, 151, 155, 164, 175, 182, 190, 194, 212, 215, 219, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 239, 242, 247, 253, 303, 304, 309, 311, 312, 316, 341, 345, 368, 403, 424 Glück, Helmut 405, 419, 424 Glücklich, Julius 134, 144 Goffman, Erving 384, 397 Gollancz, Jerome Mitchell 43 Goodwin, Charles 377, 384, 397 Goodwin, Marjorie Harness 377, 397 Gordon, Elizabeth 362, 369 Görlach, Manfred 252, 305 Gouge, William 150 Gould, Stephen Jay 111, 119 Gower 31 Grand, Camille 114, 119 Grannis, Oliver 205, 220 Grene, Nicholas 366, 369 Grice, H. P. 93, 265, 305 Grober-Glück, Gerda 106, 119 Grosse, Siegfried 89, 113, 119, 121 Guevara de, Fray Antonio 187, 190 Gumperz, John J. 248 Gusmani, Roberto 88, 113, 117 H Haase, Martin 115, 119, 401, 424 Hakulinen, Auli 396, 397 Hakulinen, Lauri 376, 397 Hall, Joan 368

Hancock, Ian 368 Handler, Jerome S. 348, 349, 373 Harlowe, Thomas V. 348, 369 Harré, Rom 4, 24, 105, 121 Harris, John 351, 365, 369 Harweg, Roland 102, 120 Hatto, A. T. 113, 117 Havránek, Bohuslav 126, 144 Head, Brian F. 87, 120, 131, 142, 144 Heath, Shirley Brice 369 Heine, Bernd 355, 369 Heinzle, Joachim 113, 120 Helbig, Gerhard 100, 120 Henriksen, Carol 397 Heringer, Hans Jürgen 422, 424 Heritage, John 396, 397 Hermann, Paul 121 Herzog Heinrich Julius von Braunschweig 95 Heuser, Wilhelm 347, 369 Hickey, Raymond 6, 9, 10, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 79, 224, 343, 344, 347, 353, 362, 365, 369, 370 Hicks, Eric 38, 43 Hoccleve 32 Hofmannsthal von, Hugo 115, 117 Hogan, James Jeremiah 348, 370 Hogg, James 41, 43 Holden, Anthony J. 49, 58 Holm, John 359, 365, 370 Holmes, Janet 15, 23, 151, 152, 175, 309, 312, 342 Honegger, Thomas 9, 15, 16, 17, 31, 83, 195, 224 Hope, Jonathan 5, 8, 15, 23, 151, 175, 217, 220, 223, 225, 227, 248, 254, 302, 305, 311, 342, 344, 358, 370 Hope, Mary 249 Horvath, Barbara M. 362, 365, 370 Houlbrooke, Ralph A. 148, 149, 150, 164, 175 Hovdhaugen, Even 377, 378, 397 Hrabák, Josef 126, 128, 144 Huber, Magnus 359, 367 Hudson, Anne 30, 43 Hudson, Nicholas 370 Hudson, Richard A. 303, 305

 Index

Hufton, Olwen 149, 175 Hunt, Tony 8, 13, 15, 16, 30, 50, 58, 79 Hymes, Dell 248 I Ide, Sachiko 227, 248 Ihalainen, Ossi 344, 370 Irvine, Judith T. 115, 120 Itkonen, Terho 395, 397 J Jacobs, Andreas 7, 23 Jakobson, Roman 79, 83 Jefferson, Gail 396 Jenkins, Thomas Atkinson 49, 50, 57, 58 Jespersen, Otto 305 Johnson, Anne Carvey 255, 256, 259, 283, 305 Johnson, Judith A. 43, 267, 291, 303, 305 Johnston, Everett C. 43, 61, 83 Jucker, Andreas H. 5, 7, 23, 24, 79, 117, 370 K Kalista, Zdeneˇk 138, 144 Kallen, Jeffrey 370 Kannisto, Artturi 376, 378, 379, 381, 382, 388, 391, 398 Karlsson, Fred 397 Kauffmann, Michael 424 Keenan, Elinor Ochs 94, 120 Keller, Albrecht 95, 96, 114, 120 Keller, Rudi 113, 120 Kennedy, Arthur G. 28, 43, 83 Kennedy, Elspeth 57 Kie£kiewicz-Janowiak, Agnieszka 135, 144, 227, 241, 248 King Frederick III 129 King Wenceslas IV 128, 129 Kirwin, William 353, 365, 370 Kisbye, Torben 114, 120 Klerk, Vivian 371 Koch, Peter 7, 9, 24 Kohz, Armin 1, 22, 80, 83 Kopytko, Roman 12, 24, 150, 151, 175, 194, 195, 206, 215, 220, 225, 226, 227, 248 Koziol, Herbert 30, 43, 61, 83

Kretzenbacher, Heinz Leonhard 116, 120, 424, 425 Kristensson, Gillis 30, 43 Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara 9, 24 Kytö, Merja 7, 9, 23, 358, 369, 371 L Labov, William 13, 182, 190, 312, 342 Lachmann, Karl 114, 118 Lancashire, Ian 369 Langacker, Ronald W. 94 Langland 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40 Lapesa, Rafael 178, 179, 189, 191 Larjavaara, Matti 395, 398 Lass, Roger 111, 120, 224, 248, 252, 254, 302, 305, 344, 345, 371 Latvala, Salu 376, 378, 379, 380, 381, 398 Laury, Ritva 378, 398 Lebsanft, Franz 7, 24, 48, 57, 58, 114, 120 Leith, Dick 303, 305 LePage, Robert Brock 359, 371 Lerner, Gene 384, 385, 398 Levinson, Stephen C. 5, 10, 11, 18, 22, 33, 42, 93, 94, 96, 114, 118, 120, 148, 151, 175, 194, 219, 227, 345, 364, 368, 395, 397, 401, 402, 404, 407, 409, 424 Lewis, G. L. 104, 121 Lipski, John M. 354, 355, 356, 358, 365, 367, 371 Listen, Paul H. 5, 24, 88, 94, 97, 102, 114, 121, 142, 145 Little, David 369 Lori•, Jan 127, 145 Lover, Samuel 367 Lutz, Angelika 224, 248, 344, 371 M Macafee, Caroline 351, 365, 371 MacAulay, Donald 371 Mallory, James P. 371 Manly, John M. 78, 81, 83 Mann, Thomas 409 Mannion, John 353, 371 Mannyng of Bourne, Robert 34, 35, 37

Index 

Marlowe, Christopher 217 Marti, Werner 116, 121 Mason, Patricia 48, 58 Matsumoto, Yoshiko 227, 248 Mausch, Hanna 224, 225, 248 Maynor, Natalie 354, 367, 371 Mazzon, Gabriella 5, 8, 12, 14, 15, 19, 24, 195, 209, 215, 220, 229, 241, 242, 249, 254, 256, 258, 305, 402 McClure, J. Derrick 346, 365, 371 McCombie, Frank 259, 306 McConnell, Winder 121 McIntosh, Angus 224, 225, 249, 267, 276, 306 Merkle, Ludwig 106, 117, 121 Mesthrie, Rajend 360, 361, 365, 371 Metcalf, Allan A. 61, 83 Metcalf, George J. 95, 97, 114, 121, 141, 142, 145 Meurman-Solin, Anneli 346, 371 Miller, James 372 Milroy, James 372 Milroy, Lesley 372 Mitchell, Bruce 267, 268, 306 Moignet, Gérard 48, 58 Montgomery, Michael 352, 353, 354, 355, 357, 358, 365, 366, 367, 372 Montreuil de, Jean 39 Morales, Amparo 191 More, Thomas 156 Mufwene, Salikoko 365, 372 Mühlhäusler, Peter 4, 24, 105, 121 Mulholland, Joan 225, 226, 229, 238, 242, 249 Muranaka, Ryoko 43 Mure van, Conrad 41 Murray, James A. H. 176 Muysken, Peter 372 N Nakashima, Kunio 44 Nathan, Norman 12, 13, 24, 31, 44, 61, 70, 80, 81, 83 Nechutová, Jana 144

Neckham, Alexander 36 Nevala, Minna 3, 9, 12, 18, 31, 175, 189, 208, 209, 217, 228 Nevalainen, Terttu 2, 12, 24, 148, 151, 152, 164, 175, 206, 208, 209, 210, 215, 217, 220, 252, 302, 306, 312, 325, 342, 350, 372 Newburgh of, William 47 Nickalls, John L. 44 Niculescu, Alessandro 114, 121 Nová≠ek, Vojteˇch J. 133, 134, 145 Nurmi, Arja 164, 175 Nurse, Derek 355, 369 O Ó Cuív, Brian 351, 372 Ó Muirithe, Diarmuid 347, 368 O’Casey, Sean 351 O’Day, Rosemary 149, 176 O’Donnell, William Robert 224, 249 Oesterreicher, Wulf 177, 191 Offord, Marguerite Y. 44 Olson, Clair Colby 40 Ornatò, Ezio 39, 44 Otte, Enrique 177, 179, 190, 191 Ouy, Gilbert 39, 42 Ovid 27 P Paasonen, H. 376, 378, 379, 381, 382, 398 Páez Urdaneta, Iraset 189, 191 Palander-Collin, Minna 164, 176, 325, 342 Palmer, Nigel F. 89, 121 Pantaleo, Nicola 5, 24 Paul, Hermann 89, 121 Pearsall, Derek 80, 83 Pelikán, Josef 129, 145 Penny, Ralph 178, 179, 189, 191 Penttilä, Aarni 395, 398 Petrarch 39, 40 Pfister, Manfred 259, 306 Pizan de, Christine 37, 38, 39

 Index

Pla Cárceles, José 189, 191 Polenz von, Peter 403, 410, 423, 425 Poplack, Shana 355, 366, 372 Q Quirk, Randolph 14, 25, 225, 249, 252, 267, 283, 306 R Ramge, Hans 9, 25 Rapola, Martti 381, 383, 389, 398 Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 12, 24, 148, 151, 152, 153, 164, 176, 206, 208, 209, 210, 215, 217, 220, 350, 372 Reijonen, Erkki 378, 398 Reitz, Ulla-Carina 303, 306 Replogle, Carol Ann 193, 217, 220, 240, 249, 255, 256, 257, 259, 263, 274, 275, 280, 283, 297, 306 Richardson, Gina 372 Richter, Michael 41, 44 Rickert, Edith 78, 81, 83 Rickford, John R. 348, 349, 373 Ringler, Dick 368 Rissanen, Matti 369 Robbins, Russell Hope 35, 44 Robinson, Peter 30, 44 Rockinger, Ludwig 41, 44 Romaine, Suzanne 363, 365, 373 Rona, José Pedro 189, 191 Rosenblat, Ángel 190, 191 Rösler, Irmtraud 422, 425 Rotelande de, Hue 49 Roy, Maurice 37, 44 Ro´mberka, Jindrich 129 Ro´mberka, Oldrich 129, 130, 131 Ruck, Elaine H. 49, 58 Rudanko, Juhani M. 205, 220 Ruggiers, Paul G. 80, 83 Ryne•ová, Bla´ena 129, 130, 131, 145 S Sacks, Harvey 388, 398 Saintsbury, George 258, 306

Salmon, Vivian 8, 15, 212, 220, 224, 225, 239, 241, 242, 243, 249, 253, 258, 304, 306 Salutati, Coluccio 39, 40 Sampson, Gloria Paulik 61, 79, 83 Samson, Gunhild 424 Sankoff, David 355, 372 Sarrazin, Gregor 197, 199, 202, 211, 217, 220 Sauer, Wolfgang Werner 405, 419, 424 Sayce, Olive 89, 121 Schabert, Ina 259, 306 Schegloff, Emanuel A. 388, 398 Scheler, Manfred 252, 306 Schentke, Manfred 61, 81, 84 Schilling-Estes, Natalie 352, 373 Schläfer, Ute 259, 307 Schmidt, Alexander 197, 199, 202, 211, 217, 220 Schmidt, Aubrey V. C. 34, 44 Schneider, Edgar 373 Schubert, Klaus 1, 22 Schulz, Václav 135, 137, 145 Scogan 30 Segebrecht, Wulf 424, 425 Seppänen, Eeva-Leena 6, 10, 21, 375, 395, 398 Setälä, E. N. 378, 382, 395, 398 Shakespeare, William 2, 8, 18, 19, 20, 79, 80, 150, 151, 193-216, 217, 223-241, 247, 251, 304, 309, 316, 344, 402 Sheridan, Richard Brinsley 347 Shibatani, Masayoshi 99, 121 Shimonomoto, Keiko 33, 44, 80, 84 Shopen, Timothy 253, 269, 307 Sigurd, Bengt 397 Simon, Horst J. 8, 14, 17, 25, 79, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 121, 122, 142 Simpson, J. 220 Singleton, David 369 Sirelius, U. T. 376, 378, 379, 380, 381, 388, 395, 399 Skeat, W. W. 12, 25, 28, 44, 65, 67, 80, 84

Index 

Slik, Kaspar 129 §losar, Du•an 144 Smallwood, T. M. 30, 44 Smith, Norval 372 Sneddon, James Neil 115, 122 Sommerfeldt, Karl-Ernst 422, 425 Spallbeck of, St Elizabeth 36 Spencer, Nancy J. 373 Sperber, Dan 80, 84, 230, 249, 254, 307 Spevack, Marvin 218, 221 Stein, Dieter 8, 13, 14, 19, 218, 223, 225, 229, 238, 243, 254, 296, 302, 307, 333, 402 Stevenson, Patrick 424 Stickel, Gerhard 422, 425 Stidston, Russell Osborne 28, 45, 61, 79, 81, 84, 259, 295, 307 Stoll, Rita 80, 84, 193, 206, 211, 221 Stone, Gerald 114, 122, 135, 145, 406, 424 Stone, Lawrence 149, 150, 176 Strang, Barbara 224, 249, 252, 307 Svennung, J. 95, 97, 114, 122 Synge, John Millington 350, 366

T Taavitsainen, Irma 9, 25 Tabouret-Keller, Andrée 359, 371 Tadra, Ferdinand 136, 145 Tagliamonte, Sali 366 Tarkiainen, Viljo 376, 399 Thun, Harald 102, 122 Tillery, Jan 354, 355, 373 Tischner, Franti•ek 145 Tobolka, Zdeneˇk V. 132, 139, 140, 145 Todd, Loreto 224, 249, 359, 367, 373 Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 257, 307 Trautmann, Reinhold 126, 146 Troyes de, Chrétien 49, 57 Trudgill, Peter 224, 249, 303, 307, 312, 342, 351, 362, 365, 366, 369, 373 Turner, George 373 Turner, Lorenzo 355, 373

U Ullman, Berthold Louis 36, 40, 45 Upton, Clive 344, 365, 373 V Václavek, Bedrich 129, 133, 134, 139, 146 Vá´nß, Václav 126, 128, 144, 146 Vetter, Conradus 97 Vrba, Elisabeth S. 111, 119 W Wadington of, William 41 Wakelin, Martyn 373 Walcutt, C. C. 45, 61, 84 Wales, Kathleen M. 293, 304, 307 Wales, Katie 5, 25, 61, 84, 312, 322, 325, 342, 345, 364, 373 Walker, Terry 5, 8, 13, 20, 151, 176, 223, 227, 232, 312, 342, 358 Watts, Richard J. 11, 12, 152, 176, 228, 249 Wegera, Klaus-Peter 97, 122 Weiner, E. S. C. 220 Weiss, Helmut 117, 122 Weissenburg von, Otfrid 88, 403 Whatley, Elizabeth 373 Widdowson, John D. 344, 365, 373 Widmark, Gun 6, 25 Wiehl, Peter 89, 121 Wiese, Heike 104, 122 Wiesinger, Peter 108, 123 Wilcockson, Colin 45, 61, 84 Wilkie, Everett, C. Jr. 50, 59 Willcock, Gladys D. 256, 258, 263, 307 Williams, Charles 253, 257, 269, 303, 307 Williams, Joseph M. 205, 221, 307 Williamson, Colin 267, 306 Wilson, Deirdre 80, 84, 230, 249, 254, 307 Wilson, F. P. 258, 307 Winford, Donald 359, 365, 373 Winter, Werner 423, 425

 Index

Witt, R. G. 39, 45 Woledge, Julia 57, 59 Wolff, Ludwig 88, 117 Wolfram, Walt 352, 374 Wright, Joseph 224, 249, 345, 374 Wright (now Fitzmaurice), Susan 343, 357, 360, 365, 367, 374 Wrightson, Keith 149, 176 Wunderlich, Werner 113, 123

Y Yamashita, Hitoshi 424, 425 Yli-Vakkuri, Valma 375, 383, 388, 389, 399 Z Zampachu na Náchode, Jan 131 Zaupser, Andreas Dominikus 107, 123 Zesen von, Philip 95, 96 Zidek, Pavel 132

Index of Languages

A African languages 348, 366 Afrikaans 347, 360 Anglo-French 30 Anglo-Norman 8, 13, 16, 41, 47-57, 79 Arabic 114 Arabic, Jordanian 79 Atlantic Pidgins see Pidgins B Basque 99 Belorussian 125 C Cameroon Pidgin see Pidgins Caribbean Creoles see Creoles Creoles Caribbean 355 Jamaican 354 Pacific Creole English 365 Croatian 125 Czech 17, 18, 125-143 D Dutch 1, 4 E English 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 18, 20, 113, 114, 365, 378, 402, 421 African-American 347, 352, 354-359, 365, 366 American 21, 346, 347, 352-361, 363, 364, 367 Appalachian 365 Australian 15, 21, 361, 362, 365 Barbadian 359

British 11, 21, 350 Canadian 347 Caribbean 21, 348, 352, 354, 359, 365, 366 Early Middle 224 Early Modern 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 21, 147-163, 193-218, 223-241, 251-303, 309-340, 350 Elizabethan see Early Modern Indian 362 International 10 Irish 10, 21, 346-352, 356, 357, 360, 361, 362, 365, 367, 423 Jamaican 359 Late Middle 147-163 London Jamaican 359 Middle 1, 4, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 27-40, 61-79, 344, 354 New Zealand 15, 362, 365, 367 Newfoundland 352, 353, 365 Non-standard 343 Old 28, 30, 224, 353 Pacific Creole English see Creoles Scottish 360, 365 South African Indian 355, 360, 361, 362, 364, 366 South African 21, 347, 360, 361, 364, 365 Southern American 365 F Finnish 1, 4, 15, 21, 375-395 Häme dialect 381 Satakunta dialects 378 Savo dialect 381

 Index

French 1, 4, 5, 12, 16, 18, 33, 36, 37, 47, 61, 62, 70, 81, 98, 143, 224, 344, 345, 404, 421 Louisiana 347 Middle 16, 47, 48 Old 13, 15, 16, 47, 48, 57, 114 Quebec 347 G German 1, 4, 5, 10, 16, 18, 21, 22, 61, 62, 79, 85-111, 115, 116, 128, 134, 135, 141, 142, 143, 344, 401-422 Bavarian 17, 106-111, 116, 117 Bernese 116 Middle High 17, 79, 85, 86, 88, 89-94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 105, 109, 423 Modern Standard 14, 17, 79, 85, 98-105, 117 Old High 88, 89, 113 Swiss 106, 117 Germanic, Common 86, 87 Greek 344 Gullah 354 H Hindi 5 I Ibo 359 Indonesian 115 Italian 4, 5, 16, 114, 404, 421 J Jamaican Creole see Creoles Japanese 99, 115 K Kongo 359 Korean 99 L Latin 1, 4, 40, 88, 113, 114, 141, 253, 403

M Malagasy 94 Maori 362 Mbundu 359 N Nahuatl, Classical 99 Niger-Congo languages 352, 355, 359 Nigerian Pidgin see Pidgins Pacific Creole English see Creoles Pacific Pidgins see Pidgins Papua New Guinean languages 114 Persian 104 Pidgins Atlantic 364 Cameroon 359 Nigerian 359 Pacific 362, 364 Tok Pisin 363, 367 Polish 3, 4, 114, 125, 135, 412 Portuguese 13 Q Quechua 5 R Russian 4, 125, 243, 344, 404, 406 S Samoan Plantation Pidgin 363 Scandinavian languages 6, 31 Scots 346, 357 Scottish Gaelic 345, 346 Slavonic languages 2, 5, 18, 125, 143 Slovene 125 South East Asian languages 114 Spanish 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 13, 18, 137, 164, 177-188, 347 American 14, 177 Andalusian 177, 179 Castilian 178

Index 

Old 178 Peninsular 4, 6, 15, 21, 177 Sranan 347 Swahili 117 Swedish 4, 6, 15, 21, 375, 377, 406, 422

U Ukrainian 125 Ulster Scots 354, 357, 358, 366

T Tamil 5 Thai 115 Tok Pisin see Pidgins Turkish 4, 11, 104

W Wolof 359

V Venezuelan 189

Y Yoruba 359

In the PRAGMATICS AND BEYOND NEW SERIES the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 1. WALTER, Bettyruth: The Jury Summation as Speech Genre: An Ethnographic Study of What it Means to Those who Use it. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1988. 2. BARTON, Ellen: Nonsentential Constituents: A Theory of Grammatical Structure and Pragmatic Interpretation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 3. OLEKSY, Wieslaw (ed.): Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989. 4. RAFFLER-ENGEL, Walburga von (ed.): Doctor-Patient Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1989. 5. THELIN, Nils B. (ed.): Verbal Aspect in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 6. VERSCHUEREN, Jef (ed.): Selected Papers from the 1987 International Pragmatics Conference. Vol. I: Pragmatics at Issue. Vol. II: Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. Vol. III: The Pragmatics of Intercultural and International Communication (ed. with Jan Blommaert). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 7. LINDENFELD, Jacqueline: Speech and Sociability at French Urban Market Places. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 8. YOUNG, Lynne: Language as Behaviour, Language as Code: A Study of Academic English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 9. LUKE, Kang-Kwong: Utterance Particles in Cantonese Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 10. MURRAY, Denise E.: Conversation for Action. The computer terminal as medium of communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 11. LUONG, Hy V.: Discursive Practices and Linguistic Meanings. The Vietnamese system of person reference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 12. ABRAHAM, Werner (ed.): Discourse Particles. Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 13. NUYTS, Jan, A. Machtelt BOLKESTEIN and Co VET (eds): Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory: A functional view. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1990. 14. SCHWARTZ, Ursula: Young Children’s Dyadic Pretend Play. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 15. KOMTER, Martha: Conflict and Cooperation in Job Interviews. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 16. MANN, William C. and Sandra A. THOMPSON (eds): Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 17. PIÉRAUT-LE BONNIEC, Gilberte and Marlene DOLITSKY (eds): Language Bases ... Discourse Bases. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 18. JOHNSTONE, Barbara: Repetition in Arabic Discourse. Paradigms, syntagms and the ecology of language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 19. BAKER, Carolyn D. and Allan LUKE (eds): Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy. Papers of the XII World Congress on Reading. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991. 20. NUYTS, Jan: Aspects of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Theory of Language. On cognition, functionalism, and grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 21. SEARLE, John R. et al.: (On) Searle on Conversation. Compiled and introduced by Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992.

22. AUER, Peter and Aldo Di LUZIO (eds): The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 23. FORTESCUE, Michael, Peter HARDER and Lars KRISTOFFERSEN (eds): Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective. Papers from the Functional Grammar Conference, Copenhagen, 1990. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1992. 24. MAYNARD, Senko K.: Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 25. COUPER-KUHLEN, Elizabeth: English Speech Rhythm. Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 26. STYGALL, Gail: Trial Language. A study in differential discourse processing. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, 1994. 27. SUTER, Hans Jürg: The Wedding Report: A Prototypical Approach to the Study of Traditional Text Types. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 28. VAN DE WALLE, Lieve: Pragmatics and Classical Sanskrit. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1993. 29. BARSKY, Robert F.: Constructing a Productive Other: Discourse theory and the convention refugee hearing. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 30. WORTHAM, Stanton E.F.: Acting Out Participant Examples in the Classroom. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 31. WILDGEN, Wolfgang: Process, Image and Meaning. A realistic model of the meanings of sentences and narrative texts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1994. 32. SHIBATANI, Masayoshi and Sandra A. THOMPSON (eds): Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 33. GOOSSENS, Louis, Paul PAUWELS, Brygida RUDZKA-OSTYN, Anne-Marie SIMONVANDENBERGEN and Johan VANPARYS: By Word of Mouth. Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 34. BARBE, Katharina: Irony in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 35. JUCKER, Andreas H. (ed.): Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1995. 36. CHILTON, Paul, Mikhail V. ILYIN and Jacob MEY: Political Discourse in Transition in Eastern and Western Europe (1989-1991). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 37. CARSTON, Robyn and Seiji UCHIDA (eds): Relevance Theory. Applications and implications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 38. FRETHEIM, Thorstein and Jeanette K. GUNDEL (eds): Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 39. HERRING, Susan (ed.): Computer-Mediated Communication. Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 40. DIAMOND, Julie: Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. A study of discourse in a closeknit social network. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 41. VENTOLA, Eija and Anna MAURANEN, (eds): Academic Writing. Intercultural and textual issues. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996. 42. WODAK, Ruth and Helga KOTTHOFF (eds): Communicating Gender in Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 43. JANSSEN, Theo A.J.M. and Wim van der WURFF (eds): Reported Speech. Forms and functions of the verb. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1996.

44. BARGIELA-CHIAPPINI, Francesca and Sandra J. HARRIS: Managing Language. The discourse of corporate meetings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 45. PALTRIDGE, Brian: Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 46. GEORGAKOPOULOU, Alexandra: Narrative Performances. A study of Modern Greek storytelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 47. CHESTERMAN, Andrew: Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 48. KAMIO, Akio: Territory of Information. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1997. 49. KURZON, Dennis: Discourse of Silence. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 50. GRENOBLE, Lenore: Deixis and Information Packaging in Russian Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 51. BOULIMA, Jamila: Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 52. GILLIS, Steven and Annick DE HOUWER (eds): The Acquisition of Dutch. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, 1998. 53. MOSEGAARD HANSEN, Maj-Britt: The Function of Discourse Particles. A study with special reference to spoken standard French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 54. HYLAND, Ken: Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 55. ALLWOOD, Jens and Peter Gärdenfors (eds): Cognitive Semantics. Meaning and cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 56. TANAKA, Hiroko: Language, Culture and Social Interaction. Turn-taking in Japanese and Anglo-American English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999. 57 JUCKER, Andreas H. and Yael ZIV (eds): Discourse Markers. Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 58. ROUCHOTA, Villy and Andreas H. JUCKER (eds): Current Issues in Relevance Theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1998. 59. KAMIO, Akio and Ken-ichi TAKAMI (eds): Function and Structure. In honor of Susumu Kuno. 1999. 60. JACOBS, Geert: Preformulating the News. An analysis of the metapragmatics of press releases. 1999. 61. MILLS, Margaret H. (ed.): Slavic Gender Linguistics. 1999. 62. TZANNE, Angeliki: Talking at Cross-Purposes. The dynamics of miscommunication. 2000. 63. BUBLITZ, Wolfram, Uta LENK and Eija VENTOLA (eds.): Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to create it and how to describe it.Selected papers from the International Workshop on Coherence, Augsburg, 24-27 April 1997. 1999. 64. SVENNEVIG, Jan: Getting Acquainted in Conversation. A study of initial interactions. 1999. 65. COOREN, François: The Organizing Dimension of Communication. 2000. 66. JUCKER, Andreas H., Gerd FRITZ and Franz LEBSANFT (eds.): Historical Dialogue Analysis. 1999. 67. TAAVITSAINEN, Irma, Gunnel MELCHERS and Päivi PAHTA (eds.): Dimensions of Writing in Nonstandard English. 1999. 68. ARNOVICK, Leslie: Diachronic Pragmatics. Seven case studies in English illocutionary development. 1999.

69. NOH, Eun-Ju: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metarepresentation in English. A relevance-theoretic account. 2000. 70. SORJONEN, Marja-Leena: Responding in Conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish. 2001. 71. GÓMEZ-GONZÁLEZ, María Ángeles: The Theme-Topic Interface. Evidence from English. 2001. 72. MARMARIDOU, Sophia S.A.: Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. 2000. 73. HESTER, Stephen and David FRANCIS (eds.): Local Educational Order. Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action. 2000. 74. TROSBORG, Anna (ed.): Analysing Professional Genres. 2000. 75. PILKINGTON, Adrian: Poetic Effects. A relevance theory perspective. 2000. 76. MATSUI, Tomoko: Bridging and Relevance. 2000. 77. VANDERVEKEN, Daniel and Susumu KUBO (eds.): Essays in Speech Act Theory. 2002. 78. SELL, Roger D. : Literature as Communication. The foundations of mediating criticism. 2000. 79. ANDERSEN, Gisle and Thorstein FRETHEIM (eds.): Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. 2000. 80. UNGERER, Friedrich (ed.): English Media Texts – Past and Present. Language and textual structure. 2000. 81. DI LUZIO, Aldo, Susanne GÜNTHNER and Franca ORLETTI (eds.): Culture in Communication. Analyses of intercultural situations. 2001. 82. KHALIL, Esam N.: Grounding in English and Arabic News Discourse. 2000. 83. MÁRQUEZ REITER, Rosina: Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. A contrastive study of requests and apologies. 2000. 84. ANDERSEN, Gisle: Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. 2001. 85. COLLINS, Daniel E.: Reanimated Voices. Speech reporting in a historical-pragmatic perspective. 2001. 86. IFANTIDOU, Elly: Evidentials and Relevance. 2001. 87. MUSHIN, Ilana: Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Narrative retelling. 2001. 88. BAYRAKTAROG
LU, ArFn and Maria SIFIANOU (eds.): Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. The case of Greek and Turkish. 2001. 89. ITAKURA, Hiroko: Conversational Dominance and Gender. A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts. 2001. 90. KENESEI, István and Robert M. HARNISH (eds.): Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. 2001. 91. GROSS, Joan: Speaking in Other Voices. An ethnography of Walloon puppet theaters. 2001. 92. GARDNER, Rod: When Listeners Talk. Response tokens and listener stance. 2001. 93. BARON, Bettina and Helga KOTTHOFF (eds.): Gender in Interaction. Perspectives on femininity and masculinity in ethnography and discourse. 2002 94. McILVENNY, Paul (ed.): Talking Gender and Sexuality. 2002. 95. FITZMAURICE, Susan M.: The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English. A pragmatic approach. 2002. 96. HAVERKATE, Henk: The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Spanish Mood. 2002.

97. MAYNARD, Senko K.: Linguistic Emotivity. Centrality of place, the topic-comment dynamic, and an ideology of pathos in Japanese discourse. 2002. 98. DUSZAK, Anna (ed.): Us and Others. Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures. 2002. 99. JASZCZOLT, K.M. and Ken TURNER (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 1. 2003. 100. JASZCZOLT, K.M. and Ken TURNER (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 2. 2003. 101. LUKE, Kang Kwong and Theodossia-Soula PAVLIDOU (eds.): Telephone Calls. Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures. 2002. 102. LEAFGREN, John: Degrees of Explicitness. Information structure and the packaging of Bulgarian subjects and objects. 2002. 103. FETZER, Anita and Christiane MEIERKORD (eds.): Rethinking Sequentiality. Linguistics meets conversational interaction. 2002. 104. BEECHING, Kate: Gender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French. 2002. 105. BLACKWELL, Sarah E.: Implicatures in Discourse. The case of Spanish NP anaphora. 2003. 106. BUSSE, Ulrich: Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus. Morpho-syntactic variability of second person pronouns. 2002. 107. TAAVITSAINEN, Irma and Andreas H. JUCKER (eds.): Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. 2003. 108. BARRON, Anne: Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. 2003. 109. MAYES, Patricia: Language, Social Structure, and Culture. A genre analysis of cooking classes in Japan and America. 2003. 110. ANDROUTSOPOULOS, Jannis K. and Alexandra GEORGAKOPOULOU (eds.): Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities. 2003. 111. ENSINK, Titus and Christoph SAUER (eds.): Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse. 2003. 112. LENZ, Friedrich (ed.): Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person. 2003. 113. PANTHER, Klaus-Uwe and Linda L. THORNBURG (eds.): Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. n.y.p. 114. KÜHNLEIN, Peter, Hannes RIESER and Henk ZEEVAT (eds.): Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium. n.y.p.