Anna Kuzio's Web



Terms of address

1. Introduction

> terms: verbal repertoire - all linguistic varieties in a speech community; register - linguistic varieties distinguished on basis of occupation or topic; style - linguistic variety distinguished on basis of formality of situation

2. Marking of social relationships by lexical and grammatical choices

> any name (first, last), pronoun or title can be used as a form/term of address; these terms can be arranged along a continuum from intimate/familiar to polite/deferential

> forms of address indicate social relationships, e.g., solidarity, power, distance, respect, intimacy

> reciprocal vs. non-reciprocal usage: in reciprocal usage, the same form is used by both speakers, e.g., FN; in nonreciprocal usage, the speakers use different forms, e.g., one uses FN and the other uses Pan/Pani+FN – in the former case the social relationship between the speakers is symmetrical, in the latter it’s asymmetrical

3. Address terms in English

FN (first name, incl. diminutives): John

LN (last name, incl. diminutives): Chomsky, Smithie

TLN (title + last name): Mr Chomsky, Professor Johnson, Father Brown

T (title): Professor, Captain; Sir vs. Madam, Ma’am, Miss; also regional (e.g., American South) Miz + FN, e.g., Miz Scarlett

FN+LN (first and last name): John Smith

KN (kin terms): Ma, Mom/Mum, Pop, Grannie; also KN+FN, e.g., Uncle Jack; also used in religious contexts, e.g. brother/sister

terms of endearment: dear, dearie, honey, sugar, mate, pal, buddy; and offensive forms: idiot, bastard, asshole

nicknames: Mack, Joe

3rd person: Does Your Highness/Majesty wish it?

you, i.e. no address term is used (no-naming)

> syntax used to mark politeness, e.g., Could you please open / would you mind opening the door? vs. Open the door!

4. English thou vs. you and their loss

2nd person pronouns in Middle English (Lass 1992: 120-121)

case 2nd 2nd

nominative tū ʒē

oblique tē ʒou

genitive tī(n) ʒour(es)

> tū as T (familiar pronoun) vs. ʒē as V (deferential pronoun), e.g.,

Lear. What wouldst thou?

Kent. Service.

Lear. Who wouldst thou serve?

Kent. You.

Lear. Dost thou know me, fellow?

Kent. No, sir; but you have that in your countenance which I would fain call master.

Lear. What's that?

Kent. Authority.

> in the 17th century you begins to dominate and the T/V contrast is lost

> in ModE thou, thee and ye are either formal or regional

> reintroduction of the sg./pl. distinction in: yous (... tha only motherfucker blacker and harder than yous motherfuckas is ...), youse; you all, you all’s, you guys, you fellows, you people – what are the functions of these forms as terms of address?

5. Development of pronouns of power and solidarity (T/V)

> Latin (tu/vos), Russian (ty/vy), Italian (tu/Lei), German (du/Sie), Swedish (du/ni), Greek (esi/esis)

> T is used as an intimate/familiar pronoun among equals or when addressing an inferior; V is used as a polite/deferential pronoun among equals or when addressing a superior

> four stages in the development (Trudgill 1974)

1. T as normal form, V as 3rd person sg. or 2nd person pl. pronoun

2. V used to show respect among upper classes; power important: upper classes use T to lower classes, but lower classes use V to upper classes – the usage is non-reciprocal

3. V used to show distance and lack of solidarity; equals address each other as T or V on basis of solidarity; nonreciprocal V persists

4. T used for solidarity and V for non-solidarity; as a residue of non-reciprocal usage, the more powerful party initiates

reciprocal T, e.g., by way of a Brüderschaft

6. Polish (Jaworski 1992)

a) vocative case, e.g., Krzysztof, co ty zrobiłeś? vs Krzysztofie, co ty zrobiłeś?

> ongoing merger of nominative and vocative towards syncretism

> some resistant usage and a special function of voc. remains: the form is marked for ‘expressive-impressive connotations’ or ‘degree of respect and social distance’.

Barbara, zobacz co to jest. vs Barbaro, zobacz co to jest. (unmarked vs more respectful/distant) Basia, ... vs. Basiu, .... (2nd form more respectful/more ‘prestige’ but less distant)

> note the change into dimunitive (solidarity) and vocative (respect/distance)

> vocative + FN, e.g., Pani Danusiu,... (*Pani Danusia,...)

> vocative used here as intermediate between Proszę Pana/Panią and FN: by superiors in contexts with power gap, solidarity but not intimacy

b) FN + ty

> in cases of an inferior addressing a superior, ty is less problematic than FN (as used by student vs. teacher, bridegroom vs. the in-laws; ty used with Pan/Pani to show lack of respect)

> two levels: formality and intimacy

shift Pan/Pani > ty (less formality)

shift Pan/Pani > FN (less formality and more intimacy)

> another example of difference between FN and ty: Polish speakers often find it easier to use you in English than FN

7. Address forms in non-Indo-European languages

> in contrast with English, also 1st and 3rd person pronouns are differentiated depending on the status of the speaker and addressee

a) Japanese

> 1st person sg.: watakushi, watashi, washi, atakushi, atashi, temae, boku, ore, etc.; 2nd person sg.: anatasama, anata,

anta, kimi, omae, kisama, temé, etc.;

> the use of pronouns depends on, e.g., degree of intimacy, formality of speech, and sex and age of speakers

> the deferential prefix o- can be attached to the addressee’s name or to an object being discussed; frequent use of o shows refinement

b) Korean

> titles

> soensaengnim ‘teacher’ (kimsoensaengnim ‘Mr. Kim’), kyosunim ‘professor’ (pakkyosunim ‘Prof. Park’) with the honorific marker nim

> misyt’oe ‘Mr.’ (misyt’oe kim ‘Mr. Kim’), misy ‘Miss’ (misy na ‘Miss Na’)

> honorific case markers

> kkesoe (kimsoensaengnimkkesoe osyoessymnida ‘Mr. Kim came.’)

> pronouns

> na (nae) ‘I’, uri ‘we’ (familiar) vs. choe (che) ‘I’, choehwi ‘we’ (humble)

> verbal suffixes

> annyoenghasoeyo? ‘How are you?’ (respectful) vs. annyoenghashimnikka? ‘How are you?’ (polite)

> bappayo ‘(Someone) is busy.’ (non-honorific) vs. bappysoeyo ‘(Someone) is busy.’ (honorific, informal) vs. bappyshimnida ‘(Someone) is busy.’ (honorific, formal)

> honorific verbs

> chada ‘to sleep’ vs. chumushida ‘to sleep’ (honorific)

References

Brown, Roger and Marguerite Ford. 1961. “Address in American English”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62: 375-385.

Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge encyclopedia of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jakubowska, Ewa. 1999. Cross-cultural dimensions of politeness in the case of Polish and English. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.

Jaworski, Adam. 1992. “The vocative, first name and the pronoun ty in the Polish address system”, Biuletyn PTJ 47-48: 95-104.

Lass, Roger. 1992. “Phonology and morphology”, in: Norman Blake (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. 2. 1066-1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 90-155.

Trudgill, Peter. 1974. Sociolinguistics. Hammondsworth: Pelican (102-107).

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download