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.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- anna freud and erik erikson
- s vs s vs s s grammar
- what s a web link
- anna freud theories
- anna freud theory of adolescence
- anna freud ego psychology
- anna freud biography
- anna freud theories of ego
- anna freud theory of personality
- anna freud child psychology
- anna freud contribution to psychology
- psychoanalysis anna freud