1887
image of Dear, my dear, my lady, your ladyship
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates the use of as part of address formulae by means of a corpus consisting of eight British English plays published between 1899 and 1912. For each conversational turn, address terms, speaker, addressee, power and solidarity dynamics, and speech acts have been identified. The address terms most frequently modified by have been selected for further investigation, which allows an analysis of the alternation between and , as well as and . Results show that, when has impact on the power dimension, the address formula with construes the addressee as less powerful than the speaker. When has impact on the solidarity dimension, the address formula with construes the addressee as a close interlocutor. The functional import of varies depending on the address term it modifies, which is consistent with its function as a modulating element.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19024.buy
2020-08-25
2020-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aalberse, Suzanne
    2004 “Waer bestu bleven? De verdwijning van het pronomen ‘du’ in een taalvergelijkend perspectief.” Nederlandse Taalkunde9: 231–252.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anglemark, Linnéa
    2018 “‘Heav’n bess you, my Dear’: Using the ESDD Corpus to Investigate Address Terms in Historical Drama Dialogue.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics19 (2): 186–204. 10.1075/jhp.00018.ang
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00018.ang [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin, John L.
    1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, Elizabeth, and Laura Benigni
    1975 “Rules of Address in Italy: A Sociological Survey.” Language in Society4: 271–288. 10.1017/S0047404500006679
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006679 [Google Scholar]
  5. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, and Elite Olshtain
    1984 “Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics5 (3): 196–213. 10.1093/applin/5.3.196
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman
    1960 “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” InStyle in Language, ed. byThomas A. Sebeok, 253–276. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 1989 “Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies.” Language in Society18: 159–212. 10.1017/S0047404500013464
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500013464 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, Roger, and Marguerite Ford
    1961 “Address in American English.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology62: 375–385. 10.1037/h0042862
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042862 [Google Scholar]
  10. Busse, Beatrix
    2006Vocative Constructions in the Language of Shakespeare. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.150
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.150 [Google Scholar]
  11. Buyle, Anouk, and Hendrik De Smet
    2018 “Meaning in a Changing Paradigm: The Semantics of you and the Pragmatics of thou.” Language Sciences68: 42–55. 10.1016/j.langsci.2017.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2017.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Clyne, Michael, Heinz-L. Kretzenbacher, Catrin Norrby, and Doris Schüpbach
    2006 “Perceptions of Variation and Change in German and Swedish Address.” Journal of Sociolinguistics10 (3): 287–319. 10.1111/j.1360‑6441.2006.00329.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2006.00329.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics25 (3): 349–367. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  14. Davis, Angela
    2014Modern Motherhood, Women and Family in England, c. 1945–2000. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria
    2010 “Cross-Cultural and Situational Variation in Requesting Behavior: Perceptions of Social Situations and Strategic Usage of Request Patterns.” Journal of Pragmatics42: 2262–2281. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fanego, Teresa
    2005 “‘Fare thee well, dame’: Shakespeare’s Forms of Address and Their Socio-Affective Role.” Sederi15: 23–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hickey, Leo, and Miranda Stewart
    2005Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853597398
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853597398 [Google Scholar]
  18. Holloway, Gerry
    2005Women and Work in Britain since 1840. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hook, Donald D.
    1984 “First Names and Titles as Solidarity and Power Semantics in English.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching22 (3): 183–189. 10.1515/iral.1984.22.3.183
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1984.22.3.183 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jaramillo, June
    1996 “Tu and usted.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences18: 522–532. 10.1177/07399863960184006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/07399863960184006 [Google Scholar]
  21. Leech, Geoffrey
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1999 “The Distribution and Function of Vocatives in American and British English Conversation.” InOut of Corpora, ed. byHilde Hasselgård, and Signe Oksefjell, 107–118. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Levshina, Natalia
    2017 “A Multivariate Study of T/V Forms in European Languages Based on a Parallel Corpus of Film Subtitles.” Research in Language15 (2): 153–172. 10.1515/rela‑2017‑0010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2017-0010 [Google Scholar]
  24. Mahood, Linda
    1995Policing Gender, Class and Family: Britain, 1850–1940. London: UCL Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Martiny, Thierry
    1996 “Forms of Address in French and Dutch: A Sociopragmatic Approach.” Language Sciences18: 765–775. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(96)00046‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00046-0 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mazzon, Gabriella
    2003 “Pronouns and Nominal Address in Shakespearean English: A Socio-Affective Marking System in Transition.” InDiachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems, ed. byIrma Taavitsainen, and Andreas H. Jucker, 223–250. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.107.11maz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.107.11maz [Google Scholar]
  27. Moreno, María C.
    2002 “The Address System in the Spanish of the Golden Age.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 15–47. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00074‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00074-6 [Google Scholar]
  28. Nevala, Minna
    2004 “Accessing Politeness Axes: Forms of Address and Terms of Reference in Early English Correspondence.” Journal of Pragmatics36: 2125–2160. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Nevalainen, Terttu, and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg
    1995 “Constraints on Politeness: The Pragmatics of Address Formulae in Early English Correspondence.” InHistorical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 35, ed. byAndreas H. Jucker, 541–601. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.35.28nev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.35.28nev [Google Scholar]
  30. Norrby, Catrin, Camilla Wide, Jenny Nilsson, and Jan Lindström
    2018 “Positioning through Address Practice in Finland-Swedish and Sweden-Swedish Service Encounters.” InPositioning the Self and Others. Linguistic Perspectives, ed. byKate Beeching, Chiara Ghezzi, and Piera Molinelli, 19–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.292.02nor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.292.02nor [Google Scholar]
  31. Risselada, Rodie
    1993Imperatives and Other Directive Expressions in Latin: A Study in the Pragmatics of a Dead Language. Amsterdam: Gieben. 10.1163/9789004408975
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004408975 [Google Scholar]
  32. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    1996 “Reconsidering Power and Distance.” Journal of Pragmatics26: 1–24. 10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00047‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00047-X [Google Scholar]
  33. Taavitsainen, Irma, and Andreas H. Jucker
    (eds) 2003Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.107
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.107 [Google Scholar]
  34. Thompson, Francis M. L.
    (ed) 1990The Cambridge Social History of Britain, 1750–1950. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Thorndike, Ashley H.
    1965English Comedy. New York: Cooper Square.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Trosborg, Anna
    1995Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110885286
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110885286 [Google Scholar]
  37. Vismans, Roel
    2016 “Jojoën tussen u en je. Over de dynamiek van het gebruik van Nederlandse aanspreekvormen in het radioprogramma Casa Luna.” Internationale Neerlandistiek54 (2): 117–136. 10.5117/IN2016.2.VISM
    https://doi.org/10.5117/IN2016.2.VISM [Google Scholar]
  38. Weigand Edda
    Weigand Edda 2009Language as Dialogue. Edited bySebastian Feller. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Zwicky, Arnold
    1974 “Hey, Whatsyourname!” InPapers from the 10th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. byMichael W. La Galy, Robert Fox, and Anthony Brack, 787–801. Chicago: CLS.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19024.buy
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19024.buy
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error