Volume 31, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



The German second person personal pronoun is commonly described as a deictic “shifter” or a T-address term, which is incorporated as an argument of a predicate. Exploring the ways in which participants use pronouns in everyday interaction, however, shows that these are not the only uses of . In this paper, we examine vocative uses of in German everyday interaction. Drawing on methods of Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics, we will show that speakers use vocative for the management of being ‘with’ the other in terms of alignment as well as affiliation. What locally accomplishes, however, is sensitive to its positioning within the temporal unfolding of turns and sequences as well as to the sequential environments in which it is used. Our findings demonstrate the context-sensitivity of and underscore the importance of linguistic resources for the interactional establishment and maintenance of social togetherness and sociability.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Androutsopoulos, Jannis
    1998Deutsche Jugendsprache. Untersuchungen zu ihren Strukturen und Funktionen. [German youth language. Investigations of its structures and functions.] Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, Peter
    1996 “The Pre-front Field Position in Spoken German and its Relevance as a Grammaticalization Position.” Pragmatics6 (3): 295–322. 10.1075/prag.6.3.03aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.03aue [Google Scholar]
  3. 2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text25 (1): 7–36. 10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  4. Auer, Peter, and Jan Lindström
    2016 “Left/right Asymmetries and the Grammar of Pre- vs. Post-positioning in German and Swedish Talk-in-interaction.” Language Sciences56: 68–92. 10.1016/j.langsci.2016.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2016.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Auer, Peter, and Anja Stukenbrock
    2018 “When ‘you’ means ‘I’: The German 2nd Ps.Sg. Pronoun du between Genericity and Subjectivity.” Open Linguistics4: 280–309. 10.1515/opli‑2018‑0015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0015 [Google Scholar]
  6. Benveniste, Emile
    1966Problèmes de linguistique générale. [Problems in general linguistics]. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bergmann, Jörg
    1990 “On the Local Sensitivity of Conversation.” InThe Dynamics of Dialogue, ed. byIvana Markovà, and Klaus Foppa, 201–226. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Biq, Yung-O.
    1991 “The Multiple Uses of the Second Singular Pronoun ni in Conversational Mandarin.” Journal of Pragmatics44: 929–957.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bladas, Òscar, and Neus Nogué
    2016 “‘Que bé tu!’: An Emerging Emphatic Use of the Second Person Singular Pronoun tu (you) in Spoken Catalan.” Pragmatics26 (3): 473–500. 10.1075/prag.26.3.06bla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.3.06bla [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman
    1960 “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” InStyle in Language, ed. byThomas A. Sebeok, 253–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bühler, Karl
    1934/1965Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. [Language theory. The representational function of language.] Stuttgart: Fischer.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Butler, Carly W., Susan Danby, and Michael Emmison
    2011 “Address Terms in Turn Beginnings: Managing Disalignment and Disaffiliation in Telephone Counseling.” Research on Language and Social Interaction44 (4): 338–358. 10.1080/08351813.2011.619311
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.619311 [Google Scholar]
  14. Clayman, Steven
    2010 “Address Terms in the Service of Other Actions: The Case of News Interview Talk.” Discourse & Communication4 (2): 161–183. 10.1177/1750481310364330
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481310364330 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2012 “Address Terms in the Organization of Turns at Talk: The Case of Pivotal Turn Extensions.” Journal of Pragmatics44: 1853–1867. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2013 “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Terms.” Journal of Pragmatics57: 290–302. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Clyne, Michael, Catrin Norrby, and Jane Warren
    2009Language and Human Relations. Styles of Address in Contemporary Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511576690
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576690 [Google Scholar]
  18. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2004 “Prosody and Sequence Organization in English Conversation. The Case of New Beginnings.” InSound Patterns in Interaction, ed. byElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford, 335–376. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.62.17cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.17cou [Google Scholar]
  19. 2009 “Relatedness and Timing in Talk-in-interaction.” InWhere Prosody Meets Pragmatics, ed. byDagmar Barth-Weingarten, Nicole Dehé, and Anne Wichmann, 257–276. Bingley: Emerald. 10.1163/9789004253223_012
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253223_012 [Google Scholar]
  20. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
    2017Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. d’Avis, Franz, and Jörg Meibauer
    2013 “Du Idiot! Din idiot! Pseudo-vocative Constructions and Insults in German (and Swedish).” InVocative! Addressing between System and Performance, ed. byBarbara Sonnenhauser, and Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna, 189–217. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110304176.189
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110304176.189 [Google Scholar]
  22. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2013 “Turn-design at Turn-beginnings: Multimodal Resources to Deal with Tasks of Turn-construction in German.” Journal of Pragmatics46: 91–121. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.010 [Google Scholar]
  23. Deppermann, Arnulf, and Susanne Günthner
    2015 “Introduction: Temporality in Interaction.” InTemporality in Interaction, ed. byArnulf Deppermann, and Susanne Günthner, 1–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Deppermann, Arnulf, and Jürgen Streeck
    (eds.) 2018Time in Embodied Interaction. Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.293
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.293 [Google Scholar]
  25. Droste, Pepe
    2018Korpus ‚Multimodale Interaktion‘ [Corpus ‘multimodal interaction’]. University of Münster.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Droste, Pepe, and Susanne Günthner
    2020 “‚das mAchst du bestimmt AUCH du;‘: Zum Zusammenspiel syntaktischer, prosodischer und sequenzieller Aspekte syntaktisch desintegrierter du-Formate. [‘das mAchst du bestimmt AUCH du;’: On the interplay of syntactic, prosodic and sequential aspects syntactically disintegrated formats of du.]” InProsodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. [Construction Grammar and Prosody], ed. byWolfgang Imo, and Jens Philipp Lanwer, 75–110. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Goffman, Ervin
    1963Behavior in Public Places. Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 1971Relations in Public. Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Goodwin, Charles
    1980 “Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of Mutual Gaze at Turn-beginning.” Sociological Inquiry50 (3–4): 272–302. 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00023.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x [Google Scholar]
  31. 1981Conversational Organization. Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie H. Goodwin
    2004 “Participation.” InA Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, ed. byAlessandro Duranti, 222–244. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Günthner, Susanne
    2016 “Praktiken erhöhter Dialogizität: onymische Anredeformen als Gesten personifizierter Zuwendung. [Practices of increased dialogism: Onymic forms of address as gestures of personified other-orientation.]” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik44 (3): 406–436. 10.1515/zgl‑2016‑0022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl-2016-0022 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2019 “Namentliche Anreden in onkologischen Aufklärungsgesprächen: eine interaktional ausgerichtete Studie zu Formen und Funktionen onymischer Anreden. [Onymic address in oncologic briefings: An interactional-oriented study of the forms and functions of onymic address.]” Arbeitspapiere Sprache und Interaktion (SpIn)82.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hewitt, John P., and Stokes, Randall
    1975 “Disclaimers.” American Sociological Review40 (1): 1–11. 10.2307/2094442
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2094442 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hickey, Raymond
    2003 “The German Address System: Binary and Scalar at once.” InDiachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems, ed. byIrma Taavitsainen, and Andreas H. Jucker, 401–425. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.107.16hic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.107.16hic [Google Scholar]
  37. Jakobson, Roman
    1957/1971 “Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb”. InSelected Writings, Vol.2, 130–147. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Jespersen, Otto
    1923Language. Its Nature, Development, and Origin. New York: Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kendon, Adam
    1990Conducting Interaction. Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kretzenbacher, Heinz L.
    1991 “Vom Sie zum Du – und retour? [From Sie to Du – and back?]” InVom Sie zum Du – mehr als eine neue Konvention? [From Sie to Du – More than a new convention?], ed. byHeinz L. Kretzenbacher, and Wulf Segebrecht, 9–78. Hamburg/Zürich: Luchterhand.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2010 “‚Man ordnet ja bestimmte Leute irgendwo ein für sich…‘ Anrede und soziale Deixis. [‘Man ordnet ja bestimmte Leute irgendwo ein für sich…’ Address and social deixis.]” Deutsche Sprache38: 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lerner, Gene H.
    1996 “On the Place of Linguistic Resources in the Organization of Talk-in-Interaction: ‘Second Person’ Reference in Multi-Party Conversation.” Pragmatics6 (3): 281–294. 10.1075/prag.6.3.02ler
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.6.3.02ler [Google Scholar]
  43. 2003 “Selecting Next Speaker: The Context-sensitive Operation of a Context-free Organization.” Language in Society32 (2): 177–201. 10.1017/S004740450332202X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450332202X [Google Scholar]
  44. Liebscher, Grit, Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain, Mareike Müller, and Tetyana Reichert
    2010 “Negotiating Identities through Pronouns of Address in an Immigrant Community.” Pragmatics20 (3): 375–400. 10.1075/prag.20.3.04lie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20.3.04lie [Google Scholar]
  45. Lindström, Anna, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2013 Affiliation in Conversation. InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. byJack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 350–369. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lindström, Jan
    2014 “On the Place of Turn and Sequence in Grammar. Verb-first Clausal Constructions in Swedish Talk-in-interaction.” Pragmatics24 (3): 507–532. 10.1075/prag.24.3.04lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.04lin [Google Scholar]
  47. Mondada, Lorenza
    2009 “Emergent Focused Interactions in Public Places: A Systematic Analysis of the Multimodal Achievement of a Common Interactional Space.” Journal of Pragmatics41: 1977–1997. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2013a “Embodied and Spatial Resources for Turn-taking in Institutional Multi-party Interactions: Participatory Democracy Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics46, 39–68. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2013b “Interactional Space and the Study of Embodied Talk-in-interaction.” InSpace in Language and Linguistics. Geographical, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives, ed. byPeter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stukenbrock, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, 247–275. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110312027.247
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110312027.247 [Google Scholar]
  50. 2018 “Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality.” InResearch on Language and Social Interaction51 (1): 85–106. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878 [Google Scholar]
  51. Mortensen, Kristian
    2009 “Establishing Recipiency in Pre-beginning Position in the Second Language Classroom.” Discourse Processes46 (5): 491–515. 10.1080/01638530902959463
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959463 [Google Scholar]
  52. Oh, Sun-Young
    2007 “Overt Reference to Speaker and Recipient in Korean.” Discourse Studies9 (4): 462–492. 10.1177/1461445607079163
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607079163 [Google Scholar]
  53. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review68 (6): 939–967. 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  54. Raymond, Chase
    2016 “Linguistic Reference in the Negotiation of Identity and Action: Revisiting the T/V Distinction.” Language92 (3): 636–670. 10.1353/lan.2016.0053
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0053 [Google Scholar]
  55. Rendle-Short, Johanna
    2007 “‘Catherine, you’re Wasting your Time’: Address Terms within the Australian Political Interview.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 1503–1525. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2011 “Address Terms in the Australian Political News Interview.” InTalking Politics in Broadcast Media. Cross-cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and Accountability, ed. byMats Ekström, and Marianna Patrona, 93–111. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.42.09ren
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.42.09ren [Google Scholar]
  57. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  58. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, ed. byElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  59. Schütz, Alfred, and Thomas Luckmann
    1973The Structures of the Life-World. London: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Schwitalla, Johannes
    1995 “Namen in Gesprächen. [Names in conversations.]” InNamenforschung. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik [Onomastics. An international handbook on onomastics], ed. byErnst Eichler, Gerold Hilty, Heinrich Löffler, Hugo Steger, and Ladislav Zgusta, 498–504. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 2010 “Kommunikative Funktionen von Sprecher- und Adressatennamen in Gesprächen. [Communicative functions of names of speakers and addressees in conversations.]” InEigennamen in der gesprochenen Sprache [Proper names in spoken language], ed. byNicolas Pepin, and Elwys De Stefani, 197–199. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Selting, Margret
    2011 “A System for Transcribing Talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Translated and adapted for English by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion12: 1–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Simon, Horst
    2003 “From Pragmatics to Grammar: Tracing the Development of ‘Respect’ in the History of the German Pronouns of Address.” InDiachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems, ed. byIrma Taavitsainen, and Andreas H. Jucker, 85–123. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.107.06sim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.107.06sim [Google Scholar]
  64. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41 (1): 31–57. 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  65. Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig
    2011 “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 3–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
  66. Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano
    2010 “Mobilizing Response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction43 (1): 3–31. 10.1080/08351810903471258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  67. Wootton, Anthony J.
    1981 “Children’s Use of Address Terms.” InAdult–Child Conversations, ed. byPeter French, and Margaret Maclure, 142–158. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, and Bruno Strecker
    1997Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. [Grammar of German language.] Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): 2.ps.sg.; address terms; affiliation; alignment; pronoun; sequencing; social solidarity; turn design
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