Meaning in a changing paradigm: the semantics of you and the pragmatics of thou. (July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Buyle, Anouk; De Smet, Hendrik
• Is Part Of: Language sciences. Volume 68(2018)
• Page Start: 42
• Page End: 55
• Publication Date: 2018-07
• Subjects: Linguistics -- Periodicals; Language and languages -- Periodicals; Linguistique -- Périodiques; Langage et langues -- Périodiques; Language and languages; Linguistics; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 405
• DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2017.12.004
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0388-0001

Abstract

Abstract: Many European languages have two pronouns for singular address. For such languages, Brown and Gilman (1960) propose a model that can explain pronominal choice, arguing that the pronouns allow speakers to construe the speaker-hearer relation with respect to two major social dimensions–power and solidarity. Pronominal choice then functions as a major resource for realizing social deixis in dialogic interaction. However, discussions of the Modern English thou / you contrast have criticized the power-and-solidarity model by emphasizing the language-specific peculiarities of the Modern English system. Thou and you appear to deviate in meaning from the second person pronouns in other languages. You can be used to address virtually anyone and in many contexts seems to be a neutral form, rather than a form signalling speaker deference or social distance. Thou is associated with emotional language and seems to express speaker agitation. However, in this paper we argue that the peculiarities of the Modern English system may have been overstated. Using evidence from dialogic interactions in Modern English comedies, it is shown that as long as thou is available as a systemic option, you retains its value of signalling deference or social distance, even in contexts where thou could not appear. As for thou, it is argued that the association with speaker agitation can be interpreted as a pragmatic side effect of the form's dwindling frequency. Both arguments bring the Modern English thou / you contrast back closer in line with the general power-and-solidarity model. Highlights: The meaning of a sign is treated as relational, arising from the interaction with other signs. The traditional power-and-solidarity model explaining the choice between pronominal address forms is reconciled with later criticisms. The last stage of the demise of English thou is detailed using a corpus of 17th and 18th-century comedies. A new way of visualizing the distribution of address forms is introduced.