“And if ye wol nat so, my lady sweete, Thanne preye I thee, [...].

”1
Forms of address in Chaucer’s The Knight’s Tale

Thomas Honegger
(Published in Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds.). 2003. Diachronic Perspectives
on Address Term Systems. Pragmatics & Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 61-84.)

1 REVIEW AND CRITIQUE OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE

The (implicit) position of most scholars (Stidston 1917, Walcutt 1935, Koziol
1943, Nathan 1959, Brown and Gilman 1960, Schentke 1962, Finkenstaedt
1963, Evans 1967, Johnston 1967, Metcalf 1971, Sampson 1979, Wilcockson
1980, Burnley 1983 & 1990, and Wales 1996) who have analyzed forms of
address within the framework of historical (socio-)linguistics could be
characterized as biased in favour of a ‘Systemlinguistik’ approach,2 i.e. starting
from the assumption that we are dealing with a closed and homogenous system
of address with a well-known and limited set of variants. The second-person
pronouns of address, which are in Middle English ye, with the oblique-case
forms you, your(e) and thou, with the oblique-case forms thee, thy, thine – from
now on referred to as ye and thou for all forms3 – have often been treated as if
they were the only relevant features by means of which social and interactional-
emotional categories such as ‘superordination vs subordination’, ‘distance vs
intimacy’, ‘respect vs disrespect’, ‘emotional involvement (positive or negative)
vs emotional distance’, ‘upper class usage vs lower class usage’ etc. could be
expressed. As a consequence, critics have often neglected to consider
systematically4 other sources of information, such as nominal forms of address,
self-reference, situational information provided by the narrator, the relative
interactional status of the speakers,5 and the overall tone of the interaction.6

1 The Knight’s Tale (l. 2254f.). All quotations are, if not indicated otherwise, taken from
Benson (1987). The manuscript-variants of the passages discussed in detail have been
cross-checked with the edition by Manly and Rickert (1940).
2 Braun (1984 and 1988:18) gives a well-informed critique of this approach. See also,
more recently, Blake (1992:537-539).
3 I will use ye and thou when talking about Middle English pronouns of address used for
individual persons, but I will use V (< vos) and T (< tu) as generic designators for the
polite and the familiar pronouns respectively in any language (cf. Brown and Gilman
1960:254).
4 There is no lack of isolated attempts to connect nominal forms of address with the
occurrence of T or V (e.g. Finkenstaedt 1963:97), yet these instances do not add up to a
systematic approach.
5 I am indebted to Andreas H. Jucker (conference lecture and personal communication)
who pointed out the crucial importance of the momentary situational context.
 2
Such a limited approach may work well in languages with a rigid and clear-
cut distribution of T and V (e.g. modern German and French). Yet in language-
systems such as those of the Middle English dialects of the time of Chaucer,
things are not that clear.7 On the one hand, the use of thou and ye as
representatives of two mutually complementing categories was not yet
universally implemented, and even in Chaucer’s lifetime remained in a state of
flux.8 Depending on the speaker’s geographic origin, social standing and age, it
could well be that he or she would not have ye in his or her repertory as a form
of address for a single person,9 a phenomenon also observed in present-day
languages.10 On the other hand, the characteristics of the emerging ‘system’
differ greatly in at least one point from those of modern-day reference languages
such as German or French: it is possible to switch back and forth between the
two forms. This switching between thou and ye in speeches addressed towards
an individual is, to the irritation of many a modern-day linguist, rather frequent
and not always governed by obvious rules, which has led to the inclusion of the
all-purpose category of ‘switching’11 in the explanatory models. The
implementation of such a ‘loophole’ can be seen as an attempt to save the
‘Systemlinguistik’ model by allowing the neglected ‘situational’ elements in by
the back-door, yet without including them in the primary analysis. The focus
remains therefore on the second-person pronouns as the one category that

6 The necessity for a more inclusive approach has been noted early by some critics.
Already Jakobson (1960:278), commenting on Brown and Gilman (1960), argued: “The
use of different pronouns designating the addressee is but a part of a more complex
code of verbal attitudes toward the addressee and must be analyzed in connection with
this total code, in particular with the question of whether we do or do not name the
addressee and how we title him.” See also Ervin-Tripp (1972:237): “we need to know
other signals, such as tone of voice, other address features, and the available
ambiguities of the relationship.”
7 See Stidston (1917) and Finkenstaedt (1963:48-90).
8 See Stidston (1917:81): “But if these two monuments [i.e. Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight and William of Palerne] be set aside we may say that the sing. is, even as late as
the time of the Vernon MS. [ca. 1380], the accepted form and the use of the plur. should
call for some special explanation.”
9 This might be the case with the Green Knight in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,
though a certain ‘rudeness’ is certainly intended.
10 Braun (1988:20) points out that in Jordanian Arabic, for example, rural speakers do not
have a V form and thus, when speaking to an urban higher status adressee, cannot do
any other than use the T form.
11 Sampson (1979:67) argues that “changes of emotional state on the part of the addresser
are concurrent with pronominal switching.” Burnley (1983:20-22) differentiates
between ‘affective switching’, which corresponds to Sampson’s ‘pronominal
switching’, ‘rhetorical switching’, and ‘style switching’. Older scholarship simply
labelled this phenomenon as ‘Mischstil’ (e.g. Ganter 1905).
 3
carries the greatest weight in establishing the interactional relationship between
speakers. I would like to argue that this need not be always the case. It is
perfectly possible that linguistic categories other than pronouns of address, or
even non-linguistic elements, may take over the main burden of defining the
interactional relationship. Within an overall theory of adversion,12 pronominal
forms of address are only one (though admittedly an important) element. An
ideal and comprehensive analysis would take into account not only the various
forms of address and (self-)reference, but also the overall tone and relevant
nonlinguistic elements. There are, however, two formidable challenges which
render such an approach rather difficult to implement in the analysis of
historical texts. First, we often lack any information other than that provided by
the (written) dialogues. Second, the elements other than T and V forms are less
easily – if at all – systematized into convenient dichotomies and flow-charts.13
Nominal forms of address, for example, constitute a basically open category,
and to establish the exact relationship between these forms to each other and to
other possible categories may prove too complex a task for scholars without
‘native speaker competence’.14 ‘Systemlinguistik’ research into nominal forms
of address has thus been restricted to contemporary languages.15 And those
scholars who have tried and explored the use and function of nominal forms of
address in historical times often remain on a descriptive-empirical level.16
My research suggests that a more comprehensive analysis that aims at
including pronominal and nominal forms of address as well as other linguistic
and nonlinguistic features will be possible only on a case to case basis since it
has proved difficult to incorporate these features in the limited

12 The term ‘adversion’ is defined by Kohz (1982:116) as comprising all the linguistic and
non-linguistic elements of the act of changing one’s direction towards a person
(‘Hinwendung’); e.g. gaze, greeting, gesture, stance, address etc. I will use adversion
rather than address since the former is the more comprehensive term.
13 This does not mean that dichotomies and flow-charts are per se desirable forms to
present one’s findings. Braun (1988:19-20) comments: “A flow chart can only
summarize or symbolize the selection process which takes place either in one speaker
or in a completely homogenous speech community.”
14 Preliminary research into the nominal forms of address in KnT, FranT, WBT, Tr and Sir
Gawain and the Green Knight in the context of my M.A. thesis has shown that Chaucer
uses only a limited number of nominal forms of address that may be systematized to a
certain degree. The Gawain-poet, however, uses a wide variety of forms many of which
are difficult to categorize.
15 See, for example, Ervin-Tripp (1972/1969) and Brown and Ford (1964/1961)
16 See, for example, Böhm (1936), Breuer (1983), and Stoll (1989). Pearsall (1995) is the
exception to the rule, but his analysis remains limited to a discussion of the unadorned
vocative in some of Chaucer’s works.
 4
‘Systemlinguistik’ model of the pronouns of address.17 Thus, such a
comprehensive approach may be used to complement the more restricted
‘pronominal model’, but it cannot – and should not – replace it.

2 BASICS
The following, greatly simplified graphic illustration of the ‘situation of
address’ will serve as our point of departure:

too polite irony

S H appropriate politeness

not
polite insult
enough

S = speaker, H = hearer (addressee)

Every participant in a social interaction which has gone beyond the preliminary
(nonlinguistic) stage (e.g. mutual visual perception) sees him or herself
confronted with the problem of choosing (sooner or later) an appropriate form
of address for the person he or she is talking to. There are basically three
possible scenarios. If the speaker (S) uses a form of address which is too polite
(e.g. a knight addresses a simple peasant with lord and ye), the hearer (H) will
most likely interpret the inappropriate form as a sign of irony.18 If an
appropriate form of address is chosen, however, (e.g. a knight addresses the
king with my lord and ye), the effect is one of politeness.19 Thirdly, if the
speaker happens to use a form of address which is not polite enough (e.g. a
peasant addresses a king with freke and thou), he or she insults the addressee.20
The problem of the appropriateness of any form of address is, of course,

17 Shimomoto’s (1986) study points in this direction, too.

18 See Sperber and Wilson (1986:237-243) on irony.
19 Cf. Braun (1988:49): “Forms of address are called and considered polite when they are
adequate for the situation.”
20 This is true even if the peasant knew only the T form. What matters is the perlocutive
effect of an utterance. Yet if the speaker is a cleric, then he may use T as part of the
‘style clergial’. See Burnley (1990) on clerical address to kings.
 5
inseparably connected with extralinguistic categories such as status, social
hierarchy, and emotional or social distance or closeness – or, to use Brown and
Gilman’s (1960) terms, power and solidarity.
I will briefly illustrate this basic distinction, which has been discussed
predominantly within the ‘Sytemlinguistik’ framework of V and T, by using,
once more, the examples of the peasant and the king, and of the knight and the
king. A medieval peasant, by legal definition, finds himself at the lower end of
the social hierarchy. In terms of power, he is thus inferior to the king – a fact
which is expressed by his unidirectional use of the pronoun ye when speaking to
the monarch. The king, however, does not return the respectful ye but correctly
uses the pronoun thou, thus indicating the vast gap in the social hierarchy which
separates him from his interlocutor. The use of ye by the king would be utterly
inappropriate and, in most circumstances, ridiculous. Leaving the lowly spheres
of peasant-life, we can now turn to the realm of courtly society, which is also
the sphere in which the events of The Knight’s Tale take place. The general
‘courtly’ pronoun of address is ye, irrespective of the fine or not so fine
distinctions of power and hierarchy. Thus, a knight addresses the king with ye
and, in return, is also addressed as ye. The singular pronoun thou is only used on
special occasions, e.g. when two related courtly persons talk to each other and
want to express their closeness (Brown and Gilman’s ‘pronoun of solidarity’);
or, when the king is rebuking one of his knights, he may switch to the
unidirectional thou, thus stressing his higher hierarchical status (Brown and
Gilman’s ‘pronoun of power’). Thus, every deviation from the pronominal ye-
norm within courtly society has an expressive function.
Yet, without anticipating the results of our analysis, we may already point
out some severe limitations of the ‘pure pronominal theory’.21 Even though the
pronominal forms of address are often used to establish the basic interactional
categories of power and solidarity, they are, at the same time, a rather crude tool
and thus need to be complemented by other means. A king in a romance, for
example, would be severely limited in his linguistic ability if he could only
choose between the ‘power pronoun’ thou and the ‘polite pronoun’ ye in order
to express his feelings towards other members of courtly society. Luckily, as we
will see, the pronominal forms of address can be complemented by suitable
nominal forms of address and other elements of adversion, and this combinatory
flexibility allows a speaker to remain on a chosen level while at the same time
being able to express finer shades of meaning. A knight may thus address
another knight with the ‘general courtly pronoun’ ye (indicating that both
persons are on the same hierarchical level), yet express his feelings towards the
other person by means of an additional nominal form of address (e.g. the
Christian name to indicate emotional closeness, or the formal Sire to express

21 For a critical evaluation of both Brown and Gilman’s (1960), and Gilman and Brown’s
(1958) theory, see Braun (1984).
 6
emotional distance or neutrality or additional respect). An interactional
sequence may thus be compared, to some extent, to an orchestrated piece of
music. Some instruments may predominate for a while (‘the first violins of
pronominal forms’) yet the musical theme may also be taken up and carried by
other instruments (‘the violas of nominal forms’ or ‘the horns of gesture’).
After these short preliminary remarks on the general use of the pronouns of
address, I will now turn to Chaucer’s ‘courtly tale of the Knight’. The Knight’s
Tale distinguishes itself not only by being told by a member of courtly society,
but also by being the ‘most courtly’ tale as far as content is concerned: the
action is restricted to courtly protagonists – with the notable exception of
deities, a fact which is also mirrored in the use of the pronouns of address. Thus,
as a rule, we have the use of the ‘general courtly pronoun of address’ ye among
human protagonists.
In order to obtain consistency in results, I have limited my exemplary
analysis to this tale. I presuppose that the forms of address show a certain inner
consistency, even if The Knight’s Tale may be a revision of an early work22 and
may therefore differ in this respect from Chaucer’s usage in later tales. In a first
step, I will first give a brief overview of the most prominent instances of
interplay between the different elements of adversion in The Knight’s Tale and,
in a second step, discuss the notoriously difficult case of the ritualistic address
to deities which has proven ‘resistant’ to analysis within the ‘Systemlinguistik’
framework of V and T.

3 THE KNIGHT’S TALE: TALKING TO PEOPLE

The Knight’s Tale, with its courtly narrator and similar range of protagonists,
can be expected to and actually does feature V forms, mainly in accordance with
the general principles as first outlined by Skeat.23 In interactions between
humans, the following combinations of elements of adversion occur:

1) Mutual reinforcement of nominal and pronominal forms of address.

See, for example, the noble lady’s address to Theseus with lord & ye: “And
certes, lord, to abyden youre presence, / Heere in this temple of the
goddesse Clemence / We han ben waitynge al this fourtenyght.” (ll. 927-
929)

22 Nathan (1959:201) tries to explain the irregularities of pronominal usage in The

Knight’s Tale by seeing it as an early, though possibly revised, work.
23 Skeat (1894:V, 175): “Thou is the language of the lord to a servant, of an equal to an
equal, and expresses also companionship, love, permission, defiance, scorn,
threatening; whilst ye is the language of a servant to a lord, and of compliment, and
further expresses honour, submission, or entreaty.”
Skeat established these general principles on the basis of the pronouns-of-address usage
in William of Palerne, but found them also true for Chaucer.
 7
2) Modification, disambiguation or complementation of pronominal address
by means of nominal forms of address (and vice versa).
See, for example, Palamon’s address to Arcite in which thou is, in the first
case, the thou of solidarity and affection, as becomes clear by the
accompaning my leeve brother. Some lines futher on, however, it changes
to the thou of scorn, as is indicated (lacking other information such as tone
of voice etc.) by false Arcite:
“[...] / Neither of us in love to hyndre oother, / Ne in noon oother cas, my
leeve brother, / But that thou sholdest trewely forthren me / In every cas, as
I shal forthren thee –” (ll. 1136-1139)
“Nay, certes, false Arcite, thow shalt nat so.” (l. 1145)
3) Complementation of forms of address by means of self-reference.
See, for instance, the noble ladies’ complementation of the solidarity thou
used towards Theseus by means of a humiliating self-reference such as
wrecched women:
“Som drope of pitee, thurgh thy gentilesse, / Upon us wrecched wommen
lat thou falle,” (ll. 920-921).
4) Complementation of forms of address by means of nonlinguistic elements.
See, for example, the self-humiliating behaviour of the queen, Emelye, and
all the ladies in their retinue who implore the enraged Theseus to have pity
on Palamon and Arcite:
“‘Have mercy, Lord, upon us wommen alle!’ / And on hir bare knees
adoun they fall / And wolde have kist his feet ther as he stood;” (ll. 1757-
1759)
5) Preceding forms of address influence the value of the following ones.
See, for instance, the use of lord & ye in the foremost lady’s answer to
Theseus’ rather brusque folk & ye (plural). She thus demonstratively
highlights her courtliness:
“‘What folk ben ye, that at myn homcomynge / Perturben so my feste with
criynge?’” (ll. 905-906)
“She seyde, ‘Lord, to whom Fortune hath yiven / Victorie, and as a
conqueror to lyven, / Nat greveth us youre glorie and youre honour,” (ll.
915-917)

These combinations often occur after and next to each other, as the example of
the encounter between Theseus and the wailing Theban women on the road to
Athens show. Theseus returns in triumph from his wars and before he enters
Athens, he comes upon a group of wailing women at the side of the road. Angry
at their unfitting behaviour on such a festive occasion, he addresses them rather
brusquely with folk & ye (plural) (l. 905) and asks for an explanation. The
foremost lady, the widow of King Cappaneus, answers him as follows:
 8
She seyde, “Lord, to whom Fortune hath yiven 915
Victorie, and as a conqueror to lyven,
Nat greveth us youre glorie and youre honour,
But we biseken mercy and socour.
Have mercy on oure wo and oure distresse!
Som drope of pitee, thurgh thy gentilesse,24 920
Upon us wrecched wommen lat thou falle,
For, certes, lord, ther is noon of us alle
That she ne hath been a duchesse or a queene.
Now be we caytyves, as it is wel seene,
thanked be Fortune and hire false wheel, 925
That noon estaat assureth to be weel.
And certes, lord, to abyden youre presence,
Heere in this temple of the goddesse Clemence
We han ben waitynge al this fourtenyght.
Now help us, lord, sith it is in thy myght. 930
Knight’s Tale I (A) 915-930

The occurrence of both thou and ye forms can be explained by means of Skeat’s
principles, with the ye as pluralis reverentiae and the thou of companionship or,
better, human solidarity. Yet this is only half, or even less than half the story. If
we take also nominal terms of address and other elements of adversion into
account, we will arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of the situation.
The basic tone is set by the respectful nominal form lord (l. 915) and the
polite plural form of the pronoun, ye (l. 917). In this context, the situationally
appropriate ye functions also as an in-group marker to indicate the speaker’s
‘courtliness’ (as is then made explicit in l. 922f.). It is only within this firmly
established framework of ‘respect’ that the speaker varies the pronoun, and
addresses Theseus with the thou of solidarity (l. 920f.).
Yet another strategy is used by the ladies. They may address Theseus with
thou, but at the same time it must be noted that they (although duchesses or even
queens) simultaneously call themselves wrecched wommen (l. 950) and kneel in
front of Theseus (l. 897f.), or else lie prostrate on the ground,25 thus
demonstratively humiliating themselves in front of the duke who sits on
horseback. This act of self-humiliation is of great importance, since it
guarantees that the necessary courtly minimum distance between the ladies and

24 The Hengwrt as well as the Ellesmere manuscript have thy (line 920) and thou (line
921; see Ruggiers 1979:13v).These forms have often been replaced in (later)
manuscripts by your (line 920) and now, ye, Zou or it (line 921; see Manly and Rickert
1940, III:42), which could be interpreted as a move into the direction of a less complex
system of address, i.e. one that endeavours to link nominal forms of address with
corresponding pronominal ones – or at least tries to avoid ‘clashes’.
25 “They fillen gruf” (l. 949) actually means ‘they fell face down’.
 9
Theseus is maintained in spite of the ‘pronominal rapprochement’ – as is shown
by the following illustration:

S ye
H
a
normal
position
thou

explicit a' a = a' :

self-
minimum
humili-
distance
ation
remains
constant
S = speaker
H = hearer

The ladies’ verbal (wrecched wommen l. 950) and nonverbal (kneeling down or
prostrating) acts of self-humiliation make it possible for them to address
Theseus with thou without incurring his wrath. The basic tone of ‘respect’ is
guaranteed by means of a minimal polite distance which is kept up by additional
elements of adversion. We have thus the establishment of a courtly-respectful
basic tone by means of stance, nominal and pronominal forms, and a variation
of this prevailing mood by means of the pronominal forms.
The next example seems to be a similar case – at least at first sight.
Palamon addresses Venus in her temple. He, too, is kneeling (cf. l. 2219):

‘Fairest of faire, O lady26 myn, Venus,

[...]
Have pitee of my bittre teeris smerte, 2225
And taak myn humble preyere at thyn herte.
[...]
That make I myn avow, so ye me helpe! 2237
[...]
For though so be that Mars is god or armes,
Youre vertu is so greet in hevene above
That if yow list, I shal wel have my love. 2250
Thy temple wol I worshipe everemo,
And on thyn auter, where I ride or go,

26 Italicisations are my own.

 10
I wil doon sacrifice and fires beete.
And if ye wol nat so, my lady sweete,
Thanne preye I thee, tomorwe with a spere 2255
That Arcita me thurgh the herte bere.
[...]
Yif me my love, thow blisful lady deere.’ 2260
Knight’s Tale I (A) 2221-2260

As in the example before, the nominal and pronominal forms lady & ye seem to
express the respectful basic tone which is then varied by means of an additional
thou of solidarity. However, since the addressee is a goddess, the interaction
needs special consideration.

4 THE KNIGHT’S TALE: TALKING TO GODS

The ‘interaction’ between humans and deities has often been set apart.27 On the
one hand, God and gods have been traditionally addressed with thou,28 even
though the French language started to apply vous.29 On the other hand,
Chaucer’s (or his protagonists’) use of pronouns in addressing God and gods
often shows seemingly random changes between thou and ye.30 From a point of
view based on the thou/ye dichotomy, there is indeed a problem, so that Nathan
(1959:194) suggests that there is “no firmly established usage in addressing a
deity.”31 The fact that most ‘conversations’ with God or gods are one-way
affairs and usually rather brief does not help either. The three lengthy
invocations of the pagan deities in The Knight’s Tale provide therefore one of
the rare opportunities to analyse the problem in depth and a closer examination
of Emelye, Arcite, and Palamon’s address-behaviour towards deities will

27 See Nathan (1959:193-194).

28 See Stidston (1917:45-49) and the various examples throughout the centuries in
Finkenstaedt (1963:72, 94, 154f., and 169f.).
29 See Ganter (1905:43) on the use of French vous to address God.
30 Whereas we have consistent use of thou in the narrators’s invocations of Mars and
Polymya in Anelida and Arcite (Benson 1987:376, ll. 1-21), Thesiphone and Cleo in
Troilus and Criseyde (Benson 1987:473, ll. 6-11; 489, ll. 8-10) or of God in The
Prologue of the Prioress’s Tale (Benson 1987:209, ll. 453-466), there also occur as yet
inexplicable changes in the invocations of Venus in Troilus and Criseyde (Benson
1987:513f., ll. 1-44) and Mary in the Prologue of the Prioress’s Tale (Benson
1987:209, ll. 467-487), to name just a few examples. The most prominent instance of
‘inconsistent pronominal address’ is, of course, Palamon’s to Venus in The Knight’s
Tale.
31 It is noteworthy that the manuscripts show hardly any variation from one another in
their use of pronominal forms of address towards deities.
 11
provide possible explanations for some of the seemingly arbitrary switching
between thou and ye.
As we have seen, it is usually the nominal forms of address that are used to
keep up the basic tone of an interaction in The Knight’s Tale, while the
pronominal forms serve to modify the relationship.32 Emelye and Arcite’s
invocations follow this pattern. Emelye visits the temple of Diana and addresses
the goddess as follows:

‘O chaste goddesse of the wodes grene,

To whom bothe hevene and erthe and see is sene,
Queene of the regne of Pluto derk and lowe,
Goddesse of maydens, that myn herte hast33 knowe 2300
Ful many a yeer, and woost what I desire,
As keepe me fro thy vengeaunce and thyn ire,
That Attheon aboughte cruelly.
Chaste goddesse, wel wostow that I
Desire to ben a mayden al my lyf, 2305
Ne nevere wol I be no love ne wyf.
I am, thow woost, yet of thy compaignye,
A mayde, and love huntynge and venerye,
And for to walken in the wodes wilde,
And noght to ben a wyf and be with childe. 2310
Noght wol I knowe compaignye of man.
Now help me, lady, sith ye may and kan,
For tho thre formes that thou hast in thee.
[...]
Bihoold, goddesse of clene chastitee,
The bittre teeris that on my chekes falle.
Syn thou art mayde and kepere of us alle,
My maydenhede thou kepe and wel conserve,
And whil I lyve, a mayde I wol thee serve.’ 2330
Knight’s Tale I (A) 2297-2330

Emelye repeatedly uses a nominal form of address that stresses Diana’s divine
nature (goddess, ll. 2297, 2300, 2304, 2326). This way she initiates and sustains
a hierarchical relationship between woman and goddess. The thou is, on this
level, the norm and needs no explanation. The predominant framework for the
interaction is therefore one of human being and god(dess), i.e. of categorial
difference.

32 The exceptions are Arcite and Palamon who always use thou when addressing each
other. The nominal forms serve to disambiguate the ambiguous thou.
33 I have also italicised verbal forms that indicate second person singular by means of
their ending.
 12
woman to goddess
categorial difference
nominal TA34, goddesse &
traditional thou Diana

Emelye
level human being to god/goddess
Yet, at the same time, Emelye successfully creates a ‘bond of solidarity’
between herself and the goddess by referring several times and by various
means to Diana’s and her own state of virginity and chastity (ll. 2297, 2300,
2304-2308, 2326, 2328-2330) together with their shared likes (hunting, ll. 2308-
2309) and dislikes (childbearing, l. 2310). The goddess Diana becomes more
and more humanised and we may assume the existence of an additional, though
somewhat subordinate ‘human being to human being level’. On this level,
respect is expressed by means of such forms as lady & ye, and thou is no longer
a neutral form. Yet since sufficient deference is given by means of the nominal
forms of address, Emelye’s consistent use of the now ambiguous thou-forms35
may not quite unintentionally exploit the connotations of intimacy. On the
pronominal level they are talking from maiden to maiden, so to speak.36
(maid-)servant to lady
nominal TA, lady & ye, queene hierarchy/power

Diana

Emelye woman to woman

?daughter to mother?37
thou solidarity
level human being to human being

34 TA stands for Terms of Address.

35 One exception: ye in l. 2312, which Schentke (1962:102-103) explains as being due to
the number of syllables and the quality of the vowels in the line discussed. However,
the use of ye may also be interpreted as a sign of respect on the ‘human being to human
being’ level.
36 It is not always easy to decide which socio-semantic categories are of relevance. In
Emelye’s invocation of Diana, the category of ‘virginity/chastity’ is sufficiently
stressed so that we can safely posit a ‘maiden to maiden’ relationship.
37 As Stidston (1917:41-44) points out, children would use both thou and ye to address
their parents. Since Diana, in her reply to Emelye, uses doghter & thou (l. 2348), it can
be assumed that this relationship is also relevant.
 13

Arcite then turns to Mars with the following words:

‘O stronge god, that in the regnes colde

Of Thrace honoured art and lord yholde,
And hast in every regne and every lond 2375
Of armes al the brydel in thyn hond,
And hem fortunest as thee lyst devyse,
Accepte of me my pitous sacrifise.
If so be that my youthe may deserve,
And that my myght be worthy for to serve 2380
Thy godhede, that I may been oon of thyne,
Thanne preye I thee to rewe upon my pyne.
For thilke peyne and thilke hoote fir
In which thow whilom brendest for desir,
Whan that thow usedest the beautee 2385
Of faire, yonge, fresshe Venus free,
And haddest hire in armes at thy wille –
Although thee ones on a tyme mysfille,
Whan Vulcanus hadde caught thee in his las
And foond thee liggynge by his wyf, allas! – 2390
For thilke sorwe that was in thyn herte,
Have routhe as wel upon my peynes smerte.
I am yong and unkonnynge, as thow woost,
[...]
And wel I woot, withouten help or grace 2400
Of thee ne may my strengthe noght availle.
Thanne help me, lord, tomorwe in my bataille,
For thilke fyr that whilom brente thee,
As wel as thilke fyr now brenneth me,
And do that I tomorwe have victorie. 2405
Myn be the travaille, and thyn be the glorie!
Thy sovereyn temple wol I moost honouren
Of any place, and alwey moost labouren
In thyn plesaunce and in thy craftes stronge,
And in thy temple I wol my baner honge 2410
And alle armes of my compaignye,
And evermo, unto that day I dye,
Eterne fir I wol bifore thee fynde.
And eek to this avow I wol me bynde:
My beerd, myn heer, that hongeth long adoun, 2415
That nevere yet ne felte offensioun
Of rasour nor of shere, I wol thee yive,
 14
And ben thy trewe servant whil I lyve.
Now, lord, have routhe upon my sorwes soore;
Yif me [victorie]; I aske thee namoore.’ 2420
Knight’s Tale I (A) 2373 - 2420

Arcite, like Emelye before, establishes a hierarchical man – god relationship in

the first part of his invocation. It is, however, less prominent than the one
between Emelye and Diana, and he addresses Mars only once with god (l.
2373).

man to god
categorial difference
nominal TA, god &
traditional thou Mars

Arcite
level human being to god

Similar to Emelye, Arcite also points out similarities between himself and Mars
(cf. l. 2383f., 2391f., 2403f.) and establishes a ‘bond of solidarity’ so that
instead of talking to a god, he begins talking to a senior warrior and man who
has also experienced the pains of love. The traditional thou can be interpreted,
on this level, as a sign of solidarity, while the predominant nominal address of
the second half of his invocation, lord (l. 2402, 2419) mirrors Arcite’s attempt
to define his relationship to Mars primarily as one of vassal and liege-lord (see
also his offers of service, l. 2380f., 2406-2418).

vassal to liege-lord
hierarchy/power
nominal TA, lord
Mars

Arcite man to man

warrior to warrio
thou solidarity
level human being to human being

Palamon’s situation is more complicated. He invokes Venus with these words:

 15

‘Fairest of faire, O lady myn, Venus,

Doughter to Jove and spouse of Vulcanus,
Thow gladere of the mount of Citheron,
For thilke love thow haddest to Adoon,
Have pitee of my bittre teeris smerte, 2225
And taak myn humble preyere at thyn herte.
Allas! I ne have no langage to telle
Th’effectes ne the tormentz of myn helle;
Myn herte may myne harmes nat biwreye;
I am so confus that I kan noght seye 2230
But ‘Mercy, lady bright, that knowest weele
My thought and seest what harmes that I feele!’
Considere al this and rewe upon my soore,
As wisly as I shal for evermore,
Emforth my myght, thy trewe servant be, 2235
And holden werre alwey with chastitee.
That make I myn avow, so ye me helpe!
[...]
But I wolde have fully possessioun
Of Emelye, and dye in thy servyse.
Fynd thow the manere hou and in what wyse:
I recche nat but it may bettre be 2245
To have victorie of hem, or they of me,
So that I have my lady in myne armes.
For though so be that Mars is god or armes,
Youre vertu is so greet in hevene above
That if yow list, I shal wel have my love. 2250
Thy temple wol I worshipe everemo,
And on thyn auter, where I ride or go,
I wil doon sacrifice and fires beete.
And if ye wol nat so, my lady sweete,
Thanne preye I thee, tomorwe with a spere 2255
That Arcita me thurgh the herte bere.
[...]
Yif me my love, thow blisful lady deere.’ 2260
Knight’s Tale I (A) 2221-2260

The relationship human being – god(dess) that has been explicitly established in
the preceding two invocations is only present by implication in first few lines
(cf. ll. 2221-2223).
 16

man to goddess
hierarchy/power
nominal TA, e.g. doughter to Jove &
traditional thou Venus

Palamon
level human being to goddess

Palamon, like Arcite, attempts to establish a strong ‘vassal – liege-lord (or liege-
lady)’ relationship, which finds expression in his repeated use of lady (ll. 2221,
2231, 2254 and 2260). It gains additional prominence by means of ye (ll. 2237,
2249f. and 2254) and his offer of service (ll. 2235 and 2243).

knight to his liege-lady

knight to his beloved lady?
hierarchy/power
lady (& ye)
Venus

Palamon man to woman

thou ?lover to beloved?
?solidarity?
level human being to human being

Palamon starts out with the default form thou, yet repeatedly switches from thou
to ye38 and back. The reason for this pronominal instability may be seen in the
fact that Venus is of the opposite sex. Thus, also their hierarchical (‘human’)
relationship is in danger of being re- and misinterpreted in terms of a knight’s
service to his beloved lady (‘Minnedienst’). Because of this, Palamon finds it
difficult to establish an asexual, ‘companionable’ sub-relationship with the
goddess. He may turn to her trustingly, appealing to her mercy, and try to create
a certain feeling of solidarity by referring to a shared experience of love-longing
(l. 2224). Yet he does not succeed in establishing a ‘companionable’
relationship as is the case between Emelye and Diana and between Arcite and
Mars. He seems not to be able to ignore the fact that Venus is a woman, and he
a man. Thus, the stronger basic courtly relationship of a knight’s homage to his
lady (with ye as the pronoun of address) not only dominates the nominal

38 The switch from thou to ye occurs in lines 2237, 2249 and 2254.
 17
dimension of address, but also interferes with his use of pronouns. The thou is
too ambiguous on the ‘human level’ and Palamon is simply not able to hit the
right tone with Venus. The seemingly random switching between thou and ye is
thus the expression of Palamon’s interactional insecurity vis-à-vis Venus, which
he himself hints at when he confesses: “I am so confus” (l. 2230).

5 CONCLUSION
As has become clear from our analysis of the interactional sequences in The
Knight’s Tale, it is of the utmost importance to take a broader view when
analysing more involved interactional patterns. Concentrating on the pronouns
of address, as scholars have tended to do in the past, is too limited an approach
and does not do justice to the complexity of the matter. The prevalent model of
pronominal address must, if necessary, be complemented by a ‘situational’
analysis that takes into account all linguistic and nonlinguistic elements of
adversion. I have deliberately added ‘if necessary’, since such a comprehensive
analysis will, in most cases, merely confirm the findings of the more limited
thou/ye approach. In others, however, it will yield additional information or
even explain those cases which do not fit the general model.
 18
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
Blake, Norman (ed.). 1992. The Cambridge History of the English Language. Volume 2:
1066-1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Böhm, Annemarie. 1936. Entwicklungsgeschichte der englischen Titel und Anreden seit dem
16. Jahrhundert. Dissertation Berlin.
Braun, Fredericke. 1984. «Die Leistungsfähigkeit der von Brown/Gilman und Brown/Ford
eingeführten anredetheoretischen Kategorien bei der praktischen Analyse von
Anredesystemen.» In: Winter, Werner (ed.). 1984. Anredeverhalten. Tübingen: Gunter
Narr, 41-72.
Braun, Fredericke. 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various
Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Breuer, Horst. 1983. «Titel und Anreden bei Shakespeare und in der Shakespearezeit.» Anglia
101:49-77.
Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman. 1960. «The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.» In:
Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.). 1960. Style in Language. New York and London: The
Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons,
253-276.
Brown, Roger and Marguerite Ford. 1964. «Address in American English.» In: Hymes, Dell
(ed.). 1964. Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row, 234-244.
First published 1961 in: Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62:375-385.
Burnley, David. 1983. A Guide to Chaucer’s Language. London: Macmillan.
Burnley, David. 1990. «Langland’s Clergial Lunatic.» In: Phillips, Helen (ed.). 1990.
Langland, the Mystics and the Medieval English Religious Tradition. Essays in Honour
of S.S. Hussey. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 31-38.
Dickey, Eleanor. 1997. «Forms of Address and Terms of Reference.» Journal of Linguistics
33:255-274.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 1972. «Sociolinguistic Rules of Address.» In: Pride, J.B. and Janet
Holmes (eds.). 1972. Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin,
225-240. First published in: Berkowitz, L. (ed.). 1969. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology 4:93-107.
Evans, William W. 1967. «Dramatic Use of the Second-Person Singular Pronoun in Sir
Gawain and the Green Knight.» Studia Neophilologica 39:38-45.
Finkenstaedt, Thomas. 1963. You and Thou: Studien zur Anrede im Englischen (mit einem
Exkurs zur Anrede im Deutschen). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Ganter, August. 1905. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Anrede im Altfranzösischen. Dissertation
Heidelberg. Darmstadt: Otto’s Hof-Buchdruckerei.
Gilman, Albert and Roger Brown. 1958. «Who Says ‘Tu’ to Whom.» ETC: A Review of
General Semantics 15:169-174.
Honegger, Thomas. 1991. Der Gebrauch der Anredeformen im mittelalterlichen höfischen
Roman. (unpublished) M.A. thesis. University of Zurich.
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. «Comment on Brown and Gilman.» In: Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.).
1960. Style in Language. New York and London: The Technology Press of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, 278-279.
Kennedy, Arthur G. 1915. The Pronoun of Address in English Literature of the Thirteenth
Century. Stanford: Stanford University.
Koziol, Herbert. 1943. «Die Anredeformen bei Chaucer.» Englische Studien 75:170-174.
Manly, John M. and Edith Rickert. 1940. The Text of The Canterbury Tales Studies on the
Basis of All Known Manuscripts. Eight volumes. Chicago and London: The University
of Chicago Press.
Metcalf, Allan A. 1971. «Sir Gawain and You.» The Chaucer Review 5:165-178.
 19
Nathan, Norman. 1959. «Pronouns of Address in the Canterbury Tales.» Mediaeval Studies
21:193-201.
Pearsall, Derek. 1995. «The Franklin’s Tale, Line 1469: Forms of Address in Chaucer.»
Studies in the Age of Chaucer 17:69-78.
Ruggiers, Paul G. (ed.). 1979. The Canterbury Tales. A Facsimile and Transcription of the
Hengwrt Manuscript, with Variants from the Ellesmere Manuscript. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Sampson, Gloria Paulik. 1979. «Sociolinguistic Aspects of Pronoun Usage in Middle
English.» In: McCormack, William C. and Stephen A. Wurm (eds.). 1979. Language
and Society: Anthropological Issues. The Hague, Paris and New York: Mouton, 61-69.
Schentke, Manfred. 1962. Die Geschichte der pronominalen Anrede im Englischen.
Dissertation. Typoscript. Berlin: Humboldt-University Berlin.
Shimomoto, Keiko. 1986. The Use of Ye and Thou in the Canterbury Tales and its
Correlations with the Terms of Address and Forms of the Imperative. M.A. Thesis.
Sheffield: University of Sheffield.
Skeat, Walter W. (ed.). 1894. The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. 6 volumes. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Stoll, Rita. 1989. Die nicht-pronominale Anrede bei Shakespeare. Neue Studien zur Anglistik
und Amerikanistik 41. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Stidston, Russell Osborne. 1917. The Use of Ye in the Function of Thou in Middle English
Literature from MS. Auchinleck to MS. Vernon. Revised for publication by Arthur G.
Kennedy. Stanford: Stanford University.
Walcutt, Charles Child. 1935. «The Pronoun of Address in Troilus and Criseyde.»
Philological Quarterly 14:282-287.
Wales, Katie. 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Wilcockson, Colin. 1980. «Thou and Ye in Chaucer’s Clerk’s Tale.» The Use of English
31.3:37-43.