Accessing Politeness Axes

Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160
Accessing politeness axes: forms of address and terms of reference in early English correspondence
Minna Nevala
Research Unit for Variation and Change in English, Department of English, P.O. Box 24 (Unioninkatu 40 B), University of Helsinki, Helsinki FIN-00014, Finland Received 18 March 2003; received in revised form 16 January 2004; accepted 3 February 2004
Abstract There are certain areas of study where present-day pragmatics can learn from history. This article focuses on the socio-pragmatic aspects of forms of address and terms of reference in late 16th-century English correspondence. The aim of the study is to explore the extent to which the use of forms of address and reference, and the factors which inuence their choice, can be seen to have any general trends. A further goal is to relate these trends in historical data to such contemporary views as Brown and Levinsons [Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987] politeness theory, Comries [Linguistic politeness axes: speakeraddressee, speakerreferent, speakerbystander. Pragmatics Microche 1.7: A3, Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge, 1976] politeness axes, and Bells [Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13, 145204] audience design. The material itself, the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC), gives a unique opportunity to explore the inuence of factors like relative power and social distance on the use of forms of address and reference in the highly stratied society of the Renaissance period. The study shows that referential terms are often derived from the range of direct address formulae. In direct address, when the social status of either the addressee or the referent is very high, it seems to override the inuence of social distance. In reference, the reasons for the choice of an appropriate term are more complex, and the parameters set for, e.g., positive and negative politeness can no longer be seen as equally valid. # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Politeness; English; Socio-pragmatic aspect
1. Introduction The way we address someone directly and the manner in which we refer to that same person are not always the same. The use of direct address formulae is governed by a
E-mail address: minna.nevala@helsinki.fi (M. Nevala). 0378-2166/$ see front matter # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.02.001
2126
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160
relationship between two participants the speaker and the hearer. When choosing a term of reference, however, the speaker not only has to take into account his/her relationship with the hearer, but also has to decide how to present the referent in a situationally appropriate manner. Both direct address and reference have been largely studied from a pragmatic and sociolinguistic point of view. Studies that have presented politeness as an integral factor which inuences peoples choice of address forms include, e.g., Brown and Levinsons (1987) theory, which combines polite friendliness and polite formality, as well as Comries (1976) analysis along politeness axes. On the other hand, research done from a more discourse analytic angle mostly focuses on participant roles, as well as on address and reference as a means to clarify the functions of those roles (e.g., Bell, 1984, 2001; Clark and Murphy, 1982; Murphy, 1988; Schegloff, 1996). There have also been synchronic studies (Dickey, 1997; Allerton, 1996) which have concentrated on mapping the process of choosing appropriate forms for address and reference, and making generalisations on their usage. In this article, I will concentrate on the differences and similarities between the nominal forms of direct address and reference from a socio-pragmatic viewpoint. Instead of using present-day material, I study these forms in personal letters from the Early Modern English period, concentrating on the 16th-century correspondence of a father and a son, Sir Nicholas Bacon and Nathaniel Bacon. My chief aim is to explore whether any generalisations can be made on the use of forms of address and reference and the factors which inuence their choice in historical material like the Bacon letters. Because of both the historical material and the socially governed nature of address usage, I will also focus on the social aspects of letter-writing in Early Modern England. My second purpose is to see what features these forms have which parts are obligatory, especially in reference, for the referent to be clearly identied? Furthermore, I study how well the use of both direct address and reference in historical written material can be explained on the basis of contemporary theoretical views based on spoken data, such as Brown and Levinsons (1987) and Comries (1976) politeness axes, and Bells (1984, 2001) audience design. The pragmatic aspects I will study include the level of politeness indicated by the writer: How closely does the use of reference terms follow forms used in direct address? What is the degree of positive and negative politeness in address and reference? Which factors inuence the choice of different forms: Can direct address be considered a norm governing reference, as suggested by Dickey (1997), also when it denotes extreme positive politeness? Finally, in choosing a reference term, which is a more powerful determiner, the writers relationship with the addressee or with the referent?
2. Social constraints on direct address and reference 2.1. Early modern norms and conventions in letter-writing The hierarchical society of the Early Modern period (ca. 15001700) was based on the recognition of inequality. Differences in social status were reected in every aspect of life,
2127
from clothing to conventions in everyday contacts (Wrightson, 1982: 17; see also Briggs, 1999: 119120). The rank and degree of a person was an inseparable part of ones identity, and there were many ways in which this could be acknowledged. One of the most obvious was to use forms of address (for an overview on the use of titles, see e.g., Laslett, 1971: 27 29). Correspondence proved to be an excellent forum for practising ones social skills, among other purposes, and uent letter-writers were also aware of the importance of properly addressing their recipients. Letters were considered either public or personal, and address formulae varied accordingly, especially during the 17th century. Conventions were important, and although some writers became rather inventive, most people relied on the various letter-writing customs which developed over the centuries (for the use of letterwriting manuals, see Nevala, 2004). It must be remembered, however, that the Early Modern English address system differed greatly from that of present-day English. As Jucker and Taavitsainen (2003: 4) point out, choices made in the use of address forms are always culturally dependent and change in the course of time as old criteria become obsolete and come to be replaced by new criteria. The fact that Early Modern letters could be, or actually were, seen and read by people other than the person the letter was addressed to, introduced further complications. It was common that private letters were circulated or read aloud among members of the family, since they often contained news on important events: fathers of landed gentry families wrote their report-like accounts of London and perhaps even the Court, and mothers sent notes on how the family and household were getting along, not forgetting the ups and downs of their neighbours. It could well happen that even though the writer had meant the letter only for one person, the entire neighbourhood became aware of its contents sooner or later. Letters containing socially delicate information on matters of the state or eminent people were of course meant for the addressees eyes only. The reliability of the post was a real problem, and especially in the 16th century, letter-writers became most resourceful when it came to securing the secrets in their letters. In extreme cases, one way of indicating that the recipient should receive the letter intact was to draw the sign of the gallows alongside the address. If one also wanted to make sure that the important message got to its recipient as quickly as possible, the words for life, for life could be added in order to urge the postman to make a speedy delivery (Beale, 1998: 142). This did not, however, help much: especially letters from abroad were opened en route, and even the Privy Council ordered letters to be intercepted. Merchants, for example, used to send an additional copy of the original letter by another messenger, thus making sure their message would get through in one way or another. In addition to this, letters might be further secured by sealing them with a thread, or a hair, in scarlet wax. Direct address naturally changed according to its users. The formulae could be divided into nominal and pronominal forms. Examples (1a) and (1b) show some variants of the nominal usage.1 The rst one, a letter from Arthur Ingram to Thomas Wentworth, presents a deferential honoric, and the second one from Anne Howard to her son
1 The references after each example show the name of the letter collection in the corpus (for more information, see footnote 9), the year when the letter was written, the name of the writer and the exact page reference.
2128
Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, a more intimate use of a term of kinship and endearment. (1a) Worthi Sir, I hop now you ar gott home to your own howse and country ayrs, that you haue recouered your helth and ar becom a strong man, the which I shall bee right glad to hear of. (WENTWORTH: 1623, Arthur Ingram, 185) My good Sonne [. . .] Your opinion, sweete harte, for sending to my Lady Lumley, I will follow by writing very shortly. But I besech yu consider well consarning my entry of Hayling, for I doute the deferring of it may rather bring harme than otherwise. (ARUNDEL: 1609, Anne Howard, 59)
(1b)
The pronouns of direct address included the variants of thou, as an equivalent to French tu, and, more typically, of you, a counterpart to French vous (for a further analysis of their use in correspondence, see Nevala, 2002). Both pronouns could also be mixed and used in similar contexts, as in a letter from John Hoskyns to his wife Benedicta in Example (2):2 (2) when did I deal ungratefully wth thee? you must com Ben & refute them. (HOSKYNS: 1615, John Hoskyns Sr, 72)
Terms of reference were also chosen carefully. Especially when referring to a member of Royalty or a known figure, social status had to be made clear, as an extract from John Chamberlains letter to Alice Carleton in Example (3a) shows. Last names (henceforth LN) with titles were used of referents representing the gentry (Gabriel Harvey to John Young in Example 3b), and first names (henceforth FN) could be used either of referents with lower status, such as servants, or of someone close to the writer or the addressee, as in a letter from merchant Samuel Smith to Nathaniel Bacon (Example 3c). (3a) but the worst of all was that the King was so wearied and sleepie with sitting up almost two whole nights before, that he had no edge to yt, wherupon Sir Fra Bacon adventured to intreat his Majestie, that by this disgrace he wold not as yt were bury them quicke: (CHAMBERLAIN: 1613, John Chamberlain, I, 426) I besout M. Nevil that he wuld not deale so hardly bi me in that whitch concernd me so greatly: desiring him that he wuld not hinder me ani longer, but that I miht be nominatid that dai. (HARVEY: 1573, Gabriel Harvey, 3) 2 of the sayd tenantes, being some whatt sayd to for the evell nes of the corn, sayd that Thomas your baly would have had them to have browght {4 of sakes} fower sakes in a loode of your foysty barly & they would nott, for in very dede there owen was evell in Norfolk (BACON: 1580, Samuel Smith, II, 118)
(3b)
(3c)
2 In a recent study, Busse (2002: 287288) looks at the use of second-person pronouns in Shakespeare, and concludes that this kind of variation in the use of address pronouns is not in any way intralinguistically conditioned, i.e. no proper reasons can be found for switches between thou and you, besides the extralinguistic ones which concern genre variation. Busse criticises Brown and Gilmans (1989) view that the choice of the pronouns can always be predicted, and emphasises the fact that there is room for social negotiation even when the power relationship is asymmetrical.
2129
Possessive pronouns together with kinship terms (henceforth KT) were used, especially in correspondence between members of the family, as in Example (4a) of a letter from Elizabeth Hatton to her son Christopher. Kinship markers could often be followed by FN or LN, or a combination of both, as an extract from Lettice Gawdys letter to her husband Framlingham in Example (4b) shows. (4a) I presume you were shewed ye fine things yr father brought me: farrender for a gowne, and 6 pair of gloves, and a paire of stockens, wch is more yn I hoped for; and so sensible I am of ye kindnes yt I desir you to help me to thank him for it. (HATTON: 1666, Elizabeth Hatton, I, 50) I gaue my cousen Cresnar the three boukes you sent him the which hee giueth you many thankes for them I pray remembar my loue to my brouther Sr Charles vaughan and to my Cousen Iohn Games my sister francis and my cousen dorothy retureneth ther loue to you (GAWDYL: 1620s?, Lettice Gawdy, f. 143)
(4b)
Pronouns were not, however, used only on the purely deictic level, but also as a part of a conventionalised formula, as can be seen above in Example (3a) (his Majesty). Other referential terms of this kind were, for example, the terms Your Honour and my Lady. The differences in pronoun usage are further discussed in Sections 2.2 and 5.1.2. 2.2. Social and pragmatic models 2.2.1. Axes of address terms The use of forms of address is one of the ways in which politeness is manifested in speech and writing. Brown and Levinsons (1987) politeness theory is based on the recognition of positive and negative politeness, and in their theory, address can be used to show both. For example, when the speaker wishes to emphasise his/her close relationship with the hearer or the referent, positively polite formulae like FNs are most often used. Negative politeness is constructed as a means of avoiding face-threatening acts (FTAs), and this can be done by using, e.g., LNs and titles. Previous historical research on politeness as a means of analysing address use (see e.g., Brown and Gilman, 1989; Hope, 1993; Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg, 1995) has shown that Brown and Levinsons model is exible and can be developed for historical purposes. So far, few studies have made use of Wattss (1992, 2003) restrictive politeness model which categorises address terms as politic behaviour instead of proper (linguistic) politeness.3 Watts (1992: 6567; 2003: 19, 21, 133, 156, 169) repeatedly argues that since forms of address are chosen according to what is usually expected in a social interaction, they cannot be considered as conveying politeness, unless they are used in excess of what
3 Kopytko (1993: 116) separates address usage from other politeness strategies and leaves the door open for different interpretations, according to whether one thinks that forms of address reflect the ethos of the society, or whether address is seen as a ritualised form of discourse.
2130
is necessary to maintain the politic behaviour of an interaction.4 Naturally, this raises a whole new range of questions of what linguistic expressions can in the rst place be interpreted as being used in excess in each communicative situation. Moreover, Watts (2003: 156) generalises the notion that in highly institutionalised forms of social interaction deferential expressions, such as forms of address, constitute politic rather than properly polite behaviour to cover almost all use of address forms. This can hardly be seen as valid in all forms of social interaction, institutionalised or not, and there are bound to be differences, for example, between spoken and written communication. Instead of thinking, as Watts does, that address forms are routinised manifestations of social conventions that can be categorised as politic behaviour, I see that these conventions may themselves be looked at from an opposite angle, so that they can be said to work within, and for, politeness. This view allows us to describe diachronic change (which may or may not result in conventionalisation) better than Wattss theory of politic behaviour. Although Wattss model might be a practical way of describing (more static) present-day address usage, it still seems too restrictive for analysing diachronic variation and change, as opposed to Brown and Levinsons model, especially in the use of address. Brown and Levinsons strategies of positive and negative politeness allow us to study not only variation in the overall use of address terms, but also variation that occurs within the terms themselves. Their original aim to produce a theory which combines polite friendliness and polite formality in a single scheme makes it possible to see how address can function in terms of both positive and negative politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 283). Moreover, the use of address may result in a hybrid strategy, which includes features that are both positively and negatively polite (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 230). Brown and Levinsons categorisation of the main axes of address usage has been inuenced by, e.g., Comries (1976) study of linguistic politeness.5 In his brief analysis of address and reference systems in different languagesincluding Japanese, Javanese and RomanianComrie (1976: 5) introduces a new point of view by arguing that the traditional understanding of the tu/vous (T/V) opposition is in fact false: instead of classifying the distinction as a system of addressee politeness, he sees it as a case of referent politeness. In his opinion, when using the T/V distinction, it is possible to show politeness to the addressee only if he/she is referred to in the sentence itself, i.e., when the addressee is the referent.6 In some languages (e.g., Japanese, Javanese), it is possible to show addressee politeness by using certain lexical items or grammatical particles which do not refer to the addressee at all. T/V opposition cannot, however, be used for addressee
This view seems to be shared by Thomas (1995: 152) who argues that address forms become pragmatically interesting only when they involve a strategic choice on the part of the speaker, i.e., when the speaker deliberately wants to use address terms to change the relationship he/she has with the addressee. 5 By the term honorifics Brown and Levinson (1987: 179) mean the direct grammatical encodings of relative social status between participants, or between participants and persons or things referred to in the communicative event. As for participant roles, Murphy (1988: 324) criticises both Levinson (1979) and Comrie (1976) for their inadequate discussion of addressee-referent relations: in Murphys opinion, speakers may have to take the relationship between the addressee and the referent into account when avoiding an FTA against the addressee in a reference situation. 6 In his 1996 article, Lerner (1996) discusses the difficulties caused by the use of reference terms that are not clear to the hearer(s) and the intended recipient. These forms include such recipient indicators as the pronoun you which cause problems in communicative situations where the addressee the referent.
4
2131
politeness, since, for example, sentences in French like Pierre attend Franc oise (Pierre is waiting for Franc oise) cannot make use of the T/V opposition to convey the politeness shown, or not shown, by the speaker to the addressee. Furthermore, Comrie challenges the use of the performative hypothesis in the analysis of politeness by showing that Sadocks (1974) claimthat expressions of politeness are restricted to the speaker, the hearer and the overt referentis inadequate. In Comries opinion, those persons who are not overtly referred to in the sentence, i.e., overhearers and bystanders, could also have an inuence on expressions of politeness (for further analysis of this in audience design, see Section 2.2.2). Based on this, Comrie proposes three separate axes of linguistic politeness: the speaker addressee axis, which can be applied to what I call direct address; the speakerreferent axis, which means the overt referential forms; and the speakerbystander axis, which presents formulae of either direct address or reference that covertly express the relation of the speaker to any bystanders or overhearers.7 As can be seen in Fig. 1, Brown and Levinson (1987: 181) have added a fourth axis, i.e., the speaker-setting axis, which they refer to as a socially deictic relation between social roles assumed by the speaker and the audience. According to them, referent honorics, e.g in linguistic systems like Japanese (and this could be extended to referential terms in general), are sensitive to in-group membership. In reference, as well as in direct address, the relationships between the speaker, hearer, referent, overhearer and bystander, etc., can be said to be inuenced not only by social distance, but also by relative power. Brown and Levinson (1987: 77, 178ff.) connect great power difference with giving deference, which in turn is categorised as a strategy of negative politeness. They note that deference can be shown in two different ways: the speaker may either humble him/herself or raise the hearer to show that he/she is not in a position to coerce H[earer]s compliance in any way (for a discussion of politeness maxims of approbation and modesty, see Leech, 1983: 135138). Watts (2003: 80, 176) simply classies deference as politic behaviour which the speaker learns as a child through a process of socialisation. Also Thomas (1995: 150) separates deference from politeness proper, and sees the difference between deference and politeness as a matter of showing respect vs. showing consideration towards other people. Interestingly enough, showing consideration and respect to the hearer are rather near to Brown and Levinsons view of humbling the self and raising the hearer, and Watts denition of deference as a form of politic behaviour tells us nothing else of deference than that it is a fundamentally social phenomenon.
Comrie (1976: 11, footnotes 4 and 7) shows an explicit example of bystander politeness by explaining the use of the verbs perspire and sweat in discussing the consequences of hot weather during a royal parade. Watchers of the show may agree that the soldiers sweated but the queen perspired (referent politeness, since the queen is not present at the time of utterance, but her royal status must still be taken into account). But if they met the queen herself, they might comment on the event by saying to her that the soldiers perspired. The latter use of the verb perspire would be an example of addressee politeness, since the watchers would both address the queen directly and take her status into account. Furthermore, if the two watchers thought the queen was likely to overhear them or otherwise be in the vicinity, they would most probably say that the soldiers perspired in this case as well (bystander politeness; the queen is not addressed or referred to directly, but since she is likely to hear what is said, the speakers have to take her status into consideration).
2132
Referent
Speaker
Addressee
Bystander
Setting
Fig. 1. Politeness axes (taken from Brown and Levinson, 1987: 181).
Referential terms involve the communication of the speakerreferent relation, which means that the hearer or the addressee may calculate what the relation is between him/ herself and the speaker by looking at both the speakerreferent and the speakeraddressee relations. This is shown especially with such deictic pronouns as my, your and his/her, which work differently when used as a part of a direct address form. For example in direct address in correspondence, if the writer uses the form your worship, the pronoun your is of course used, in a way, to make the recipient a deictic centre, but since the entire formula is conventionalised as a highly deferential address term, I would argue that it cannot be used on the same concrete level of deixis as it would when used as a part of a referential formula like your husband.8 Dickey (1997: 260) claims that when referring to a person who is unknown to the addressee, the speakers use of reference terms is dictated by the need to convey certain information about the referent. Deictic pronouns appear to be one way of pinpointing the exact referent to the addressee. It may be argued, however, whether this usage is limited to the existent addresseereferent relationship. It seems more probable that pronouns may vary according to the addressee: basically, pronouns such as my function in the same way whether the referent is known to the addressee or not. 2.2.2. Audience design Bells (1984) sociolinguistic study of language variation is based on the notion that style means speakers response to their audience. Bell draws a preliminary dichotomy between linguistic and extralinguistic variation, of which the latter is further divided into interspeaker (social) and intraspeaker (stylistic) variation. The social factors include, e.g., class and age of different speakers, whereas the stylistic factors range from topic of discussion to addressee design within the speech of a single person. The two categories are interdependent so that variation in the stylistic dimension derives from variation in the
8 Levinson (1992: 91) notes that this kind of address, which conveys socially deictic, absolute, information, includes formulae reserved for authorized recipients. These forms are solely dependent on and restricted by the status of the referent. Moreover, in the process of establishing the socially deictic centre, other honorifics, humble expressions, relational designations (father, boss) and intimate forms of address (daddy) are used, as Fludernik (1993: 43) points out (for more on kinship terms used for situationally defined reference, see Section 2.2.2; Allerton, 1987: 80; Braun, 1998: 254256).
2133
social dimension (the so-called Style Axiom; see Bell, 1984: 151). Therefore, a variable cannot be seen to have intraspeaker variation if it has no interspeaker variation. This correlation between the social and stylistic dimensions is the basis of what Bell (1984: 159) calls audience design. It means that people respond to other people so that they design their speech at all linguistic levels (including address and reference) according to their hearers. Audience roles are then ranked on the basis of whether the hearers are known, ratied or addressed by the speaker (i.e., whether they are addressees, auditors, overhearers or eavesdroppers). The so-called responsive dimension of audience design includes both addressee design and auditor effect. Bell (1984: 161ff.) links style variation on this level to the accommodation model, which hypothesises that a person accommodates his/her speech to the addressee in order to be approved (on accommodation theory, see also e.g., Giles and Smith, 1979; Coupland and Giles, 1988). As already stated in Section 2.2.1, the relationship between the speaker and the addressee is governed by distance and status (power), which can most visibly be seen in the use of address. Moreover, direct address can work as a marker of style variation, showing the social mechanisms present in audience design. When writing a letter, for instance, there is usually one intended recipient, sometimes several, and this can be indicated by the choice of address formulae. The writer may choose a form by which he/she shows that there is only one possible addressee, especially in intimate relationships, by using a term of endearment or a nickname, as Queen Elizabeth I does in her letter to Robert Dudley in Example (5). The two os she uses correspond to two eyes, originating most probably from the fact that Dudley acted as her eyes and ears at the Court. (5) Now will I end that to imagine I talk still with you, and therefore loathly say farewell, O O, though ever I pray God bless you from all harm and save you from all foes, with my million and legion of thanks for all your pains and cares. (Beale, 1998: 197)
The writer may also use address to indicate that the letter is intended to be seen by more than one reader. This is usually done by using, for example, KTs or other nominal forms in the plural, as in Examples (6a) and (6b) (from the same letter), where Winifrid Thimelby writes to her nephews and nieces rst addressing them collectively and later in the letter, each one in turn. This strategy makes it possible for the recipients to choose themselves whether to let one person read the letter to everyone or let the letter circulate, as was often done in the Early Modern period. (6a) My dear Children, Girls and Boys, Ever since my jubily, I have longd for opportunity to convay thes little things wear given me then; because I expect none so fine agen. (TIXALL: 1670s, Winifrid Thimelby, 96) God bless sweet Mall, Wat, and Hab, and all of you. I forgot to tell thee Gatt, I never had that letter yr father tells me you ritt; but Franck I had both of yours, and sent a little purs, and christall, to thee, by one Mr. Digby; but I doubt he ner delivered it, tho he promised fare. (TIXALL: 1670s, Winifrid Thimelby, 97)
(6b)
2134
The so-called second addressees include auditors, overhearers, bystanders and eavesdroppers (for more discussion on conversational roles, see e.g., Goffman, 1981: 131ff.; Levinson, 1992: 7273; Wilson and Zeitlyn, 1995: 7275). Also in this case, these third persons are present in the speech situation: auditors are ratied participants but overhearers are not. In correspondence, it could be argued that certain reference terms may be used instead of direct address formulae in order to indicate that the writer knows there are other possible readers than the intended addressee (sometimes even the person referred to). This may be overt (ratied auditors) or covert (unratied eavesdroppers), depending on whether the writer wishes to present the addressee with the possibility of passing the news to others or not. The writer may express the permission to speak to a third person about the matter in question by straightforwardly saying, e.g., tell this to your father or read this to my wife. In this case the referents could be seen as auditors, as in Example (7): (7) Speak yoe mynde to the Lady of Bedford in my behalf, and tell her that the weather hath bin very vnfauorable to the proceedinges of her picture. (CORNWALLIS: 1614, Nathaniel Bacon Jr., 20)
In the case where the writer knows, or even fears, that there may be other people reading the letter, although it is not so intended, he/she may use, for example, a cipher to try to prevent possible overhearers and eavesdroppers from nding out who is referred to. Whereas open expressions are often used in letters between intimates, these kinds of attempts to keep a referent secret are used in correspondence handling, e.g., matters of state, as can be seen in Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemias letter to Sir Thomas Rowe (Example 8; the name in brackets added by the editor): (8) As of there envoyes heere confessed plainlie the other day in privat to 128.219.130 [the Prince of Orange] who expostulated the matter with him, that the Cardinall finding the Duke of Weimars army desired my sonne he stayed him to hinder it, which plaine enough to be seene. (ROYAL2: 1639, Elizabeth of Bohemia, SP 81/48, f. 190)
In addition to responsive design, Bell distinguishes an initiative axis of style which includes what he calls referees (1984: 186).9 These are third persons who are not physically present in a communicative situation but nevertheless inuence the language the speakers or writers use. The result is that the speaker shifts from addressee-oriented to referee-oriented style. Referee design can then be further divided into in-group design (identifying with the speakers own group) and out-group design (oriented towards an outside reference group). The use of reference terms may of course be taken as an example of a certain type of referee design. In letters, the writer may wish to express whether he/she is a member of the
9 Bell (2001: 165) has revised his earlier view of treating referee design as a secondary dimension to audience design, and now thinks that the two aspects may instead operate as complementary and co-existent in all speech events.
2135
in-group or the out-group by referring to a third person with a term which can be easily interpreted. Writers socially superior or equal to their addressee and/or referent may want to stress either their superiority or in-group properties by using intimate terms of reference of someone in their own in-group (but not of the addressees).10 On the other hand, there are situations in which a writer is socially inferior to the addressee and/or the referent. The writer may wish to give the impression that he is a close member of the referents in-group, although it is clear from the context that he is not. If the referent were his close friend, it would be more probable that he used, e.g., title LN, or perhaps even FN, when referring to the referent. In Example (9), Daniel Defoe in his letter to Robert Harley emphasises his relationship with the referent(s) by using a qualifying formula my particular friend and a referential term all my friends: (9) But the Mayor being Out of Town, the Next principle Magistrate, whom they Call a Justice as having been Mayor The year before, was my perticular Friend, And here was the first and Onely Time I showd your Pass, Takeing the hint from your Letter of useing it with Caution. This So Encouragd the Magistrate and all my Friends That I might have assurd my self here of Protection, and the Measures of the Other party in the Town Seemd Entirely broke. (DEFOE: 1705, Daniel Defoe, 99)
In addition to Bell, Dickey (1997) and Allerton (1996) have compared the use of address forms and terms of reference in present-day material. One purpose in both studies is to establish common rules for the derivation, or predicting, of reference terms from direct address forms. In Dickeys (1997: 256) opinion, the choice and use of both direct address and reference is socially rather than lexically determined, a view also shared by Allerton (1996: 622).11 Direct address has been found to be more consistent than reference; it could therefore be considered the normal form from which reference may be seen to deviate. Both Dickey and Allerton acknowledge the centrality of shifting between different viewpoints, especially in reference, and it is clear, as Allerton (1996: 623624) notes, that both sociolinguistic conventions and compromises become even more crucial in such communicative situations where there are more than two participants. Choosing a mode of reference means adopting another standpoint, whether that of the addressee or the overhearer. Dickey and Allerton conclude that the reference term used is usually chosen according to the direct address form which the addressee uses of the referent. For example, if a university lecturer knows that a student addresses his/her fellow lecturer as
10 Murphy (1988: 328) uses the term name-dropping when talking about this kind of flaunting of social advantage. In his opinion it could be socially awkward to use, for example, FN as a reference term if the addressee did not enjoy an equally intimate relationship with the referent as the speaker. 11 Dickey (1997: 256) suggests that the term literal meaning could be replaced by lexical meaning, which could in turn be distinguished from social meaning. Therefore, a choice like the one between using Jane and Mrs. Smith when addressing or referring to a woman named Jane Smith would be socially determined.
2136
Dr. Smith, it is likely that the lecturer also refers to the colleague as Dr. Smith when talking to the student. Moreover, Dickey (1997: 268) notes that the addressees inferiority/superiority inuences the choice of reference terms in a particular way: in general, when talking to a person who is either younger or inferior to the referent, the speaker uses the term the addressee would use in direct address to the referent. For example, a wife may refer to her husband by using the term daddy when talking to their child, a term she would not herself normally use in direct address to him (see also footnote 17). Correspondingly, she claims that when talking to a superior, the speaker may sometimes choose that superiors forms of address (e.g., students may refer to their teacher by using FN instead of the normally used title LN when in conversation with another teacher). Allerton goes further than Dickey in his analysis of reference usage. By relating his ndings to Grices (1975) conversational maxims, he introduces a maxim of his own, avoid variation in form for the same meaning (Allerton, 1996: 623). This means that speakers should choose the same term to refer to the same referent where possible.12 In reality, this creates what Allerton calls tension between the speakers, since speakers cannot always use the same term for a certain referent. The situation can only be resolved by making compromises: if, for example, the speaker uses FN to refer to his close colleague and the addressee uses title LN when referring to the same person, they can both compromise and call the referent by FN LN. The notion of compromise is particularly evident in communication between people who are distant to each other in some way. In conversation between family members, on the other hand, the choice of reference term is more a question of convention, which means that one participants form is adopted as a reference term for a shared relative. This adopted term then usually corresponds to the term used in direct address to the referent by the addressee.
3. Method and material In order to illustrate the use of direct address and reference in the present study, I have chosen to present two members of a prestigious Norfolk family from the turn of the 17th century, the Bacons: Sir Nicholas Bacon and his son Nathaniel Bacon. These informants were chosen mainly because there are many letters written directly to them, and, moreover, because they are constantly referred to in letters written by various people, from nuclear family members to correspondents outside kin relations.
Clark and Marshall (1981) discuss the importance of mutual knowledge in determining the referent. Murphy (1988: 340) mentions mutual information as the basis of cooperativeness in his Rule of Polite Reference. Hanks (1992: 59, 67ff.) also writes about the sufficient background knowledge, a common framework, the speaker and the addressee must have for the reference to be successful. Evans (1982: 379) uses the term common knowledge, Clark and Murphy (1982: 288) talk about common ground. Schegloff (1996: 459) makes a distinction between recognitional reference and non-recognitional reference. When using the former, both the speaker and the addressee know who the referent is; in the latter, only the speaker may be able to identify the referent.
12
2137
F (close)
TC
T (distant)
FNr
FO
inferior
equal
superior
older
+ older
older
+ older
Fig. 2. The organisation of the data.
My material is drawn from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC), a database which, in its extended version, consists of personal letters from 1410 to 1800.13 For the analysis, I searched for every address form and term of reference both in the letters written directly to my two informants and in those letters in which either Sir Nicholas or Nathaniel Bacon were referred to by name, kinship term or title. In those cases where I could not be sure of which male member of the Bacon family was referred to (the forms my lord, Mr. Bacon or Bacon), I rst relied on contextual evidence and nally left out the instances in which it was absolutely impossible to determine the referent. The names of all who either directly wrote of referred to Sir Nicholas and Nathaniel, together with the quantitative information of the material used, are listed in Appendices A to E. The data was then organised according to the determiners of distance and power (including age), as seen in Fig. 2. By distance, I mean the symmetric notions of social similarity as well as familiarity, scaling from close to distant. For example, a family member may be close in terms of both social similarity and familiarity, but a friend may be close in terms of familiarity, though not in terms of social similarity (rank), which leads us to differences in relative power. Power is about asymmetric differences in social rank, on the one hand, and relative power of control, on the other, i.e., it ranges from superior to inferior. For example, a member of the nobility may be superior to a member of the gentry both in terms of social rank and control, whereas a member of a nuclear family may be equal in terms of social rank but superior in control, as e.g., a father is to a child. I see these two concepts as interactive elements which may alter either on a social or situational level.14
13 The 1998 version of the CEEC has been compiled by the Sociolinguistics and Language History team at the Department of English, University of Helsinki (compilers: Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, Jukka Keranen and myself). It consists of 2.7 million words in 96 letter collections from around 14101681. An extension consisting of letter material covering the 18th century is currently under compilation (at present adding up to a total of over one million words). More information on the project and the corpus can be found from the website http://www.eng.helsinki.fi/varieng/team2 and Laitinen (2002). A sampler corpus (CEECS) is available on the second ICAME CD-ROM. The references to the collections primarily used in this study, BACON and PARKHURST, as well as other collections in the corpus can be found in, e.g., Nurmi (1999). 14 Spencer-Oatey (1996: 21) discusses the concepts of both power and distance in depth in her article, and concludes that there is great inconsistency between the different meanings of the terms used by researchers. She further points out that connotations on power and distance may vary according to cultural differences. For example, power may be seen as a negative dominance, as it is usually understood in English.
2138
Abbreviations in the gures, as well as in Appendices A to E, are as follows: FNr (nuclear family members), FO (other members of kin), FS (family servants), TC (close friends)15 and T (other writers). My purpose with this classication was to nd factors governing the choice of the formulae and to facilitate the prediction of their usage according to politeness variables.
4. The case study: the Bacons 4.1. Sir Nicholas Bacon (1510?1579) Sir Nicholas became the Lord Keeper to Elizabeth I in 1558. By that time, his marriage to Jane, daughter of merchant Thomas Ferneley, had produced seven children: Nicholas, Nathaniel, Edward, John, Elizabeth, Anne, and another Elizabeth. After the death of his rst wife in 1552, Sir Nicholas married Anne, daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke, with whom he had four more children: Anthony, Francis, Susan and Mary. Sir Nicholas has been characterised as vigorous and idiosyncratic (Hassell Smith et al., 1978: xviii). He was very keen on knowing everything that happened at home while he was attending his duties at Court, which also included dealing with every aspect of his childrens lives. His critical instructions affected especially his sons, and so they soon learned to be precise in every detail from business to estate management. Thanks to his useful position as the Lord Keeper, many of his children soon established connections with the Court: Anthony became Secretary to the Earl of Essex and Francis became Lord Chancellor, whereas the two Elizabeths found their husbands among courtiers. As expected, the material shows many instances of the recognition of Sir Nicholass high social status as a knight and the Lord Keeper, as seen in Fig. 3. In general, the manner in which Sir Nicholas is directly addressed can be analysed as denoting extreme negative politeness, regardless of the distance between the writer and the recipient. There is only one nuclear family member writing to Sir Nicholas, namely his son Nathaniel, who uses the forms Your (good) Lordship and Sir in his letters, as seen in Example (10). Nathaniels use of deferential forms of address remains the same during the 9 years of correspondence with his father. (10) Fearinge that your Lordship wolde thinke some slaknes in me, I thought best to writ this letter, though it be litle to the aunsweringe of the chefest of the remembrances which your Lordship at my comminge from yow gave unto me. (BACON: 1572, Nathaniel Bacon, I,32)
Similar types of negatively polite formulae can be found in letters written by other than kin. The form Your Honour is used by inferior writers, especially John Mounford, a family
15 These categories follow the ones set for the writeraddressee relationship in the CEEC. Especially when determining the parameters for a close friendship, the compilers have relied on extensive external material, including the Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) and each editors background knowledge of the correspondents.
2139
F (close)
TC
no examples
T (distant)
FNr
FO
inferior
Your Honour, Your Lordship
equal
my Lord, Your Lordship
superior
no examples
older
+ older
older
+ older
Sir, Your (good) Lordship
no examples
no examples
no examples
Fig. 3. Sir Nicholas Bacon: direct address.
servant (Example 11). Unfortunately, there is only one letter from Mounford to Sir Nicholas in the CEEC, but the use of your honour and your worship can also be seen in Mounfords letters to Nathaniel (for more on letters of servants to Nathaniel, see Section 4.2). (11) My dewtye remembred unto your honor, thes shalbe to lette your honor undrestond that I have troden owt the felde. Accordyng unto your honors appoyntment I have fownd owt that there belonggythe to Mr. Corbettes lease & John Calthroppes in eryable londes & medowes as apperythe by a particuler byll that I send unto your honor herin enclosed, & all other profyghtes belonggyng unto the sayd manors mensyonyd in the byll aforsayd. (BACON: 1572, John Mounford, I, 28)
The next excerpts show the use of direct address in letters written by more distant writers, both inferior and equal. In Examples (12) and (13) the writers, Edmund Banyard and George Gascoigne, are socially inferior to Sir Nicholas, whereas in Examples (14) and (15) the address formulae used are from the letters of social equals, Edward Fiennes, Lord Admiral, and Sir Francis Walsingham, Secretary of State. (12) Right honnorable, my bounden duetie remembred. That wheras I have made soundrye and dyverse meanes unto your honnour, as well by gyvinge out of quitaunces as by the mocione of my frindes, for the monye in your honnors handes. (BACON: 1574, Edmund Banyard, I, 135) My verie favorable good Lorde, beinge latelye receavede into Her Majesties service (wherin I hope to recover my decayede estate) I devisede to presente all my lordes and good frendes in Cowrte with certayne [Emblems] for their Newyeres gyftes, an exercyes (as I judge) neyther unplesante nor unproffitable. (BACON: 1578, George Gascoigne, II, 3) My verie good Lord, yt maie pleas you to understand that this daie Hoobbard and the rest which have committed offencys appon the cost of Norffolke and Suffolke have ben before my Lordes of the Councell. (BACON: 1576, Edward Fiennes, I,220)
(13)
(14)
2140
F (close)
TC
no examples
T (distant)
FNr
FO
inferior
my Lord, Sir Nicholas your father, my Lord Keeper, his Lordship
equal
your father, my Lord your father
superior
no examples
older
+ older
older
+ older
my father, my Lord
no examples
your father, my Lord
no examples
Fig. 4. Sir Nicholas Bacon: reference.
(15)
Ryght honorable and my verry good Lord, I sende your Lordship a coppye of my Lords letters by the which you may perceyve what order is taken by them for the shypps and goodes stayed by your Lordships sonne Mr. Nathanaell Bacon. (BACON: 1576, Francis Walsingham, I, 223)
If we then turn to the terms used to refer to Sir Nicholas in Fig. 4, we notice that regardless of social distance between the writer and the recipient, forms such as my Lord (Keeper), or when in a letter to a member of Sir Nicholass kin, my lord your father, are mostly used. In letters written by family members, Sir Nicholas is referred to with the term my father by his sons Nathaniel and Nicholas Jr. They also use my lord, which appears in other relatives letters as well, including Edward, one of Sir Nicholass younger sons. In Examples (16) and (17) we can see extracts from Nicholas Jr.s letter to Sir William Cecil and Robert Bacons (Sir Nicholass nephew) letter to Nathaniel. (16) Whereas I have received your honores letters understandynge thereby that there hathe greate speeches paste betwen my brother and your Lordship concernynge the matters in question betwen my brother Anthoney and my selfe touchynge my fatheres will. (BACON: 1579, Nicholas Bacon Jr., II, 77) thirdly yf he were justly to answhere uppon his conscience I thinke he canne but affirme that notwithstanding [the havinge] my Lord your fathers good cowntenance he had hardlie obtayned his wyf withowt my helpe whicch was as foloweth (BACON: 1584, Robert Bacon, II, 283)
(17)
More distant writers, such as family servants and acquaintances, refer to Sir Nicholas alike: if the letter is intended for a family member, my lord your father is common (Example 18); if the letter is exchanged between people who are both distant to Sir Nicholas, my Lord Keeper is used, as can be seen in Example (19). Example (20) shows a passage from a formal letter from the Privy Council to Nathaniel, hence the obligation to refer to Sir Nicholas in a strictly official manner, regardless of the close relationship between the addressee and the referent.
2141
(18)
(19)
(20)
I have spoken with my cousyn Stubbes and by my int[reaty] he is contented the matter for the purchase to ha[ve] in suspence untyll my Lord your fathers comyng in to the countrye. (BACON: 1578, Christopher Heydon, II, 17) These shalbe tadvertise yowe that, as I am enformed, my Lord Keper of the Great Seall hath bowght the lordship of Stifkey alias Stewkey of Mr. Banyard, and I for mye owne parte mean not to deall in sewttes of law with any thinge that apperteineth unto his honour. (BACON: 1570, Stephen Nevinson, I, 13) After our hartie commendacions. We have bene made acquainted with your letters written to our verie good Lord the Lord Keper, your father, towchinge suche spoiles as have bene committed uppon that coaste by certeine Englishemen pretendinge to serve under forreyne commission, contrarie to Her Majestes proclamacion in that case sett forthe. (BACON: 1576, Privy Council, I, 208)
The material indicates that in direct address Sir Nicholass superior social status, as well as his social role as the father of the family, overrules whatever influence distance may have on the use of formulae. The use of referential terms, however, is more governed by the nature of the relationship between Sir Nicholas and the writer/the addressee. Kinship is recognised, and in many cases even emphasised, by using a KT alone, or together with a title, in letters written to Sir Nicholass family members. 4.2. Nathaniel Bacon (1546?1622) The second son of Sir Nicholas and Jane Bacon, Nathaniel, was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and Grays Inn. In spite of his fathers eminent position at Court, Nathaniel stayed in Norfolk, and after his marriage to Anne, daughter of Sir Thomas Gresham, and acquiring ve children, he was content to keep ofce as a local J.P. for almost 50 years. He became a valued member of many commissions and twice Sheriff of Norfolk before being knighted in 1604. Nathaniel was an earnest, severe and rather self-righteous man (Hassell Smith et al., 1978: xvii). He was a true puritan, and his letters consisted more of facts of business and politics than of ordinary life and everyday gossip. His interests lie in nding ways in which legislation could be used to reduce the ills of society, and his puritan heart was set on social and moral reform. In his opinion, the church and its bishops should do what they did best: preach and teach, not administrate. If we look at the direct address used in letters to Nathaniel in Fig. 5, we can see a clear division between the letters that are written by those who are close to Nathaniel, i.e., family, kin and friends, and those that are written by more distant correspondents. Nuclear family members use FN, LN, KT, as well as combinations of all of them. Sir Nicholas addresses Nathaniel with the forms son Nathaniel, son Bacon or plain FN, brothers and sisters use terms like brother Nathaniel or good brother, but Nathaniels halfbrother Anthony addresses him also as brother Bacon. Nathaniels daughter Anne Town-
2142
F (close)
TC
my good friend, Sir, Mr Nathaniel, Mr Bacon
T (distant)
FNr
FO
inferior
Sir, Your Worship, Right Worshipful, your Lordship, Mr Bacon, Mr Nathaniel
equal
Sir, Mr Nathaniel, cousin Bacon, Mr Sheriff
superior
Sir, Mr Bacon
older
+ older
older
+ older
brother, brother Bacon, brother Nathaniel, most dear father
son, Nathaniel, brother
brother Bacon, brother Nathaniel, cousin Nath
son, cousin, son Bacon
Fig. 5. Nathaniel Bacon: direct address.
shend begins her letter with most dear father. Example (21) shows direct address in a letter from Edward Bacon, Nathaniels younger brother. (21) Brother, I somewhat dout yow have not received all [the letters] I have sent yow. Thome Hawtyn telleth me of [a] letter [that] shold not be delivered, beinge inclosed in a letter from hym [to] yow. (BACON: 1572, Edward Bacon, I, 42)
More examples of similar type of positively polite address formulae can be found when looking at letters written by other relatives, such as in-laws: cousin Nath, son Nathaniel, brother Nathaniel and son Bacon are common. Example (22) is a passage from Nathaniels cousin Robert Blackman, showing a typical term of address in a relatives letter. KT is an inseparable part of an address form here, especially in letters from Nathaniels in-laws (Example 23; from Nathaniels father-in-law Sir Thomas Gresham). (22) Cosen Nath, yow shall understande that I thancke Gode that I am well recowered, thanckes be to God, and I troste to se yow at Cockethrope shortely after Newerstyde [New-years tide]. (BACON: 1573? Robert Blackman, I, 99) Sonne Bacon, I thanke you for the paines you have taken about my busines. And wheras [you] writt me that Mr Sydnie claymeth mor land bie 7 or 8 acrs then was ment should be passed unto him and therfore desier to have the counterpaine of his conveyance, I would have sent you the same but I cannot presentlie come bie yt, but at the terme I will take advise therin. (BACON: 1579, Thomas Gresham, II, 108)
(23)
Negative politeness is used when social distance varies: family servants address Nathaniel with the highly deferential right worshipful, your worship or your honour (Example 24), whereas friends use sir and the more neutral good Mr Bacon (Example 25).
2143
(24)
(25)
Syr, my dewtye remembryd thys ys to lett your worchype understand that I have talked with Mr Bosom for a thowsand wod and he sayth that you shall have of the best & better chepe than he wyll sell to any man, but I could not gett hym to name anye pryce how he wold sell ytt; (BACON: 1576, John Mounford, I, 77) I perceve by your letter, good Mr Bacon, that Mr Sidnay with other lessees enter apon courts leets and manreds of men to the great prejudice, and almost overthrowe, of my hole office wherof you have the deputation with some charge which you bestowed on me. (BACON: 1591, Roger North, III, 117)
More distant writers may alter their address by using formulae ranging from the neutral cousin Bacon to the negatively polite sir or right worshipful, as seen in Example (26). The form Master Bacon is commonly used in this category (Example 27; a letter of John Saunders, a servant of Nathaniels father-in-law), and forms like good Mr Sheriff, Mr Nathaniel and mine loving friend Mr Bacon also appear.16 (26) Right worshipfull, my duetie remembred. Yt may please you to understand that this day the constables of Aylesham showed your letter sent to theim yesterday to Sir Edward Clere who demaunded of theim where the first warrant was, which they told him was with the chief constables as the tr[u]th was. (BACON: 1583, Stephen Drury, II, 270) Mr Bacon, my dewtie of humble commendations remembred. The opportunitie of this [the] bringer, with the remembraunce of the manifolde benefites from you received, woulde not suffer me to let slipe this occasion but that I must troble you with these rude lines. (BACON: 1576, John Saunders, I, 183184)
(27)
Referential terms used by nuclear family members, presented in Fig. 6, do not differ much from the direct address. My brother FN or LN is used, and Sir Nicholas refers to his son with my son Nathaniel. Nathaniels wife Anne uses, on the other hand, only the term my husband in letters to her relatives (Example 28). (28) My husbande hetherto hath provided nothinge towardes our goinge to house. I thinke the let be because he is not able. It were a hard matter by our one yeares savinge to spare so mutch as wolde serve to provide us stuff for our house but in the meanest sort. (BACON: 1572, Anne Bacon 3, I, 25)
The form Mr Bacon is used by other writers. What clearly differs from the formulae used by distant writers in direct address is the fact that the positively polite form your brother Nathaniel appears alongside of more negatively polite forms like your lordships son Mr Nathaniel Bacon, as seen in Example (29). These terms are all used in letters to either
16 Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1995) have also used Nathaniel for a case study on address forms in letter salutations. They point out (1995: 582) that letters to Nathaniel included a strategy called no-naming which was a convention often used in official correspondence. However, in letters written to Nathaniel, those who use no-naming also include members of his immediate kin, for which reason Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg conclude that no-naming itself does not mean distance or lack of familiarity.
2144
F (close)
TC
no examples
T (distant)
FNr
FO
inferior
Mr Bacon
equal
Mr Bacon, Mr Nathaniel Bacon
superior
your brother Nathaniel, your son Mr Nathaniel Bacon, Mr Bacon
older
+ older
older
+ older
my husband
my son Nathaniel, my brother Nathaniel, my brother
no examples
no examples
Fig. 6. Nathaniel Bacon: reference.
Nathaniels father or brother, which naturally explains their use in this context. It clearly is a mixed form which may be seen as a compromise between a respectful term towards the addressee (your Lordship), the term the writer suspects the addressee would use of the referent (sonne), and the term he would himself use of the referent (Maister Nathaniell Bacon). (29) I have received your letter and the coppie of a letter from your Lordships sonne Maister Nathaniell Bacon, wherin he declarethe of the spoyle that ys don appon the coast of Norffolke and Suffolke by certeyne shippes under the cooloure of the Kynge of Spayne his lycence. (BACON: 1576, Edward Fiennes, I, 204)
The overall use of direct address in letters written to Nathaniel seems to be more varied than address in letters to his father. Social distance between the correspondents is recognised, in that more positively polite formulae are used within the family and more negatively polite terms when the writer comes from outside Nathaniels kin. Referential terms clearly vary according to the addressee of the letter and his/her relationship with Nathaniel: in reference to his father, KTs are present, but this time also plain KT FN (without a title) is usedsomething that in Sir Nicholass case would seem inappropriate at the time.
5. Discussion 5.1. General observations 5.1.1. Address and reference: structure and forms When we look at the letters written to Sir Nicholas, we can see that the addressees social status as the Lord Keeper and his role as the father of the Bacon family shows very clearly in the use of direct address formulae. Your Lordship, Sir, your Honour and Right Honourable are used regardless of the distance between the writer and the addressee. Also in reference his title
2145
(Sir) is frequently mentioned, as are the terms my lord, his Lordship and the Lord Keeper. KT is another obligatory part of reference when either the writer or the addressee is related to Sir Nicholas. It is also used together with title in such cases where the term chosen could otherwise refer to many referents (e.g., my lord). When the term my lord is used alone, especially in letters written to Nathaniel, it is taken to mean Sir Nicholas only. This is supported by the fact that when referring to some other referent entitled to be called my lord, writers almost always use an additional reference-specier, as in my Lord Coke, my Lord Treasurer, my Lord of Oxford and my Lord his Grace of Canterbury. The direct address that Nathaniel Bacon receives from his correspondents clearly varies according to the writer in question. FN and KTs are used by close correspondents, whereas more distant writers often use titles and LN. The use of reference terms follows that of Sir Nicholas, in that KTs are used in most cases. Only when both the writer and the addressee are distant to Nathaniel, is title LN used without a KT. In order for the referent of the KT to be understood, FN or LN is mentioned in most cases. Wilson and Zeitlyn (1995: 81) have argued that, especially in regard to KTs, people tend to use basic expressions (Mommy) in direct address, whereas compound expressions (Tommys Dad) are used when referring to a third party.17 Whether this applies to my material depends on what counts as a compound expression in the Early Modern period. If we understand a combined phrase as including reference to both the addressee and the referent (instead of only the proposed reference to two separate referents, as in Tommys Dad), the answer is in the afrmative. In both Sir Nicholass and Nathaniels case such referential terms as my lord your father or your son Mr Nathaniel Bacon may count as combined entities in which KTs deictically modify the main address forms (my lord, Mr Nathaniel Bacon), but I would argue that both in reference and direct address different degrees of basicness and compoundness should be distinguished. For these purposes the idea of a politeness scale (as proposed and used, e.g., in Nevala, 2003) might be applicable, although it does cause problems in comparing the use of direct address to that of reference termsthe main reason it is not used in this study. If we take a look at the plain structure of both the direct address and reference, we may draw conclusions about which forms can be used as reference terms without any modications. When referring to Sir Nicholas, there is only one address form, my (very good) lord, that can be used in this way. In the case of other titles/honorics, at least the modifying pronouns must be changed according to the point of view of the writer/ addressee, and most often FN is added to the title Sir. In reference to Nathaniel, direct address forms such as my brother and my cousin can be used as such, although in direct address they often appear without the dening pronoun, or the pronoun is changed as in Sir Nicholass case. In addition to the use of KTs, title LN (Mr Bacon) can also be used in both direct address and reference. There are not, however, any cases of title FN LN in address, as there are in reference. FN in reference seems to be restricted to a certain use. As we saw in Fig. 4, when referring to Sir Nicholas, FN cannot be used alone, but must be used in the form Sir
17 Schegloff (1996: 443, 447) notes that KTs like daddy and mom are third-person terms which may often be used for referring either to the speaker him/herself or to the addressee in situations of simplified register (e.g. when talking to children).
2146
Nicholas. In Nathaniels case (Fig. 6) the FN usage is frequent also in reference, and FN is used both by immediate family as well as more distant writers. In my opinion, this shows another difference between direct address forms and referential terms: whereas in direct address FN can be considered a marker of positive politeness, for referential purposes both FN and LN may be used as what I have called referent speciers, i.e., as markers that separate the referent from, for example, other family members. Naturally then, if there are several possible referents for, e.g., the term your son, adding FN makes it clear to the addressee which of his/her sons is in fact referred to. 5.1.2. Deictic pronouns and modifying adjectives As I noted earlier (in Section 2.2.1), the pronouns my and your appear both in direct address and in reference, but it seems that in direct address they are mostly a conventionalised part of the address form, as for example in your worship, your honour, your Lordship or my very good lord. The pronoun my is also most often used together with a KT, as in my brother or my good cousin. From the latter cases the pronoun has later been excluded or replaced by dear. In reference, however, these pronouns seem to have a clearer deictic function, which can be seen for example in the term your father or in my brother Nathaniel. There is some evidence of the opposite as well: when used by writers who are socially distant either to the addressee or to the referent, pronouns in terms like my lord or my Lord Keeper are used as part of a conventionalised whole.18 Probably due to its more restricted use also as a positively polite address pronoun, thou is not used with titles (e.g., the form *thy lord).19 Formulae including thou KT, e.g., thy father, do not appear in this material either, which points to the marginal use of the pronoun in a context like this. Modifying adjectives used in direct address and reference are few in the material. Forms such as right worshipful and very favourable can be used only in direct address, whereas the adjective (very) good appears also in referential terms. The fact that the adjective dear is not used for either of the informants is most probably due to the selection of the material. Nevertheless, the modiers present seem to be quite conventionalised in nature, as is also most often the case where pronouns are used.20 5.2. Designing axes 5.2.1. Typical use of address and reference in the material On the basis of my material it is possible to construct simplied charts of the typical use of both direct address and reference for both informants. Due to the nature of my
18 The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989) gives several occurences for the combination my lord, the first one dated as early as c. 1440. It can be assumed, therefore, that by the time the Bacon letters were written, my lord was already a conventionalised formula. 19 For one, Busse (2002: 286) has found that in Shakespeare there is a clear connection between the use of thou and terms of endearment. In addition to its use alongside with terms of abuse, it often functions as a marker of extreme intimacy. This is also corroborated by Nevala (2002). 20 Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1995: 567) point out that forms such as worshipful sir and my very good lord were gradually semantically bleached. Also Braun (1988: 256) discusses what she calls faded literal meaning in reference to the nominal form mister, originating from master.

Writer Addressee CLOSE NEGATIVELY polite Sir Nicholas Bacon Nathaniel Bacon honorific honorific honorific honorific Writer Addressee DISTANT
2147
title
title + LN
title + LN
honorific honorific honorific + title + honorific + title + LN LN title title title + LN
title + FN KT + LN KT KT + FN FN POSITIVELY polite friendship term
friendship term + title + LN
Fig. 7. Direct address.
written and historical material, the following gures are only indicative of the usage in general, which is the case especially with reference. In Fig. 7 we can see that somebody in Sir Nicholass position would be addressed directly with a title/honoric regardless of the distance between the writer and the addressee. When he is referred to, however, a more complicated picture appears (see below). Fig. 7 shows, secondly, the direct address model used in letters to Nathaniel. The general trend seems to be one in which FN is used when the writer is close (family) to the addressee, whereas at the opposite end of the scale titles and honorics ( LN) are mostly used. KTs appear on the scale, mostly combined with FN or LN. Fig. 8 shows that when either the writer or the addressee is close to the referent, the most typical reference term is KT (in the close addresseereferent relationship, title KT is also used). When the referent is equally close to the writer as to the addressee, the title is connected to either plain FN or FN LN. The same pattern can be seen when the writer and the addressee are both distant to the referent: the terms most often used are title FN, title FN LN and plain title/honoric. In Nathaniels case, FN is used as an identier in the letters written to his father. Naturally, this is redundant when referring to Sir Nicholas in letters written to Nathaniel. 5.2.2. The two poles of politeness The use of positive and negative politeness in Brown and Levinsons terms seems clear when we look at direct address. Titles and honorics are used as conveying negative politeness, whereas FNs and KTs are used as positively polite address forms. In regard to reference terms, the two sides of politeness become, however, more difcult to dene or categorise. In Sir Nicholass case, referential terms seem to be more mixed and less politeness-specic than direct forms, meaning that also the non-kin writers who are equal in power to the referent use what could in direct address be called positively polite
2148
Wr
Ref KT + N
Ref title + N
Ref title + KT + N Add
Fig. 8. Reference.
forms (i.e., KTs). Also, judged by the distance factor, socially inferior writers, such as family servants, use negatively polite forms throughout in both direct address and reference, although there are also examples of the use of KTs (e.g., your father) in their referential usage. In general, socially superior writers are allowed more variation in the address and reference they use of others. This can be used to either emphasise, e.g., by using the term my friend or other forms like FNs, or down-grade a relationship with the addressee or referent by using either negatively polite forms or a positive form when a negative one would be expected. However, when the distance between the writer and the addressee, or the referent, is very close, as in nuclear family relationships, there seem to be no decisive differences between the direct address and the referential terms: what could be called positively polite forms appear in both categories. If we look at Sir Nicholas and Nathaniel alone, the direct forms of address that Sir Nicholas receives from his immediate family are naturally more formal and negatively polite than the ones his son receives. This must be due to the ideal power balance within families in the Early Modern period: a father was considered to be superior to his wife and children. 5.2.3. Conventions or compromises? When the use of direct address and reference is looked at from the point of view of compromises and conventions, the results of my analysis form a relatively clear pattern. The reference terms used to dene a third party in letters between mutually close writers and addressees seem to be more conventionalised in the sense that KTs are used in most cases in the material. In family relations, it is not only clear who my father or your husband is, but both the writer and the addressee know that leaving out the referents title (and so emphasising the referents status) will not constitute an FTA.
2149
In more distant relations, the situation is somewhat different. In many cases the writer has to make a compromise between the term he would himself use of the referent and the term he knows or suspects the addressee would use, at indicating a sense of respect for the addressee the same time. As noted in Section 4.2, in such cases mixed formulae like your lordships son Mr Nathaniel Bacon may be used, by which the writer simultaneously expresses the status of the addressee, the family relationship between the addressee and the referent, and the status and identity of the referent.21 We may then ask whether using reference terms in general means making compromises. If, for example, there is a possibility that some outsiders may see the letter, and thus the terms of reference used, is it probable that the reference is chosen on a more conscious level than usual? At least when the relationship between the writer and the addressee is distant, this seems to be the case: the writer often accommodates to the term used by the addressee and other bystanders and over-readers. This may also be the case in public or formal letters by multiple senders, such as those from the Privy Council to Nathaniel. As we have already seen in Example (20), Sir Nicholas is referred to by using a term our very good Lord the Lord Keeper, your father, despite the fact that the privy councillors were relatively familiar to the addressee. We may of course wonder if in this case Sir Nicholas can be considered as a ratied auditor, and how much the choice of such a term is a product of the auditor effect as compared to the inuence of the referents social status in general. Furthermore, the formal register of the letter in general must have had an inuence on the formulation of respect towards Sir Nicholas as a referent, which more rarely is the case with letters of a more personal nature. It appears that the referent is the most inuential, although it is difcult to choose a term of reference without taking all the three main participants into account. What is needed in reference, therefore, is an additional addresseereferent axis which complements the triangle in which the referent is in the central role instead of the speaker.
6. Conclusion This study shows that the factors inuencing the choice of both forms of direct address and terms of reference in a historical material can be measured using present-day theoretical tools. In a society as hierarchical as Early Modern England, recognition of social status and the ways in which this could be materialised were an integral part of peoples everyday relationships. As for the questions asked at the beginning of this article, if we rst consider the central participant role which most inuences the choice of forms in letters, we may conclude that naturally in direct address it is the addressee, and in reference it is the referent. If the usage is looked at from the comparative point of view, we may say that direct address may be considered a norm governing reference in two separate ways.
21 Wilson and Zeitlyn (1995: 71) call this kind of referring via reference to others as using oblique PREs (person-referring expressions).
2150
Firstly, referential terms are often chosen and derived from the range of direct address formulae used of the referent either by the writer or the addressee. Secondly, if address is taken to be a norm in the sense that Dickey (1997: 271) understands it, i.e., in that direct address usage is more consistent, reference may be said to derive from it in this case as well. When it comes to the choice of positively and negatively polite forms in address and reference, either the addressees or the referents very high social status clearly overrides the distance between the participants, as is the case with Sir Nicholas and the negatively polite terms he receives. In those cases, however, in which the recognition of status is of less importance, as we can see from Nathaniels nuclear family relations, positive politeness becomes the main strategy, at least in the use of direct address. In reference, the overall situation is more complex, since especially positive politeness cannot be dened by similar parameters as is the case for direct address. It seems that in reference, the need to identify the referent neutralises the forms which could be considered most positively polite in direct address (e.g., FNs), and as a result the politeness scale is in this case only of secondary importance.
Acknowledgements My work during the writing of this article was funded by the Research Unit for Variation and Change in English, a Centre of Excellence funded by the Academy of Finland.
Appendix A Statistics of the material used Letter collection BACON PARKHURST Recipient/referent Sir Nicholas Bacon Number of words 139,004 34,797 Forms of address Sir Your (good) Lordship Your Honour Right Honourable My (very good/favourable) Lord Total 1 232 50 2 (3) 6 Number of letters 383 93 Terms of reference My/your (late/own) father My/his (good) Lord Sir Nicholas My Lord Keeper (of the Great Seal) His Lordship My Lord your father Our very good Lord the Lord Keeper your father My son Nathaniel My/your brother (Nathaniel) My husband Mr (Nathaniel) Bacon Your (Lordships) son (Mr Nathaniel Bacon) Total 38 155 5 5 5 11 1 1 30 7 7 5
Nathaniel Bacon
((My very) good) brother Brother Bacon (Good) brother Nathaniel Nathaniel Son (Nathaniel) Son Bacon Most dear father (Good) Sir ((My very) good) cousin (Bacon)
52 3 8 3 6 3 1 70 9
2151
2152 M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160
Appendix A. (Continued ) Recipient/Referent Forms of address Cousin Nath/Bacon (Good) Mr Bacon My very good/loving friend (Mr Bacon) (Good) Mr Nathaniel Your (honour/good) Worship (Your) Right Worshipful (Mr Bacon) Worshipful Sir You, the Sheriff/Good Mr Sheriff Total 2/1 12 2 4 103 8 5 2 Terms of reference Total
2153
Appendix B. Sir Nicholas Bacon: direct address

Writer FN Nathaniel Bacon FS John Mounford T Edmund Banyard Gentleman 1574 2 Your (good) Lordship, Right Honourable, Your Honour, good my Lord Your Honour Your (good) Lordship, my very good Lord my (very (favourable)) good Lord, Your (good) Lordship Right Honourable and my very good Lord, Your Lordship Your Honour, Your Lordship Writer addressee Son Date Number of letters 29 Terms used
15719
Sir, Your (good) Lordship, Your Honour Your Honour
Servant
1572
John Banyard Edward Fiennes George Gascoigne
Gentleman Lord Admiral Client
15745 1576 1578
2 4 1
Sir Francis Walsingham John Parkhurst
Secretary of State Bishop of Norwich
1576
15713
Appendix C. Sir Nicholas Bacon: reference terms

Writer FN Nathaniel Bacon Writer referent Son Addressee Date Number Terms used of letters 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 My (late/own) father, my Lord
Edward Bacon Sir William Cecil Anthony Stringer Lady Anne Gresham Lady Anne Bacon I Sir Thomas Gresham Edward Paston Clement Paston
1583 157983 1570s 1572 1573 1572 1573 1575 1575
2154
Appendix C. (Continued )
Writer Writer referent Addressee Date Number Terms used of letters 3 My father, my Lord My father, my Lord My Lord
Nicholas Bacon II Son

Edward Bacon Son
Sir William Cecil 1579 Nathaniel Bacon Nathaniel Bacon
Lady Anne Bacon 1 Wife FO Robert Bacon Robert Blackman
1572 12 1576 1573 1
Nephew Nephew
Nathaniel Bacon Nathaniel Bacon
1584 1572
1 1
Your father, my Lord your father My Lord, your father
FS John Baker John Mounford Richard Manser
Servant Servant Servant
Nathaniel Bacon Nathaniel Bacon Nathaniel Bacon
1579 1573 1576
1 3 1
Sir Nicholas My Lord My Lord, his good Lord
T Sir William Cecil Lord High Treasurer Rector of Stiffkey Gentleman Tenant Attorney Servant of TG Magistrate Servant of TG Nicholas Bacon II 1579 2 Your (late good) father, my Lord your father My Lord Keeper (of the Great Seal), his Lordship My Lord your father My Lord your father My Lord your father My Lord your father My Lord your father His Lordship, my Lord Keeper Our very good Lord the Lord Keeper your father My Lord, my Lord Keeper My Lord My Lord
Stephen Nevinson
Reginald Wolfe
1570
Edmund Banyard Edward Stanhawe Edward Grimstone John Saunders Sir Christopher Heydon Philip Scudamore Privy Council
Nathaniel Nathaniel Nathaniel Nathaniel
Bacon Bacon Bacon Bacon
1579 1573 1573 1576 1578 1578 1576
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Nathaniel Bacon Nathaniel Bacon Nathaniel Bacon
Francis Wyndham
Charles Calthorpe George Powes
Nathaniels brotherin-law Steward of Yarmouth Clerk of NBI
Nathaniel Bacon
1572 1577 1573? 1581
Nathaniel Bacon Nathaniel Bacon
1 1
2155
Appendix D. Nathaniel Bacon: direct address

Writer FN Anthony Bacon Edward Bacon Writeraddressee Date Number of Terms used letters 2 33 (My very good) brother (My) brother, brother Nathaniel, brother Bacon Son, Nathaniel, son Nathaniel (Good) brother (My very(good)) brother Brother Most dear father Son Brother Bacon Sir, my very good cousin Cousin Nath Good brother NO ADDRESS (Good) cousin (Good) son, son Bacon Good brother, good brother Nathaniel Good Mr Bacon Sir Brother, brother Bacon, brother Nathaniel My good friend, good Mr Nathaniel Sir, good Mr Nathaniel Good Mr Bacon NO ADDRESS Sir Your Worship Right Worshipful, Your Worship
Half-brother Brother
1578/1591 15721587
Sir Nicholas Bacon Nicholas Bacon II Elizabeth DOyly Elizabeth Mansell Anne Townshend FO Lady Anne Bacon I Lady Anne Bacon II Robert Bacon Robert Blackman Sir Robert DOyly Winefrid Dutton Lady Anne Gresham Sir Thomas Gresham Sir Henry Neville Lady Jane Townshend Sir John Townshend Francis Wyndham TC Dru Drury Charles Morrison Roger North Sir William Paston FS John Baker Martin Man Richard Manser
Father Brother Sister Sister Daughter Step-mother Sister-in-law Cousin Cousin Brother-in-law Mother-in-law Step-mother-in-law Father-in-law Brother-in-law Future in-law Future in-law Brother-in-law
15721578 15691592 15761594 1594 1594 1573 1583 15761584 15721577 1576 1578 1582 15771579 15831590 1593 1593 15721591
31 4 12 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 7 3 1 1 22
Usher of Privy Chamber MP for Tavistock 2nd Baron North of Kirtling Magistrate Servant Clerk Servant
15771584 1569 1591 1592 15791585 1587 1576
3 1 1 1 5 1 1
2156
Appendix D. (Continued )
Writer Writeraddressee Servant Date Number Terms used of letters Your (Honour) Worship, Sir Your Worship (Worshipful) Sir, Your Worship Sir, Your Worship Right Worshipful, Your (good) Worship NO ADDRESS Sir Your Worship Sir Sir, Your Worship Sir, Mr Bacon Your Right Worshipful Sir Your Right Worshipful, Sir, Your Worship NO ADDRESS Sir, Your Worship Sir Sir, Your Worship Sir, Right Worshipful Mr Bacon Your Worship Sir, good Mr Nathaniel NO ADDRESS NO ADDRESS Sir Sir, cousin Bacon Good Sir NO ADDRESS Sir, Your Worship Mine loving friend Mr Bacon, Right Worshipful (Mr Bacon), Your Worship, Worshipful Sir Sir
John Mounford T Walter Allen Edmund Banyard Robert Barwick Bernard Base John Becon
William Blennerhassett John Braddock John Brograve Bartram Calthorpe Charles Calthorpe John Calthorpe Sir William Cecil Richard Clarke Sir Edward Clere Thomas Clere Sir Edward Coke William Downing Stephen Drury Edmund Freke John Green Edward Grimstone Sir Christopher Hatton Sir Christopher Heydon John Heydon William Heydon Henry Hobart Richard Hodgson Clement Hyrne Francis Johnson
15731576 6
Rector of Rushbrooke 1574 1 Gentleman 15791580 2 Servant? Dept. customer of Yarmouth Prebendary of Norwich cathedral Merchant Attorney Lawyer Steward of Yarmouth Gentleman Lord High Treasurer Merchant 1576 1576 1578 1578 1587 1582 1581 15731574 1576 15831591 1589 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 5 4 1 1 2 1 2 2 6 1 1 1 4
Neighbour 15801582 Neighbour 1587 Attorney General 1594 Deputy customs farmer 15871591 Attorney 15751593 Bishop of Norwich 1577 Vicar of Hemsby 1582 Attorney 15721579 Lord Chancellor 1588 Fellow magistrate 1578 Gentleman 15901 Esquire 15731586 Steward of Yarmouth 1587 Merchant 1579 Merchant 1581 Merchant 15751578
Thomas Lichfield
Groom of the Queens 1582 Privy Chamber
2157
Appendix D. (Continued )
Writer Thomas Outlaw John Percival George Powes Privy Council Sir Ralph Sadler John Saunders Philip Scudamore Thomas Sidney Samuel Smith Writeraddressee Chief Constable of Eynsford Rector of Stiffkey Clerk of NBI Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Servant of Sir Thomas Gresham Servant of TG Customer of Lynn Merchant Date 1592 Number Terms used of letters 1 Your (good) Worship Right Worshipful, Your Worship Sir, Your Worship you, the Sheriff NO ADDRESS Mr Bacon Mr Bacon Sir Worshipful Sir, Your Worship, Mr Bacon Sir, (Right) Worshipful, Your Worship Sir Sir, Mr Nathaniel Good Mr Sheriff Sir Your Worship Good cousin Your Worship Sir
15741585 3 1581 1 15761594 9 15821583 3 15741576 7 15781579 2 1582 2 15791580 2
William Smythe
Customer of Yarmouth Tenant Servant of TG MP for Great Yarmouth Gentleman Gentleman Cousin Secretary of State
15761583 3
Edward Stanhowe Anthony Stringer John Stubbe William Stump Henry Stutfield Jane Tuttoft John Tuttoft Sir Francis Walsingham
1573 15721573 1587 1587 15851586 1580 1580 15821583
4 2 1 1 3 2 1 1
Appendix E.
Nathaniel Bacon: reference terms Writer FN Sir Nicholas Bacon I Nicholas Bacon II Anne Bacon 3 Writer referent Father Brother Wife Addressee Date Number of letters 1 1 1 Terms used
Sir Thomas Gresham Sir William Cecil Sir Thomas Gresham Lady Anne Gresham
1577 1579 1572
My son Nathaniel My brother Nathaniel, my brother My husband
15721573 2
2158
Appendix E. (Continued )
Writer Writer referent Addressee Mistress Dutton T Edward Fiennes Lord Admiral Sir Nicholas Bacon I 1576 2 Your (Lordships) son Mr Nathaniel Bacon, your Lordships son, Mr Bacon Your brother Nathaniel Your Lordships son Mr Nathaniel Bacon Mr Nathaniel Bacon Mr Bacon Mr Nathaniel Bacon Mr Bacon Date Number Terms used of letters
15721573 3
Sir William Cecil Lord High Treasurer Sir Francis Secretary Walsingham of State John Parkhurst Bishop of Norwich Thomas Calthorpe Gentleman John Heydon Thomas Talbot
Nicholas Bacon II Sir Nicholas Bacon I Sir Nicholas Bacon I James Calthorpe Gentleman Christopher Heydon Judge of the William Sabbe and Bolt Admiralty Court of Norfolk
1579 1576 1573 1581 1590 1592
2 1 1 1 1 1
References
Allerton, David J., 1987. The linguistic and sociolinguistic status of proper names. Journal of Pragmatics 11, 6192. Allerton, David J., 1996. Proper names and definite descriptions with the same reference: a pragmatic choice for language users. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 621633. Beale, Philip, 1998. The History of the Post in England. Ashgate, Aldershot. Bell, Allan, 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13, 145204. Bell, Allan, 2001. Back in style: reworking audience design. In: Eckert, Penelope, Rickford, John R. (Eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 139169. Braun, Friederike, 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin. Briggs, Asa, 1999 [1983]. A Social History of England. Penguin, Harmondsworth. Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Brown, Roger, Gilman, Albert, 1989. Politeness theory and Shakespeares four major tragedies. Language in Society 18, 159212. Busse, Ulrich, 2002. Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-syntactic Variability of Second Person Pronouns. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Clark, Herbert H., Marshall, Catherine R., 1981. Definite descriptions and mutual knowledge. In: Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, Bonnie L., Sag, Ivan A. (Eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1063.
2159
Clark, Herbert H., Murphy, Gregory L., 1982. Audience design in meaning and reference. In: Ny, Le, JeanFranc ois, Kintsch, Walter (Eds.), Language and Comprehension. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 287299. Comrie, Bernard, 1976. Linguistic politeness axes: speakeraddressee, speakerreferent, speakerbystander. Pragmatics Microfiche 1.7: A3. Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge. Coupland, Nikolas, Giles Howard (Eds.), 1988. Communicative accommodation: Recent developments. Special Issue of Language and Communication 8 (3/4). Dickey, Eleanor, 1997. Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics 33, 255274. Evans, Gareth, 1982. The Varieties of Reference. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Fludernik, Monica, 1993. The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction. Routledge, London. Giles, Howard, Smith, Philip M., 1979. Accommodation theory: optimal levels of convergence. In: Giles, Howard, Clair, Robert St. (Eds.), Language and Social Psychology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 4565. Goffman, Erving, 1981. Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Grice, H. Paul, 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Cole, Peter, Morgan, Jerry L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, pp. 4158. Hanks, William F., 1992. The indexical ground of deictic reference. In: Duranti, Alessandro, Goodwin, Charles (Eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 4376. Hassell Smith, A., Baker, Gillian M., Kenny, R.W. (Eds.), 1978/1979. The Papers of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey. Norfolk Record Society 46, Norfolk Record Society, Norwich. Hope, Jonathan, 1993. Second person singular pronouns in records of Early Modern spoken English. Neophilologische Mitteilungen 94 (1), 83100. Jucker, Andreas H., Taavitsainen, Irma, 2003. Introduction. In: Taavitsainen, I., Jucker, A.H. (Eds.), Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 107). John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 125. Kopytko, Roman, 1993. Polite Discourse in Shakespeares English. Adam Mickiewicz University Press, Poznan. Laitinen, Mikko, 2002. Extending the Corpus of Early English Correspondence to the 18th century. Helsinki English Studies 2. http://www.eng.helsinki.fi/hes/. Laslett, Peter, 1971 [1965]. The World We Have Lost. Methuen and Co. Ltd., London. Leech, Geoffrey, 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London/New York. Lerner, Gene H., 1996. On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: second person reference in multi-party conversation. Pragmatics 6 (3), 281294. Levinson, Stephen C., 1979. Pragmatics and social deixis: reclaiming the notion of conventional implicature. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 5, 206225. Levinson, Stephen C., 1992. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Murphy, Gregory L., 1988. Personal reference in English. Language in Society 17, 317349. Nevala, Minna, 2002. Youre moder send a letter to the: pronouns of address in private correspondence from Late Middle to Late Modern English. In: Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja, Rissanen, Matti (Eds.), Variation Past and Present. VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen. Memoires de la Societe Neophilologique de Helsinki 61. Societe Neophilologique, Helsinki, pp. 135159. Nevala, Minna, 2003. Family first: address formulae in English family correspondence from the 15th to the 17th century. In: Taavitsainen, I., Jucker, A.H. (Eds.), Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 107). John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 147176. Nevala, Minna, 2004. Inside and out: forms of address in 17th- and 18th-century letters. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5 (2), 273298. Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, 1995. Constraints on politeness: the pragmatics of address formulae in early English correspondence. In: Jucker, Andreas H. (Ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 35. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Nurmi, Arja, 1999. A Social History of Periphrastic DO. Memoires de la Societe Neophilologique de Helsinki 56. Societe Neophilologique, Helsinki. Oxford English Dictionary, 1989. Second ed. Simpson, J.A., Weiner, E.S.C. (Eds.). Additions 19931997. Simpson, John, Weiner, Edmund, Proffitt, Michael (Eds.). Third ed. (in progress), March 2000. Simpson, John (Ed.), OED Online. Oxford University Press. http://dictionary.oed.com. Sadock, Jerrold M., 1974. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York.
2160
Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1996. Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: a partial sketch of a systematics. In: Fox, Barbara (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 437485. Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 1996. Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 124. Thomas, Jenny, 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman, Harlow. Watts, Richard J., 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: reconsidering claims for universality. In: Watts, Richard J., Ide, Sachiko, Erlich, Konrad (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, pp. 143169. Watts, Richard J., 2003. Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wilson, Andrew J., Zeitlyn, David, 1995. The distribution of person-referring expressions in natural conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (1), 6192. Wrightson, Keith, 1982. English Society 15801680. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

Accessing Politeness Axes

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Accessing Politeness Axes

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

Fig. 2. The organisation of the data.

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

Sir, Your (good) Lordship

Fig. 3. Sir Nicholas Bacon: direct address.

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

your father, my Lord

Fig. 4. Sir Nicholas Bacon: reference.

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

brother, brother Bacon, brother Nathaniel, most dear father

son, Nathaniel, brother

brother Bacon, brother Nathaniel, cousin Nath

son, cousin, son Bacon

Fig. 5. Nathaniel Bacon: direct address.

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

my son Nathaniel, my brother Nathaniel, my brother

Fig. 6. Nathaniel Bacon: reference.

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

honorific honorific honorific + title + honorific + title + LN LN title title title + LN

title + FN KT + LN KT KT + FN FN POSITIVELY polite friendship term

friendship term + title + LN

Fig. 7. Direct address.

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

Ref title + KT + N Add

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

2152 M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

Appendix B. Sir Nicholas Bacon: direct address

Sir, Your (good) Lordship, Your Honour Your Honour

John Banyard Edward Fiennes George Gascoigne

Gentleman Lord Admiral Client

15745 1576 1578

Sir Francis Walsingham John Parkhurst

Secretary of State Bishop of Norwich

Appendix C. Sir Nicholas Bacon: reference terms

1583 157983 1570s 1572 1573 1572 1573 1575 1575

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

Nicholas Bacon II Son

Sir William Cecil 1579 Nathaniel Bacon Nathaniel Bacon

Lady Anne Bacon 1 Wife FO Robert Bacon Robert Blackman

1572 12 1576 1573 1

Nathaniel Bacon Nathaniel Bacon

Your father, my Lord your father My Lord, your father

FS John Baker John Mounford Richard Manser