| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » Labov's latest discovery in sociolinguistics
Page 36 of 37 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 35, 36, 37 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Mike L |
 Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 8, 1:58�pm, "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Quote: MikeLylewrote:
On Apr 7, 10:06?pm, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com"
jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
�[heinlein and the finger]
I did learn the word "apodeictic", at least.
I knew "deictic", but had to check that one. Interestingly (to me,
though not necessarily to normal humans), OED gives precedence to
the spelling "apodictic": since the Greek root verb is "deignumi",
I find that a little barbarous. Possibly even barbaric.
Tupo?
Hybris.
--
Mike. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mb |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 8:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 8, 5:36 am, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Quote: On Apr 7, 10:06�pm, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com"<jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Ooh. �I tried saying something like that in rasfw, and you should have
seen what happened. �Though I was talking about racism (by a certain
definition) rather than musical taste. �I did learn the word
"apodeictic", at least.
I knew "deictic", but had to check that one. Interestingly (to me,
though not necessarily to normal humans), OED gives precedence to the
spelling "apodictic": since the Greek root verb is "deignumi", I find
that a little barbarous. Possibly even barbaric.
The exact contrary of barbaric. When towards the end of their late
Middle Ages the, ehm, Barbarians "re-discovered" Greek, many were
helped by a few waves of direct Greek emigration into the West due to
invasions (by Barbarians both Western and Eastern but especially after
the fall of Constantinople). These teachers were of course pronouncing
their Greek the Byzantine way (as is done today); as a result we have
a few established Western spellings that are modern Greek
pronunciation-spellings, like pEdagogy, apodIctic and others (while in
writing they of course remain paidagogía, apodeiktikós, etc). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| CDB |
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mike L wrote:
Quote: On Apr 8, 1:58?pm, "CDB" <bellema...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
MikeLylewrote:
On Apr 7, 10:06?pm, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com"
jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[heinlein and the finger]
I did learn the word "apodeictic", at least.
I knew "deictic", but had to check that one. Interestingly (to me,
though not necessarily to normal humans), OED gives precedence to
the spelling "apodictic": since the Greek root verb is "deignumi",
I find that a little barbarous. Possibly even barbaric.
Tupo?
Hybris.
Ah. Yet with what kindness deignumi to enlighten! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike L |
| Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 8, 10:10�am, Peter Moylan <pe...@DIESPAMMERSDIEpmoylan.org>
wrote:
Quote: On 08/04/08 06:42, Mike Lyle wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
On 07/04/08 01:46, Maria C. wrote:
Frankly, I think themusicis much better in non-Catholic churches.
As a former Baptist, my taste in religious songs is more what one
thinks of as "gospelmusic." Themusicthat the RC church has sounds
boring, and lacking in spirit. (I should go to the Catholic church
in Gatlinburg next time we're there to see what they do when it's
time to "make a joyful noise unto the Lord.)
For a real dirge, try the Anglicans. Worstmusicever written.
WHAT?? Purcell, Tallis, (I nearly said "Byrd", but he was only an
honoraryAnglican), Handel ... I'm stunned. The fluid line and velvety
texture of the Psalms ... The genitive plurals rolling round the
cathedral vaulting ... It's the /music/ that makes it hardest for an
Anglicanto give it all up ... Hell, even the very hymn-book was edited
by Vaughan Williams.
I'd better qualify the above by saying that my experience is confined to
the local cathedral. Perhaps I was over-generalising from the
preferences of a couple of bishops.
It could be, too, that I was misled by congregations too old to hold a
note. Now that I think of it, the choristers - practically the only
young people in the place, apart from the occasional great-grandchild
drug along without getting a choice - did some goodmusic.
Next time you're over, we'll take you to an English cathedral or
Oxbridge college. Beware: when they turn on the music in those places
there's some danger that one will get religion.
There was a ghastly jazz evensong from the Oxford Univ church this
arvo, though (Radio 3). Jazz 'n' blues doesn't work with prayer-book
English, even with Schola Cantorum Oxon.
--
Mike. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nick Spalding |
| Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 3:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mike L wrote, in
<56b06aab-23f5-4a68-ae44-941a5dc0377b@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
on Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:00:13 -0700 (PDT):
Quote: There was a ghastly jazz evensong from the Oxford Univ church this
arvo, though (Radio 3). Jazz 'n' blues doesn't work with prayer-book
English, even with Schola Cantorum Oxon.
Grizzly wasn't it. I turned it off.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Nikolaj |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Quote: I will make a copy and report back.
I made hyself a copy of the article on Saturday. It is a nice article
and also speaks about wherefrom the whole idea of using pronouns for
expressing formality appeared - it is of French origin. It seems that
the German system was a hodge-podge of all three possibilities for a
large part of the history, before it finally settled on the use of the
3rd plural. And Slovene innovation it seems, is the use of ultraformal
mode in indirect address, that is, when speaking with respect about
persons not present.
I decided to copy some of original article here, rather than retell it,
but I ommited the tables and examples from the play of the section 6 and
bibliography.
-------------------------------------------------
Donald F. Reindl
Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana
Slovene Ultra-Formal Address: Borrowing, Innovation, and Analysis
(Abstract)
Slovene has a system of address that differs from the basic binary
address system of many European lanuguages by grammatically
distinguishing up to four levels of formality (informal, semiformal,
formal, and ultra-formal). Until recently, ultra-formal address was
regularly used in direct as well as indirect address (i.e., reference to
absent persons). Although the grammatical characteristics of Slovene
ultra-formal address (3rd plural) appear to have been the result of
contact with German, the Slovene application of this form to indirect
address appears to have been an independent innovation. Anton Tomaž
Linhart's play /Županova Micka/ is analysed in order to explore and
illustrate the interaction of these various address forms. Similar
studies of ultra-formal address in other languages (e.g., Czech and
Slovak) could shed light on a phenomenon that has been attested in
multiple Slavic languages.
1. Introduction
In comparison with the other Slavic languages and the languages of
Europe in general, the Slovene system of address is both typical and
complex at the same time. From a synchronic perspective, the modern
literary Slovene address shares the basic characteristics of "Standard
Average European" languages (Whorf 1956: 138), which display relatively
little variation (cf. Dickey 1996:  . That is, Slovene distinguishes
between informal and formal (also referred to as honorific, deferential,
or polite) address in pronominal choice (i.e., /ti/ vs. /vi/), verbal
morphology (i.e., indicative /-š/ vs. /-te/, imperative /-∅/ vs. /-te/),
and name and title usage /e.g., /Janez/ 'John' vs. /gospod/ 'sir'). In
this respect, the Slovene opposition between 2nd singular /tikanje/
(informal address) and 2nd plural /vikanje/ (formal address) is
comparable to analogous systems in more widely known European languages
such as French (/tutuyer/ vs. /vousvoyer/) and German (/Duzen/ vs.
/Siezen/), and conforms to the basic T/V (after Latin /tu/, /vos/)
binary opposition presented in Brown and Gilman's (1960) groundbreaking
sociolinguistic study of forms of address.
However, Slovene includes a number of special features.
Diachronically(1), there is a triple opposition in the literary language
with what is now an increasingly rare "ultra-formal" 3rd plural form
known as /onikanje/, used both in direct and indirect address (i.e.,
reference to absent persons). (*** 1: Lubecka (1993: 14) notes that most
studies of forms of address are synchronic rather than diachronic. ***)
In addition, contemporary conversational Slovene utilizes a semiformal
construction known as /napol vikanje/ (cf. §3.1). Until recently Slovene
therefore included four formality levels in its address system:
informal, semiformal, formal, and ultra-formal (cf. Reindl 2005: 246-253).
Address is an enormous topic in sociolinguistics, and a complete survey
of the intricacies of address in Slovene would be a book-length project.
For example, Kocher (1967: 738) lists over 60 factors contributing to
pronominal choice in Serbo-Croatian. This article focuses on the likely
borrowed nature of Slovene /onikanje/, the innovation that it underwent
in Slovene, and its manifestation in a literary work as a case study.
2. European Development
The similarity of the Slovene address system to other European systems
in unremarkable because it is generally believed that all of these
systems share a comon origin: an originally French linguistic phenomenon
that was disseminated through medieval European culture via trade,
diplomacy, and other language contact (cf. Friedrich 1966: 223, Kess &
Jurčić 1978: 308, Paulston 1975: 7). Along the way, individual
linguistic systems developed their own idiosyncracies. For example, in
contrast to Franch 2nd plural to mark formality, German settled on 3rd
plural /Sie/ (creating pronominal and verbal syncretism with /sie/
'they' and like French preventing a singular-plural contrast within
formal address), whereas Spanish and northern Italian settled on the 3rd
singular (thus allowing a singular-plural contrast within formal
address). On the other hand, Modern English has list the contrast by
abandoning archaic /thou/, and some other languages such as Swedish(2)
have essentially done so as well. (*** 2: The Swedish change is
generally dated to the "/du/ reform" of the 1970s ***)
What all of these systems have in common is a distancing of the singular
referent in formal address, either through number (shift from singular
to plural; e.g., French) or person (shift from 2nd to 3rd person; e.g.,
Spanish and Italian), or both (e.g., German). Increased distance has a
psycholinguistic correlation with decreased familiarity, and increased
number has an iconic correlation with increasing the importance of the
referent. Because the first person is reserved for the addressee in a
conversation, it is natural that a shift in person will only be
expressed in 2nd to 3rd, not 2nd to 1st(3). (*** 3: This article does
not consider various non-basic 1st person forms of address such as the
/pluralis majestatis/ ("rojal we"), the /pluralic modestiae/ ("editorial
we"), the /pluralis benevolentiae/ ("mediacal we", e.g., /How are we
felling today?/), etc. in which the addressor undergoes number shift or
the addressee is incorporated into an inclusive 1st person. Nor does it
consider shift or the addressor to the 3rd person (e.g., "Bob Dole
believes...", deferential attributive possessives or abstractions such
as /Your Highness/ (cf. Plank 2003), etc. ***) These patterns are
depicted in Figure 1:
1st sg 1st pl
| /
x x
x x
x /
|/
2nd sg ---> 2nd pl (French)
|\
| \
| \
| \
| \
3rd sg 3rd pl (German)
(Spanish)
It should be noted that the notion of "formal" vs. "informal" address is
a gross but useful simplification. In addition to multiple levels of
formality ad informality in some languages (e.g., Japanese /kudaketa/ or
/futsuu/ 'plain', /teineigo/ 'polite', and /keigo/ 'advanced polite',
with its subdivisions into /sonkeigo/ 'honorific' and /kenjōgo/
'humble') there are also directional variants such as reciprocal
informal address (e.g., used between Slovene students), reciprocal
formal address (e.g., used between Slovene adult stranges), and
non-reciprocal address (e.g., between pupils and their instructors).
Address patterns between generations (i.e., children, parents, and
grandparents) also change across generations, as Weiss (2003) discusses
in his examination of Slovene address forms in the Dreta Valley. Very
specific situational factors create additional variations. For example,
it is reported that Slovene nudists are expected to address one another
informally (Peteršič & Jambrek 2006: 7).
The development of the address systems has been remarkably fluid. The
development of the German address sysem has been extensively
investigated and serves as a case in point. Polite 3rd singular forms
came into use by the 16th century (i.e., /er/, /sie/). Althought the 2nd
plural (i.e., /Ihr/) had been in use since the 9th century, presumably
as a result of French influence, some writers objected to this use of
the plural, which gained ground in the 16th century. The polite 3rd
plural (i.e., /Sie/) was attested in Vienna by the end of the 17th
century, and by the beginning of the 18th century there were four
completing forms of formal address in use:: 3rd singular, 2nd plural,
and 3rd plural, as well as non-pronominal abstractions (e.g., /Gnaden/
'your lordship'), thereby exploiting all of the possible strategies
shown in Figure 1. It is believed that the multiplicity of forms served
to differentiate rank in what was still a highly stratified society. The
3rd singular lost its formal function soon thereafter(4), although the
2nd plural persistes as the most formal pronoun under French influence.
Eventually the 3rd plural /Sie/ won out and the other formal forms fell
into obsolescence (cf. Ammon 1972: 82-86, Grimm 1905: 769, Metcalf 1938:
5-11, 118). (*** 4: In fact, it underwent pejoration, as effectively
utilized in Georg Büchner's 1837 play /Woyzek/, e.g.: /Hat Er schon
seine Erbsen gegesen, Woyzeck?/ 'Have you (3 sg.) already eaten your (3
sg.) peas, Woyzeck?' ***)
Slovene acquired its distinction between informal and formal address as
part of the general development of European address systems. Although
modern Slovene /vikanje/ (formal use of the 2nd plural) differs formally
from modern German /Siezen/ (formal use of the 3rd plural), the
historical synopsis of the German system above shows that this does not
exclude the possibility that Slovene formal address was modeled on
German. The nascent Slovene system could have been directly modeled on
an earlier German system that employed /Ihr/ (2nd plural) as the formal
pronoun. In any case, the fact that German (as the primary prestige
language in Slovene territory) utilized an informal-formal address
system could have indirectly influenced Slovene to do likewise by
exploiting its own resources.
3. Slovene Special Features
Beyond the basic /tikanje/-/vikanje/ distinction in conversational(7)
Slovene, a number of other variations exist in the address system. (***
7: As opposed to literary Slovene (/knjižnoslovenski jezik/), especially
as regulated by the academy-produced normative guide (/pravopis/; e.g.
Toporišič 2001). ***) In the contemporary system these concern primarily
gender distinction and, secondarily, phenomena involving the dual
number. In more archaic Slovene this also includes a person/number shift
to the 3rd plural.
3.1 Semiformal Address (/Napol vikanje/)
Some Slavic languages, such as Upper Sorbion, express formal address
with a numberical shift in verbal morphology (singular to plural), but
retain the singular gender markers for adjectives and participles. In a
periphrastic construction consisting of an auxiliary plus a participle,
the result is a mixture of singular and plural: /Sće (2. pl.) po kraju
pućowała (fem. sg.)/ 'You have traveled around the country' (Wowčerk
1955: 4. In literary Slovene, in contrast, the number shift is
complete and the gender is obligatory masculine: /Po deželi ste (2. pl)
potovali (m. pl.)/ 'You have traveled around the country' (female
addresses; cf. Toporišič 1992: 353).
However, conversational Slovene also uses a pattern corresponding to
that of Upper Sorbian above (as well as Czech and Polish), referred to
as /napol vikanje/, /polvikanje/, /polovično vikanje/, or /pogovorno
vikanje/ (semiformal address) - for example, /Kam ste (2. pl.) pa šla
(fem. sg.)?/ 'Where did you go?' Toporišič characterizes this patters as
especially typical of some regions of Slovenia and semiformal or relaxed
business communication (1976: 326; 1992: 122). Semiformal address is
widely used in the Slovene spoken in Ljubljana.
3.2 Effects of the Dual
Because Slovene has a dual number (in addition to a singular and
plural), this also has repercussions in terms of formality in the
address system. Slovene can make a formal-informal distinction for
semantically singular addressees (/ti/ vs. /vi/), but not for
semantically plural addressees (/vi/ being used for formal singular,
formal plural, and multiple informal singular addressees). There is a
lack of agreement on whether the dual /vidva/ 'you two' (and by
extension /midva/ 'we two' when subsuming the addressee) in inherently
informal or simply neutral. Some informants have stated that they avoid
dual forms to refer to individuals that they would otherwise address as
/vi/ when alone, whereas others disagree (cf. §6.2). This is an area
that clearly requires further research.
3.3 Ultra-Formal Address (/Onikanje/)
Finally, conversational Slovene also includes (or until recently
included) an invariably masculine 3rd plural formal address from, /oni/
'they' - for example, /Kakó se počútijo, gospá?/ 'How are you (3. pl.)
feeling, madam?' (Murko 1843: 59). This is analogous to and often viewed
as modeled on German /Sie/ (cf Murko, 1843; 58-59, Janežič 1876: 200).
The supposed demise of /onikanje/ has been commented on repeatedly; for
example, "Tak način govorjenja je danes že skoraj čisto iz rabe" (This
manner of speaking has nearly passed completely out of use; Toporišič
1976: 326), and "[t]he form is archaic, however, and its use is now
largely unknown" (Kess & Jurčić 1978: 298). Younger informants generally
recount that their grandparents and even parents used to speak this way.
Nonetheless, such forms remain actively used by some of the middle
generation. As only one example, in May 2006 an innkeeper in his 40s
brought coffee to me in the village of Topol pri Medvodah, casually
remarking /Izvolijo!/ 'Here you are!' with a 3rd plural affix(6). (***
6: The form is actually imperative (cf. sg. /izvoli!/, pl. /izvolite!/)
with the 3rd plural /-jo/ suffix appended to the imperative stem as a
formality marker. ***) Nonetheless, the form is clearly in decline,
perhaps best evidenced by the fact that it can be used in jest, as in
the following Internet posting:
"Prečastitljivi Gospod Aleš! Po dolgih premišljevanjih, sem se na koncu
trdno odločila, da Jih bom od sedaj naprej onikala. Oni so preveč za
samo vikanje, kaj še za tikanje..."
'Most noble Mr. Aleš, After lengthy consideration, I have finally
resolutely decided that I will now use /onikanje/ to address You (3.
pl.). You (3. pl.) are too great for mere /vikanje/, let alone
/tikanje/... '
4. Borrowing
Whenever borrowing of a linguistic feature is proposed, it should be
questioned whether the feature may have arisen by chance, without
external influence. In the case of Slovene /onikanje/ two arguments
speak against this. The first is that influence on pronominal systems is
attested elsewhere in language-contact situations, and the second
relates to markedness.
First, transfer of pronominal system structure is attested in other
languages. Just as German is believed to have undergone French influence
in the development of its pronominal system (cf. §2), it is sometimes
asserted that Italian also underwent a shift in formal pronoun usage
under influence from German. Formerly /Voi/ (2 pl.) was used for this
purpose(7) (as French /vous/ and Ladin /Vos/; Valentini et al. 2001;
44), but is said to have been supplanted by /Lei/ (3 sg., syncretic with
/lei/, fem. 3 sg.) in modern standard Italian by analogy with German
/Sie/ (syncretic with /sie/, fem. 3 sg.), including the orthographic
distinction in capitalization. However, others state that Italian /Lei/
arose from a 3rd singular abstraction under Spanish influence (cf.
Popunceanu 1963: 84) - although this does not preclude the influence of
both languages. Similarly, Swedish apparently borrowed its (now defunct)
formal pronoun /Ni/ (in the form /I/, prior to n-prothesis from a
preceding copular verb) from formal German /Ihr/ (cf. Евменов, 2002). Of
course, counterexamples are also widespread. For example, despite
centuries strong Russian influence, Chechen has failed to develop any
formal-informal pronominal contrast resembling that of Russian /мы/-/вы/
(Алароев 1999: 66).
Second, 3rd plural deferential forms are less common in world languages.
Head (1978: 151) states that alternation in person "indicated greater
differences in degree of respect or social distance that does
alternation of number, while alternation of both categories shows
greater difference in social meaning than does change of only one of
them." He continues by observing that use of a 3rd plural deferential
form is more likely in languages that use, or have used, the 2nd plural
for the same purpose (1978: 170-171). Consequently, Slovene /onikanje/
is both more highly marked than /vikanje/ and is likely to have
developed after the emergence of /vikanje/.
As argued in Reindl (2003: 290, 2005: 32-34) acquisition of a merked
feature by a language in contact with a language that shares that marked
feature is good evidence of borrowing rahter than independent innovation.
5. Innovation
A special feature that distinguished Slovene /onikanje/ from its
presumed German model is that it can be applied to 3rd person referents
as well, as a sign of deference in their absence (refered to by Weiss
2003 as /množinsko govorjenje o odsotni osebi/ 'plural reference to an
absent person'). The objects of this deference are most often priests,
grandparents, and parents, although in the past it could apply to
members of the gentry as well (cf. Table 2 and §6.2). Some typical
examples of /onikanje/ in indirect address are:
"Mati so bili bolni"
'Mother was (3 pl.) ill' (Metelko 1825: 224)
"Spoštuj svojo mater in pomni, kaj so vse zavoljo tebe prestali; kedar
ti pa umerjó, pokoplji je zraven mene."
'Honor your mother and remember everything that she endured (3 pl.) for
you; when she dies (3 pl.), bury her (3 pl.) at my side.' (Janežič 1876;
200, quoting Ravnikar)
The origin of this innovation has not been determined. I have not found
a precedent for this usage in German or its attestation in any other
Slavic language except for the closely related Kajkavian Croatian (Jasna
Novak, p.c.), and a comment by Pavle Ivić (in Friedrich 1966: 254) that
this is found as an uneducated deferential form in spoken Russian. Such
forms are attested in other world languages - for example in Kannada
(Bean 1970: 564). The use of /onikanje/ for indirect address therefore
appears to be an independent Slovene innovation rather than a direct
borrowing from German.
6. Text Analysis
To exemplify the interplay of various forms of address in older Slovene,
the two-act social comedy /Županova Micka/ (Micka the Mayor's Daughter),
published by Anton Tomaž Linhart in 1790, was analysed. ... The play is
ideal for such analysis because it includes characters from a number of
social strata. The characters are as follows:
- Higher social rank: /Tulpenheim/ (a nobleman), /Šternfeldovka/ (a rich
young widow), /Monkof/ (Tulpenheim's friend), /Glažek/ (an educated
clerk). Tulpenheim is also initially referred to by the fictitious name
/Schönheim/;
- Medium social rank: /Jaka/ (the mayor);
- Lower social rank: /Micka/ (Jaka's daughter), /Anže/ (Micka's fiancé).
....
Table 1 shows the forms of direct address used among all of the
characters in the play. A broad range of formality and dynamics of
interaction occur:
- Ultra-formal reciprocal /onikanje/ between persons of higher rank to
signal respect/equality (e.g., Tulpenheim-Šternfeldovka);
- Non-reciprocal /onikanje/-/vikanje/ between persons of higher and
medium rand to signal respect/inequality (e.g., Tulpenheim-Jaka);
- Extreme non-reciprocal /onikanje/-/tikanje/ between persons of higher
and lower rank to signal respect/inequality (e.g., Tulpenheim-Micka);
- Non-reciprocal /vikanje/-/tikanje/ between persons of medium and lower
rank to signal respect/inequality (e.g., Jaka-Micka);
- Reciprocal /tikanje/ between persons of higher rank to signal
solidarity (e.g., Tulpenheim-Monkof);
- Reciprocal /tikanje/ between persons of lower rank to signal
solidarity (e.g., Micka-Anže);
Table 2 shows the forms of indirect address used among all of the
characters in the play. Two types of formality occur:
- Unmarked /onkanje/ (3 sg.) and related dual forms directed at persons
whose rank does not demand special deference (e.g., most cases);
- Marked /onikanje/ for persons whose rank requires special deference
(e.g., Šternfeldovka-Tulpenheim, Micka-Jaka).
As will be seen in the commentary below, these forms are influenced by
situational dynamics.
Table 3 shows the forms of inclusive address used among all of the
characters in the play. Two types of formality occur:
- Unmarked /midvakanje/ (1 du.) or /mikanje/ (1 pl.) including one or
more persons whose rank does not demand special deference (e.g., most cases)
- Marked /mikanje/ for two persons when the includee's rank requires
special deference (e.g., Micka-Tulpenheim) or precludes solidarity
(e.g., Šternfeldovka-Glažek).
....
6.1 Imperative, Internal Monogue, Self-Address)
....
6.2 Variation in Address
....
7. Further Research
As noted in Reindl (2005: 248, 252), /onikanje/ for direct address is
not limited to Slovene among the Slavic languages, but has also been
attested in Czech and Slovak (as well as Kajkavian Croatian and Russian
in indirect address; cf. §5). Examination of older dramatic works in
these languages would yield similar data - for example, Ján Pálarik's
1858 play /Inkognito/, which abounds in such examples:
A oni majú syna, pán radný?
'Do you (3 pl.) have a son, mister town councilor?' (Act 1)
Pálarik's play also contain extensive metalinguistic commentary.
Contrasting the findings of analyses of such works with Slovene patterns
would be of great interest for comparative purposes, and would also shed
light on how this shared phenomenon was manifested in the Slavic languages.
Works Cited
.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Trond Engen |
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nikolaj skreiv:
Quote: I will make a copy and report back.
I made hyself a copy of the article on Saturday. It is a nice article
and also speaks about wherefrom the whole idea of using pronouns for
expressing formality appeared - it is of French origin. It seems that
the German system was a hodge-podge of all three possibilities for a
large part of the history, before it finally settled on the use of
the 3rd plural. And Slovene innovation it seems, is the use of
ultraformal mode in indirect address, that is, when speaking with
respect about persons not present.
I decided to copy some of original article here, rather than retell
it, but I ommited the tables and examples from the play of the
section 6 and bibliography.
-------------------------------------------------
Donald F. Reindl
Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana
Slovene Ultra-Formal Address: Borrowing, Innovation, and Analysis
(Abstract)
[...]
Thank you. I haven't has much time to ponder about it yet but I've saved
your message and may return without warning on a later occasion.
At first and second glance, but no thorough reading, he has listed and
explained the varieties within Slovene. The origin of the system is
still somewhat obscure, except that it quite probably was imported in
some form through the Habsburg empire, and he suggests further research
into similar patterns in Czech and Slovak.
One might wonder, though, how changes in the polite/formal pronoun
system became deeply rooted across Europe, not just in the international
classes of priests, merchants and noblemen but in the masses.
--
Trond Engen
- formally |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Trond Engen |
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Trond Engen skreiv:
Quote: Nikolaj skreiv:
Donald F. Reindl
Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana
Slovene Ultra-Formal Address: Borrowing, Innovation, and Analysis
(Abstract)
[...]
At first and second glance, but no thorough reading, he has listed
and explained the varieties within Slovene. The origin of the system
is still somewhat obscure, except that it quite probably was imported
in some form through the Habsburg empire, and he suggests further
research into similar patterns in Czech and Slovak.
One might wonder, though, how changes in the polite/formal pronoun
system became deeply rooted across Europe, not just in the
international classes of priests, merchants and noblemen but in the
masses.
According to _The World Atlas of Language Structures Online_, there are
multiple politeness distinctions in Hungarian, Romanian and Lithuanian:
<http://wals.info/feature/45?tg_format=map>
--
Trond Engen
- in a very light yellowish spot |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 36 of 37 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 35, 36, 37 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:58 am
|
|