Modals and Hierarchy

[JuanTwoThree]

Reading this:

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~eng121-c/politenessin%20AME.htm

I saw this:

"For example: A wife might signal her recognition of her husband's legal pre-eminence as the head of household by addressing him as you in public contexts, but in private, thou would be the most usual marker of reciprocal intimacy. Thou could carry negative connotations however, to convey contempt or scorn:



you <------------> thou

address to social superiors <-----> address to social inferiors

address to social equals <-----> address of social equals

(upper class) (lower class)

address in public <-----> address in private

formal or neutral address <-----> familiar or intimate address

respect, admiration <-----> contempt, scorn



By the beginning of the sixteenth century, the system was becoming unstable, increasingly vulnerable to pragmatically subtle manipulation. In addition to pragmatic factors, the choice of pronoun was also subject to a degree of grammatical conditioning, so that thou seems to have been favoured as the subject of auxiliaries (can, may, shall, will) while you was preferred with lexical verbs (want, think, do, prepare). "

Interesting.

[Stephen Jones]

The system of pronomial deference can only survive in a fixed social order. When the system is challenged or fluid then simplification sets in. Look at the changes in Spain in the use of Usted and tu, or the shift in the significance of 'vos' in Catalan.

[metal56]

The system of pronomial deference can only survive in a fixed social order.

Not always:

In my first year here, the older people (in pensione) would use the "tu" with me when they saw me dressed for commuting to work by bicycle (bermudas, short sleave shirt, helmet). If I put on a necktie for a meeting, they would switch to the "lei".

http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bi ... ist&P=1841

I get the same in Spain. In a suit, I get "usted", but in my jeans and T-shirt, "tu". Social order and deference can remain among the general public even when the leaders are lax.


Robert Hall

[Stephen Jones]

The question of 'tratamiento' is different in Spanish now to what it was in
Franco's time.

There was a considerable period of flux (remember Felipe Gonzalez asking to be addressed as 'tu') but things appear to have settled more, albeit at a different point from before.

Now imagine the problems in Java, where the system is hideously complicated.

[metal56]

The question of 'tratamiento' is different in Spanish now to what it was in Franco's time.

For many Castillano speakers, it is, but for speakers of Spanish in other countries, such as in Latin America, the tu/usted distinction is still firm. And if you were to teach Spanish, what would be your advice to students regarding the tu/usted distinction?

Also, what were the circumstances surrounding the loss of "vos" in Spain? There was no Franco around then. And "vos" is still used in some parts of the Spainish speaking world, but as a familiar form, which is different from how it was used, or how it is now regarded, in Spain. Then, one has to consider the reasons for the regional difference between use of "ustedes" and "vosotros" in mainland Spain. No Franco around to influence those choices.

[Andrew Patterson]

Things have been even more simplified in Jamaican Creole, this from wikipedia.:

The pronominal system of Standard English has a four-way distinction of person, singular/plural, gender and nominative/objective. Some varieties of Jamaican Creole do not have the gender or nominative/objective distinction, though most do; but usefully, it does distinguish between the second person singular and plural (you).

* I, me = mi
* you, you (thou, thee) = yu
* he, him = im or i~ (nasalized in the basilect variety)
* she, her = shi or i~ (nasalized, with no gender distinction in the basilect variety)
* we, us = wi
* you, you = unu
* they, them = dem

To form the possessive adjectives and the possessive pronouns, simply add "fi-" to the pronouns above. Note, though, that most varieties of Jamaican Creole use merely the nominative/objective pronouns in place of these possessive variants, which are used for emphasis.

* my, mine = fi-mi
* your, yours (thy, thine) = fi-yu
* his, his = fi-im
* her, hers = fi-shi (also fi-'ar, and fi-im in basilect variety)
* our, ours = fi-wi
* your, yours = fi-unu
* their, theirs = fi-dem

Often, fi- is used in front of nouns, to indicate possession (replacing 's).

e.g. a fi-Anne daag dat, that is Anne's dog.

Generally, there seems to be a trend of object pronouns getting used for both subject and object, the exceptions being "shi" and "wi" (although back in Britain, "'er" (her) is used as a subject and object in Cornish and Devonian dialects, sometimes meaning "he"/"him" or "it".)

There are of course "yous" and "y'all" in certain varieties of US English.

[Stephen Jones]

I'm not sure you're getting me metal. What happened was that with the fall of Franco there was a strong reaction to hierarchy of any kind, and it was not too clear what social reactions were. You could be told off for being overfamiliar and using 'tu' or for being sarcastic or overformal and using 'usted' (or even suggesting a woman was older than she was by using 'usted').

Matters appeared to have settled down somewhere in the mid-eighties but 'tu' had definitely gained ground. It would be unthinkable, even in a conservative upper-middle class family for the child to refer to his father as usted, and work colleagues commonly use tu, whereas previously they would have used usted.

With regard to the loss of the distinction in English in the 16th century it was the result of a strong egalitarian social movement. This is well documented.