Mark, in the comments to an earlier entry, brought up an interesting point: why did the "thou/thee" form disappear from English (except for a few dialects)? There is a fascinating discussion of this on LINGUIST List, from which I quote the following, by Larry Trask:
English-speakers began to use 'you' as a respectful singular in the 13th century, probably under French influence. Except in conditions of intimacy, 'you' quickly became established as the ordinary way for an upper-class speaker to address an equal, as well as a superior, and by the 16th century 'thou' was all but non-existent in upper-class speech, except in addressing obvious inferiors. Naturally, this usage began to be copied by the middle class, and by the 16th century 'thou' was likewise rare in middle-class speech, except in addressing obvious inferiors. But 'thou' lingered long among working-class people, especially in rural areas, and it still survives today in parts of the north of England, where it has reportedly become something of a badge of solidarity.Another discussion includes pronoun distinctions in Italy, Belgium, Australia, and Providence (Rhode Island), and an article on the subject by Sara Malton includes a bibliography for those who wish to pursue this intriguing issue further.
None of this requires any particular explanation, but one point does: why did the non-reciprocal use of 'you' and 'thou' in power-based relationships disappear? Now, as Brown and Gilman argue in their famous paper ["The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity." In Ed. T. A. Sebeok. Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960. 253-277], there has been a steady trend (now mostly gone to completion) in European languages to replace the older non-reciprocal power-based use of T and V pronouns with a newer reciprocal solidarity-based use. Something similar appears to have happened much earlier in English, with the added twist that `thou' was driven out of the standard language altogether. Nobody knows why, but Leith has an interesting suggestion. He proposes that 16th-century England, in comparison with most other European countries, was characterized by a fluid and prosperous middle class, in which rapid rise was possible by entrepreneurial success. England, he argues, therefore lacked the comparatively rigid social structures typical ofother countries, at least as far as the middle class was concerned. Whereas every speaker of French or Spanish knew his own station and knew that of everyone else, so that power-based non-reciprocal usage could be readily maintained, a middle-class English person was by comparison insecure: he could never quite be sure whether a stranger was an inferior, an equal, or a superior. Therefore, Leith concludes, the reciprocal use of 'you' rapidly took hold among the middle class as the safest option, as a safe way of avoiding giving offense to a person one might need to do business with or ask favors of.
In Norwegian it is du - informal and de - formal. I always found it a pain in the neck. De always felt awkward to me, but as a child I was supposed to use it when talking to grownups: teachers, my sister's in-laws, the tramcar conductor, neighbors—you name it. It was such a relief coming to the US and just say you. Easy, comfortable, no (class distinction). Thank you English!I have also found a discussion of the polite-pronoun issue here; Mark J. Reed is investigating the matter and presumably will put a summary of what he learns online when he learns it; the phenomenon of voseo (use of the singular pronoun vos as a neutral form of address, avoiding the choice between tú and usted, used in Argentina and Uruguay and less widely elsewhere) is described here (some illustrations here); and Mikhail Epstein discusses the ideology of Soviet forms of address, including Vy/ty, here (scroll down to CHAPTER 9. IDEOLOGICAL SYNTAX: FORMS OF ADDRESS). A sample:
Ideological language, however, most often combines the familiar pronoun with the formal name and patronymic: "ty, Aleksei Nikolaevich." This form of address is the norm between members of the Communist Party, even in the Politburo. Such a combination reflects the two-fold nature of ideological language: in addressing an ideological brother it is impossible to use the vy form, but since this "brother" is not a blood-relation, it is necessary to retain some element of formality when addressing him. The element of formality was strengthened when ideological language became the official language of Soviet society. Ideological language is thus simultaneously brotherly and official, a combination of familiarity and formality.Posted by languagehat at December 4, 2002 11:04 AM
I'm famous!
Yes, on reflection, I suppose that haory explanation of Puritans making everyone else fed up with 'thou' is a bit Quaker-centric, even if in self-deprecating mode!
Hungarians claim they had a remarkably [or even chillingly] heirarchically-ordained reduction in sociolinguistic heirarchy. The story is that Count Szechenyi, their impatient and energetic reforming nobleman of the late 18th century, early 19th, was personally responsible for cutting the number of respect-related forms of address down from five to three [as it still is now] in his lifetime.
Sounds as if Hungarians [like the two Englishmen on the desert island waiting to be introduced to each other] are still today waiting for a second sufficiently prestigious aristocrat to give them permission to reduce further from three to two or even [gulp] one form of address.
Does Korean have five forms of address still, or am I imagining that?
Well? Somebody out there must know Korean... speak up!
Posted by: language hat at December 4, 2002 04:50 PMHello Everyone:
Just wanted to add a comment about the use of "vos" in Argentina. Vos is not a neutral term used to avoid the choice between formal (Usted) and informal (tú): rather, it is used instead of tú (or in variation with tú) and is considered informal. It would be rude to call an older clerk in a store "vos".
Hm. That's not the way I remember usage from when I lived in Buenos Aires in the '60s; it's true you wouldn't use it with a distinguished old gent, but as I recall people in general used it whether they knew each other or not -- certainly much more widely than tu is used in the rest of the Spanish-speaking world. But perhaps usage has changed, or we moved in different circles.
Posted by: language hat at November 30, 2003 03:57 PMI am also under the impression that vos is far from neutral (can you ever achieve that in language that already possesses this T/V distinction? isn't your refusal not to use the V form already a sign of... something? but anyways...) and decidedly informal, though I wouldn't know how its formality and usage fare with respect to tú, especially nowadays. I know that in olden days there was a definite stigma attached to vos, but that may have been the result of a prescriptivist mindset that genuflected in the direction of Castile, and which may no longer be in vogue (or so one hopes).
I am sad to report, however, that I have never been to Buenos Aires, and that my knowledge of this (if that is what it is) is mostly impressionistic.
Hmm... In reponse to the question about Korean, there are a few that I'm aware of. In reference to those of higher station, you say "Tang-shin" for the singular second person. For those of slightly more equal rank, you say "neo" (pronounced "nuh" for those who aren't familiar with the "eo" spelling), and in slang terms you can say "ni". If you're trying to downright disrespectful, as far as I know you can say "Aesekki", but I don't recommend it. I can ask my teacher or my friends, but I think there are only four, with one being colloquial.
Their equivalent to the Japanese -san is -sshi, but that might not tie into the topic at hand directly...
I thought I'd add something to this interesting discussion. In modern day Italian, the familiar second person singular is "tu" and the formal second person singular is "Lei" which oddly enough is the same as the feminine third person pronoun (she).
I read in grammar books about using "Loro" which means "they" as a polite form of the second person plural, but it seems to me that this has become defunct and everyone just uses "voi" when addressing a group of people.
In past decades, Italians used to use tu/voi (like tu and vous in French) but "voi" has been replaced by "Lei." Oddly enough the Fascists tried to get everyone to use the "voi" form because they thought the using "Lei" was "too Spanish."
Posted by: Chris at July 8, 2004 02:53 PMWatching Orfeu Negro a few months ago, I was surprised to hear você all the time; is tu dead in Brazil, or have I misunderstood something?
Posted by: Anton Sherwood at April 22, 2005 10:40 PMI do not think that Korean has five forms of address. I think it's more like three.
The highest would be "sunsaengnim". It is used to address a person of substantially higher social rank such as a friend's grandfather or one's professor (literally, it means "teacher").
The second, "tangshin" is also used to address a superior, such as a boss. It's not quite clear to me where it fits in relative to "sunsaeng", though it is definitely superior to the third second person pronoun. I think Kim Jong-il is called "tangshin" by his subjects.
To address an equal I believe "noh" (sort of rhymes with "aww") is common. If I remember correctly Pusan dialect uses "ni" in the same way as Seoulites use "noh".
However, in Korean, there are many particles that can be attached to any pronoun to make it even more honorific. But I'd say there are three levels. I hear that Japanese has nine forms. Is that right?
Posted by: Devin W. at September 11, 2005 08:13 AM