Japanese language What does okurishimasu mean

Forms of courtesy in Romance languages ​​and Japanese

Table of Contents

List of abbreviations


I. Current state of research
1. Literature review on politeness
2. Pragma and sociolinguistic approaches

II. Forms of courtesy in the Romance languages
3. The salutation system of the Romance languages
3.1 Pronominal and nominal non-vocative forms of address
3.1.1 The pronominal systems of Italian and Portuguese
3.1.2 Courtesy in the pronominal system of Italian Subject forms Object shapes Possessives Reflexiva
3.1.3 Salutation pronouns and nouns in Portuguese Subject forms Object shapes Possessives Reflexiva
3.2 Vocatives
3.2.1 Italian
3.2.2 Portuguese
4. The modal system of the Romance languages
4.1 Modal verbs
4.1.1 On the status of the modal verbs From AUX to INFL To distinguish between modal, auxiliary and full verbs
4.1.2 Modal verbs and courtesy
4.2 Tenses and modes.
4.2.1 The imperative and its substitute forms
4.2.2 Indicative vs. Subjunctive
4.2.3 Imperfect tense
4.2.4 Conditional
4.3 Record mode
4.4 Lexical realizations of modality
5. (Dis) politeness in the lexical area of ​​the Romance languages
5.1 Word level
5.2 Policies

III. Forms of courtesy in Japanese
6. Salutation reference and pronominal reference in Japanese
7. Japanese politeness in the field of morphology
7.1 Courtesy affixes
7.1.1 (g) o -Prefiguring
7.1.2 Humilitive prefixes
7.1.3 Suffix system
7.1.4 Combinations of (g) o- and -san / -sama
7.2 The verbal complexes O- V -ni naru and O- V -suru
8. Forms of politeness in Japanese in the area of ​​(verbal) lexicons
9. Japanese politeness in terms of syntax
9.1 X + V constructions
9.1.1 Verbs of giving and receiving
9.1.2 Benefactive
9.2 Nominal pro forms
9.2.1 The inventory of Japanese personal pronouns
9.2.2 "Pronouns": Pro-NPs, pro-nouns and pro-names

IV. Summary and Outlook
10. Romansh-Japanese differences and similarities
11. Universals in expressing courtesy?

List of abbreviations

Figure not included in this excerpt


The verbal[1] Politeness is at the center of the contribution of linguistics to the more general research on politeness, which also involves sociology, psychology, cultural anthropology and other sciences. Politeness as a "'psychosocial" category "(Simon 2003: 62) goes back to the fact that communication partners usually take into account the" sensitivities of their counterpart "(ibid .: 1) when choosing their words. In addition to the transmission of information ('content level'), manners, social conventions, etc. ('relationship level') also play a role in interpersonal interaction.

'Politeness' is initially a semantic-pragmatic concept. The relevance of linguistic pragmatics for politeness research should by no means be doubted. However, in the present work a different perspective on the phenomena mentioned is in the foreground. It should be about which structural Realizations in the Romance languages ​​on the one hand, especially in Italian and Portuguese, and in Japanese on the other hand are available for expressing courtesy. Pragmatic or sociolinguistic attempts to explain the current situation are only made in a case-by-case manner use of the linguistic resources provided by the language system or referred to relevant studies. The focus here is on the question of which morphosyntactic structures the Romance languages ​​and Japanese have ready for expressing politeness, i.e. what impact politeness has on the grammar of the languages ​​examined and whether regularities can be determined. Politeness as a universal linguistic function differs from language to language, among other things, in which situations and why something can be considered polite (socio- and pragmalinguistics) and how it is structurally implemented. The latter should be the core of the present work.

Under the everyday linguistic and interpretative[2] The term "courtesy" is usually understood to mean the expression of mutual appreciation through consideration for or protection of aspects of the (public) self-image of others. According to the European understanding, this is closely related to - also everyday language - ideas such as well-behaved behavior, decency, tact or friendliness, while 'politeness' in Japan is "fundamentally different from that in Europe" (Schwalbe, quoted in Nagatomo 1986: 104) and has more to do with group focus, etiquette, and obligations. The term of (verbal) "courtesy" should be used here in a technical sense. Accordingly, it is a coding of social or inter-personal distance vs. closeness that is manifest in the language structure. “Forms of politeness” should be understood to mean all linguistic, in particular grammatical and lexical means of expression in interpersonal relationships. They represent the grammatical coding of the (relatively higher / lower) social rank or the distance / intimacy relationship between speaker, listener and third party (cf. Bußmann 32002: 284). They should not be understood as a stylistic means in the sense of varying polite and overpolite or elegant levels of style. The optionality associated with the concept of linguistic 'style' on the one hand and the mandatoryity of grammatical politeness on the other hand speak against this.

The opposite of politeness, rudeness[3], is never or only very rarely in the languages ​​of the world[4] grammaticalized (Simon 2003: 84). This would take due consideration of the 'face' (for face -Model see chap. 2)[5] contradict the opposite. On an ongoing courtesy scale[6] from maximum politeness to maximum rudeness is almost exclusively grammaticalized in the area above a neutral value that is unmarked with regard to politeness. In the following, it is primarily about the positive range of the scale, from a polite neutral - admittedly difficult to define - zero point upwards. In the area of ​​the lexicon of Romance languages, however, we will encounter ways of expressing rudeness in particular on the one-word level (cf. 5.1). Of course, by an inadequate use linguistic expressions also in the morphosyntactic area cases of rudeness occur. However, these are systematically of to shape of rudeness to distinguish. One from an inappropriate language use, i.e. rudeness resulting from a violation of social norms is not considered in the following.

The term 'courtesy' is preferred here to that of 'respect' (cf. Haase 1994, Simon 2003), which only describes the “grammatical variants of politeness” (Simon 2003: 81), as lexical means are also used - albeit to a lesser extent Dimensions - should be included in the present illustration. Haase understands 'honorary' (1994: 11) all linguistic procedures of reference or the determination of the social relationship between the speaker, the addressee and / or third parties, regardless of whether these are grammaticalized ('respect') or not. In this respect, this concept corresponds to my definition of 'courtesy'. Courtesy-related means of expression are therefore also referred to in the following as 'Honorative' or 'Honorifika'. honorifics) designated.

In Japanese, appearances of polite language are mostly referred to as Keigo (敬 語 'respectful language'). Traditionally oriented grammarians and Japanese school grammars differentiate between three categories of courtesy Keigo: Sonkeigo (Forms of honor), Kenjōgo (Forms of devotion / humility) and Teineigo (Forms of liability / general forms of courtesy) (cf. inter alia Harada 1976: 501 et seq., Loveday 1982: 39, Nagatomo 1986: 124 et seq., Koyama 1997: 47 and Yamashita 2000: 320 et seq.). While the term "deference" relates to the conversation partner and his or her social environment, "modesty" relates to one's own person with one's own social circle. The 'humilitive' is much more important in Japanese than in the Romance languages[7]. "Expressions of liability" largely correspond to the form of courtesy, which should be referred to here with a salutation reference (see Chapter 6).

Probably the most conspicuous and best-known means of expression among the forms of politeness in the Indo-European languages ​​is a system of address pronouns differentiated according to intimacy vs. distance. Apart from the grammatical coding of politeness in the pronominal system, its structural impact can be seen in a comparison of the languages ​​of the world at various other points in the language system. As in Japanese, for example, it can be expressed using nominal affixes. Often there is also a coding of politeness in the verbal system, e.g. in the form of verbal affixes, periphrastic verbal forms, modal verbs, verb mode (subjunctive, conditional) and aspect (imperfect), passive constructions, etc. (cf. Subbarao / Agnihotri / Mukherjee 1991: 36 f., Simon 2003: 189). In the area of ​​vocabulary, politeness can be lexicalized through a more or less systematic substitution of less polite with more polite lexemes as well as polite phrases and - conditionally - in the form of particles. In (supra-segmental) phonology, especially the area of ​​intonation is potentially relevant to politeness, which, however, cannot be considered further in this thesis.

It is often said of Japanese that it has “its own polite language”. Roland Barthes even described Far Eastern politeness as "semi-religious" (quoted from Haferland / Paul 1996: 13). Harada (1976: 500) writes “[…] such languages ​​as Japanese, Korean, Javanese, and Tibetian have developed a grammatical system of honorifics […]” and Yamashita (2000: 315) and Marui / Matsubara / Takeuchi (1987: 498 ) are of the opinion that German and the other European languages ​​do not have a system comparable to the honorary system or the grammatical subsystem for social and interpersonal contact in Japanese. If politeness is not expressed in Japanese as it is in European languages, then how is it verbalized in that language instead? In a second step, it must be checked again whether the politeness systems of the two language groups considered here really do not have anything in common.

Indeed, in Japanese, courtesy is not coded in the pronominal system, but mainly in the verbal system. A modal system, which in the Indo-European languages ​​is the second important point for expressing politeness, does not exist in this form in Japanese. Instead, lexical and, above all, morphosyntactic means (lexicalizations, prefigations, composition, passive morphology, etc.) are used to express honor. The aim of the present work is to show that the first, intuitive impression that the Romance and Japanese politeness systems have no points of contact is deceptive. My thesis is: Language uses personal-referential systems as a universal property to express politeness.

The structure of the present work, which is primarily synchronized with today's spoken language, is as follows: The main part on the forms of politeness in the Romance languages ​​and in Japanese is preceded by a section on the current state of research (Section I). After a brief overview of the literature on the subject of (linguistic) courtesy (Chapter 1), socio- and pragmalinguistic approaches will also be briefly presented (Chapter 2). Among other things, these can provide an explanation of why politeness strategies are (universally) applied at all and, as a result, corresponding forms for them are grammatical or lexicalized. Section II is devoted to forms of politeness in the Romance languages. The central areas relevant to politeness are salutation (chapter 3), modality (chapter 4) and lexicons (chapter 5). Prosodic, especially intonational aspects cannot be taken into account. In section III, the levels of salutation and pronoun reference in Japanese should first be separated from one another (Chapter 6). The further considerations on Japanese are divided into the three areas of morphology (chapter 7), lexicons (chapter 8) and syntax (chapter 9). If one compares the politeness of the Romance languages ​​with those of Japanese (Section IV), they seem to be quite different at first. On closer inspection, however, a common underlying pattern becomes apparent for both of them, a common denominator (Chapter 10). This commonality should finally be put up for discussion as a universal property (Chapter 11).


1. Literature review on politeness

Held (1995: 103) sees the previous linguistic studies on politeness as "Anglo-American dominance and Romance deficit". Considering the Italian and Portuguese politeness systems as a large part of the present work is intended to address this objection. Simon (2003: 204) also sees a need for investigations into the structural impact of politeness in languages ​​other than German. Duranti (1974) describes the appearance of courtesy or respect in the title of his essay as “un aspetto poco studiato”. For Japanese, on the other hand, there is a relatively extensive literature on the phenomenon Keigo.

The previous (synchronous) Indo-European politeness research was mainly pragma- and sociolinguistically oriented (see Haverkate 1987, 1988, 1990, 1994, Koike 1992, Escandell Vidal 1995, Held 1995, Haferland / Ingwer 1996, Curcó 1998, Domínguez Calvo 2001, Rodrigues iD and the review article by Agha (1994)). As a research subject, addressing has and still has a privileged position among the forms of courtesy (cf. Meier 1951, Brown / Gilman 1960, Benigni / Bates 1977, Wilhelm 1979, Jensen 1981, Scotti-Rosin 1981, Kilbury Meißner 1982, Danesi / Lettieri 1983 , Hammermüller 1984, 1993a, 1993b, 1997, Ibrahim 1984, Ricciardi 1984, Medeiros 1985, Cintra 1986/1970/1972, Bogusławski 1987, Joseph 1987, Terić 2000, Czachur 2004 as well as for a - no longer entirely up-to-date - bibliography on address research Braun / Kohz / Schubert 1986). Diachronically, the focus was mostly on the origin and development of the polite form of address (cf. i.a. Simon 2003). Research into the “unorthodox” use of the imperfect tense and, to a lesser extent, the conditional for politeness purposes - mostly also from a pragmalinguistic point of view - has only recently gained increasing attention (cf. Bazzanella 1990, Reyes 1990, Fleischman 1995, Chodorowska -Pilch 2000a, 2000b). In the area of ​​lexicology, particle research was mainly concerned with the subject of courtesy (see also the anthology "Particles and Politeness" published by Held (2003)). In addition, there are some list-like overview representations of politeness formulas in Italian and Portuguese, mostly structured according to speech intentions or interaction situations (cf. Kröll 1980-1986, Campo 1991, 1993, Elwert 1984). System linguistic and grammatical studies of politeness are still rare for Indo-European languages ​​(cf. Haase 1994, Simon 2003).

Among the works on the polite language in Japanese (Keigo) The first thing that strikes you is the large number of a kind of “etiquette” that pursues the (prescriptive) goal of the correct application of Keigo to convey (see e.g. Okuaki 1988, Minami 1991). Orientation aids of this kind are not only written by linguists, but also by journalists, personnel trainers, and others, and are mainly aimed at a general readership. Relatively far removed from the reality of communication, mostly stereotypical ideas are thus perpetuated[8]. In addition, this form of advice literature is partly responsible for a kind of “aestheticization of the Keigo”In Japan and a certain“ social pressure ”that is exerted on the speakers (cf. Yamashita 2000: 319 f.).Even for non-native speakers there is a whole series of advice on (the basics) of the "correct" use of Keigo. Corresponding titles are, for example, “Minimum essential politeness. A guide to the Japanese honorific language ”(Niyekawa 1991) or“ How to be polite in Japanese ”(Mizutani / Mizutani 1987). Wetzel (2004), on the other hand, gives an overview of the historical development of the polite language in Japan.

Linguistic research on politeness in Japanese is mostly of a socio-linguistic nature. In particular, there is extensive literature on the subject of women's language and the (qualitatively and quantitatively) different use of certain forms of politeness by men and women (cf. i.a. Ide et al. 1986, Hori 1986, Ide / Yoshida 1999). A large number of other sociolinguistic works are experimental or quantitative and deal with individual phenomena such as the use of the courtesy prefix O- (Shibata 1972), the use of the pronouns of the 3rd person (Hinds 1975), the relationship between the length of politeness forms and their degree of politeness (Ogino 1986, 1989) or between the deviation upwards (“superpolite”) or downwards (“impolite “) From the adequate level of courtesy and any effect of irony or sarcasm achieved thereby (Okamoto 2002). Nannini (2000) compares potential taboo topics and their (linguistic) treatment in Japanese and Italian on the basis of the topics family and marital status, age and aging, death, body and health, money, and differences in language behavior when apologizing and taking responsibility for events. Nagatomo (1986) and Vorderwülbecke (1976) offer a comprehensive comparison of the Japanese and German forms of address and self-designation.

Harada (1976), Loveday (1982), Marui / Matsubara / Takeuchi ( 1987), Shibatani (1990) and Namai (2000). Coulmas (1980) and Felix (2003) are particularly noteworthy for expressing personal references in Japanese.

2. Pragma and sociolinguistic approaches

Almost every introduction to pragmatics contains a chapter on the subject of courtesy (cf. among others Green 1989: chap. 7.1, Thomas 1995: chap. 6, Yule 1996: chap. 7, Peccei 1999: chap. 8, Grundy 22000: chap. 7 , Meibauer 22001: Section 8.5). It is sometimes considered to be one of the main areas of pragmalinguistic research. An exhaustive presentation of their results is neither possible nor intended within the scope of this work. It is only intended to give a brief overview of some basic concepts that are important for the further course of the work.

This is probably the most common way of explaining the function or goal of politeness strategies face -Model has been used. The term 'face' or 'image' (face) goes back to Goffman (1955), who understands it to be a person's public self-image ("the public self image", quoted in Held 1995: 64). The model was substantially further developed by Brown / Levinson (1978 or as a monograph 1987). These make a bipolar distinction between 'positive' (recognition and appreciation) and 'negative' (territory) 'face', to which the strategies of 'positive' and 'negative politeness' correspond. In this way, 'positive courtesy' meets the communication partner's wish for recognition, 'negative courtesy' that for freedom in his actions and self-determination[9]. Furthermore, Brown / Levinson use the term 'act threatening the face' (face threatening act, FTA). A potential 'face threat' - and thus a trigger for politeness strategies such as indirectness or weakening - are situations for the speaker that require the expression of apologies, confessions of guilt, promises or self-criticism; the “face” of the listener, on the other hand, is threatened by criticism from others, rejection, insults, bans or requests. Courtesy is considered to be in this view face -protective strategy, used for "communicative defusing" (Held 1995: 74). The required degree of politeness depends on the weight or intensity of the 'face-threatening act' and, moreover, on sociological variables such as distance or power vs. solidarity (see Brown / Gilman 1960).

Simon (2003: 72 f.) Criticized on face -based politeness model that this does not yet provide an actual explanation for what ultimately is the motivation for polite speaking or behavior. For this purpose, moral concepts such as the “golden rule” (cf. Haferland / Paul 1996: 13) could be used, according to which one should treat others the way one wants to be treated the other way round[10]. To a deeper criticism of the face -Model see Simon (2003: 73 f.) And Haferland / Paul (1996: 16 ff.).

Lakoff's (1973: 298) rules on politeness (Don't impose. Give options. Make A [= the addressee, note d. Author] feel good - be friendly.) and Leechs (1983) politeness maxims, respectively Politeness Principle (PP) call that a reaction to that Cooperation Principle (CP) von Grice (1975) and his theory of conversational implicatures. Accordingly, when communicating, the speaker is confronted with a constant tension between the need for the greatest possible efficiency and the requirements for polite behavior. By choosing a more cumbersome form of expression, the speaker deviates from the path of maximum efficiency on the content level and violates Grice's maxims of conversation. Through this violation, he finally expresses his desire to be polite on the relationship level (cf. Vorderwülbecke 1984: 307 ff., Simon 2003: 69 f.). The theory of indirect speech acts by Searle (1975), on the other hand, tries, among other things, to explain the connection between indirectness and politeness. Even if a certain group of indirect speech acts can be considered polite, it must not be forgotten that indirectness is not yet per se is polite or the most indirect means of expression are not necessarily the most polite[11]. Searle's theory can be used as an explanation for the question, why sentences like (1a) or (2a), ie assertions in the function of prompts, seem potentially more polite than their respective “direct” equivalents (1b) or (2b) (numerous alternative formulations would be conceivable), when the actual intention of the speaker is clear to everyone:

(1) a. It's drawing here.

b. Close the window (please)!

(2) a. The soup is not very salted.

b. Pass me the salt (please)!

According to Simon (2003: 72), the key to understanding polite behavior is that it is not about what actually happens (here: prompting actions), but rather about how people treat each other. The detour via indirect speech acts signals to the listener that it is worth the effort for the speaker to take it[12].

The main sociolinguistic interest in the phenomenon of politeness consists in investigating who speaks politely to whom in which situation and why, and which of the forms available in the system he uses for this. Furthermore, for example, group-specific characteristics, i.e. class, age, gender or region-specific differences in the use of certain forms of politeness are examined.

With the essay by Brown / Gilman (1960) on the salutations between power and solidarity has already mentioned a groundbreaking work in the field of sociolinguistics. Using the example of French, Italian and German, the two authors postulate a transition from the asymmetrical form of address typical of socially stratified societies to a symmetrical pronominal use characterized by 'solidarity'.

Japanese sociolinguistics for a long time devoted itself intensively to the gender-specific use of certain means of expression in Japanese. The differences in the use of pronouns, sentence-final particles, interjections and polite prefixes are most evident in the morphosyntactic area (cf. Nagatomo 1986: 239 ff., Tsujimura 1996: 372 ff.). The Japanese female language (onnakotoba, joseigoAccording to Nagatomo (1986: XIV)), however, is not an expression of the discrimination against women in Japanese society, which Western scholars often believe to be. The connection between the use of language by women and their social position is not as evident as is often claimed (cf. Ide et al. 1986: 25); the stereotypical notion that women are more polite in their use of language is too superficial and does not reflect social reality (cf. Hori 1986: 385).

Numerous sociolinguistic explanations by Keigo are based on the historical roots of the 'respectful language' in Confucianism, which originated in China. The "correct" use of Keigo, which is substantial in Japan, is mainly controlled by the two (related) parameters of social status and age[13]which go back to two cornerstones of Japanese society: hierarchical relationships as an accepted, even considered a necessary phenomenon on the one hand and respect for the age sequence on the other. The strong sense of respect for the elderly or the “worship” of the pre-born is one of the rules without which human coexistence could not succeed according to the Confucian teaching. For many, Japan represents an extreme of the rule of law[14]: Rules are not questioned, which can result in cases of compliance with rules for the sake of the rules[15]. Confucianism, however, also brought with it the group orientation characteristic of Japan ('in-group' vs. 'out-group') (cf. Nagatomo 1986: 66 ff., 100 ff.). While, according to Hijirida / Sohn (1986: 365, 396), for example, American society is mainly characterized by egalitarianism, individualism and a pragmatic way of thinking, Japanese and Korean society, in contrast, are characterized by hierarchies, collectivism and formalism[16].

II. Forms of courtesy IN ROMANIC LANGUAGES

3. The salutation system of the Romance languages

The salutation system of a language comprises the entirety of the means of addressing that are available in this language. In this context, salutation is understood to be the explicit linguistic reference of a speaker to his or her actual or imaginary conversation partner (cf. Czachur 2004: 741 f., Hammermüller 1993a: 1).

The forms of address as (grammaticalized) linguistic means to establish interpersonal contact and / or to clarify the relationship between the interlocutors include all linguistic phenomena that are used for this reference. These are salutation pronouns (a special form of personal pronouns, which in turn represent a subgroup of pronouns) as well as salutation nouns or vocatives (names, titles, relatives). The distinction between prono-minal and nominal salutation is not always possible without problems in Portuguese (as well as in Polish, see Czachur 2004: 746 ff.) (See 3.1.4: o senhor).

Morphosyntactic and lexical forms of address can be distinguished (cf. Laroche-Bouvÿ 1989: 85). The morphosyntactic forms of address include pronouns or elements with their function (e.g. pg. o senhor), lexical forms of address are either isolated lexemes, cf. (1a), or nominal syntagms as in (1b):

(1) a. Monsieur, Doctor, President, Dupont, Paul

b. Monsieur le Président, Paul Dupont, cher ami, mon vieux, oncle Paul

Sometimes there is also a distinction between “bound” and “free” form of address (e.g. in Czachur 2004: 744 or Haase 1994: 32), whereby “bound” form of address is understood syntactically in a sentence, which expresses the function of a subject , Object or attribute, whereas in the case of "free" salutation a sentence without verbality is uttered alone or a corresponding (vocative used) form of salutation is in front of, behind or as an insert in a sentence without filling in a syntactic function. There is a tendency towards a correlation between (pro) nominal forms of address and their bondage vs. freedom, according to which pronominal forms of address are usually syntactically bound and nominal forms are free-standing[17]. There is, however, the possibility of free reference to a conversation partner through pronouns, cf. (2a), and bound reference through nominal forms as in (2b) (cf. Haase 1994: 32). The latter is particularly important for Portuguese (see 3.1.4).

(2) a. You, I have to tell you something.

b. Does the lady wish to dine?

The definition of “free” or “bound” form of address agrees with the - preferred here - distinction between vocative and non-vocative forms of address (cf. Kilbury Meißner 1982). In contrast to the non-vocative forms of addressing, vocatives are not syntagmatic integrated into the respective sentence (“free” address), they stand outside the sentence syntax and the specific sentence-intonational contour (cf. Simon 2003: 1). The differentiation between vocative and non-vocative forms of address corresponds to a distinction between "salutation" and "call" on the conceptual side. As already made clear in (2), no one-to-one correspondence can be assumed between these two levels, because "calls" can also be expressed through forms of address that are normally not used vocatively and vice versa (cf. Hammermüller 1993a: 34, 36 ff .; Hammermüller 1997: 27).

Another term that should be mentioned is the term "indirect address", which is particularly common in sociolinguistic literature (cf. e.g. Czachur 2004: 752). Under “direct salutation” one normally understands the form of salutation, as the “actual” forms of salutation, or also the vocative (cf. Hundertmark-Santos Martins 21998: 370). In contrast, under “indirect salutation”, which is exemplified in (3) with the corresponding German translation in (3a) for Portuguese (also pg. o Sr. Doutor, o Manuel, o pai, a colega Etc.)[18] Subsumes forms that are usually used to refer to people outside of the immediate speaker-listener relationship, as is clear from the alternative translation in (3b). These are associated with a verb form of the (morphological) 3rd person:

(3) O senhor Martins já viu esta peça?

a. "Have you already seen this play (Mr. Martins)?"

b. "Has Mr. Martins already seen this play?"

For a criticism of these terms, reference is made to Hammermüller (1993a: 32, 34f .; 1993b: 33f.) And Haase (1994: 32).

With regard to the addressing behavior, i.e. the use that a speaker makes of the forms of address available to him, a distinction can be made between symmetrical and asymmetrical use of the forms of address. In German, for example, the mutual use of the distanced form of address is symmetrical youyou or the family salutation with youyou, whereas the reciprocal salutation with youyou is asymmetrical. According to Brown / Gilman (1960: 255 ff.), The latter use is primarily found in socially stratified societies in which the factor power is dominant. Conversely, in the case of symmetrical salutation, the factor prevails solidarity (see ibid .: 257 ff.). A decline in asymmetrical in favor of symmetrical salutation ratios due to the development established by Brown / Gilman (ibd .: 260), according to which solidarity across from power prevailed, could probably not only be determined for French, Italian and German (ibid .: 264).

In the following, the main features of the pronominal systems of Italian and Portuguese will be presented and then examined in which area of ​​the pronominal system politeness is expressed in these two languages. The main focus should be on the grammatical peculiarities of the system of today's salutation in Italian and Portuguese. Especially for Portuguese, non-pronominal, i.e. salutation nouns, should continue to be presented as non-vocative forms of address.It concludes with a consideration of the vocatives in both languages.

3.1 Pronominal and nominal non-vocative forms of address

In almost all (West) Indo-European languages ​​of today, there are at least two pronouns with different politeness for addressing a single person. Exceptions to this are mainly English and, on a dialectal level, certain southern Italian[19] Varieties. Some languages ​​have autonomous special forms for the polite form of address, which do not appear synchronously anywhere else in the pronominal system (e.g. sp. usted, Dutch U). On the other hand, there are polite salutations in other languages ​​(e.g. German you, fr. vous) also under the "normal" personal pronouns (3rd Ps. Pl. or 2nd Ps. Pl.) again (cf. Simon 2003: 89 ff.).

In this chapter, after a brief description of the pronominal systems of Italian and Portuguese, the politeness-relevant pronouns in them are examined for both languages. Traditionally speaking, the subject and (un) stressed object forms of personal pronouns as well as possessive and reflexive pronouns are taken into account.

3.1.1 The pronominal systems of Italian and Portuguese

In (4) the paradigm of the Italian personal pronouns is shown, in (5) that of the Portuguese personal pronouns. The axes of the (two-dimensional) paradigm table are defined by the grammatical categories number (Sg./Pl.) Or person (1st, 2nd, 3rd Ps.) And case (nom., Acc. = Dir. Obj., Dat . = ind. obj.) formed. Within the 3rd Ps. There is (partly) a distinction according to gender (Mask./Fem.).

The question of where within this paradigm the forms of politeness are to be classified will only be the subject of the next two sections (cf. 3.1.2 for Italian and 3.1.3 for Portuguese).

Figure not included in this excerpt

In both languages ​​it is possible to leave pronominal subjects unexpressed. This is not a universal property of languages, i.e. cross-linguistically languages ​​vary with regard to one Per -drop parameters. Italian and Portuguese as well as Spanish, for example, fix the value of the Per -drop parameter positive; in contrast, French, English or German do not belong to the Per -drop languages[24]. The subject in Per -drop languages ​​is represented syntactically by a non-overturned pronoun, as will be shown below (see e.g. Haegeman 21994: 450 ff.).

Due to the extended projection principle (EPP), the Per -drop languages ​​the subject position (IP specifier position) must be occupied. It is occupied by a zero element - more precisely: by a zero NP, because the projected subject position is an NP position - which is not phonetically realized and in which the external theta role of the verb is realized. It is a covered pronoun that interprets like an overt, with Per and that is present on the D structure:

(6) a. Per Ha parlato.

b. Giannii dice che proi ha telefonato.

The relatively rich verbal inflection in Italian and Portuguese - in contrast to English, for example - allows subjects to be interpreted correctly without a lexical realization, because the grammatical characteristics of person and number of the subject can also be understood without an overt pronoun on the basis of verbal inflection (inflection, INFL) or, more precisely, the congruence behavior (agreement, AGR):

(7) proi parloi

In English, on the other hand, due to the rather “poor” verbal inflection, only subjects in the 3rd Ps. Sg. Pres. Can be identified.

Subject pronouns, however, are used overtly when the subject is to be emphasized, for example for reasons of contrast in antithetically constructed sentences as in (8) and (9) or in emphatic cleft constructions, see (10). Furthermore, pronominal subjects are made explicit if the reference to the finite verb form is not clear, i.e. if otherwise it would not be clear who or what is meant. This can be the case with a co-referential reference if there is more than one possible antecedent of the pronoun, cf. (11), or for morphological reasons if the forms are identical, for example in the subjunctive paradigm (present, perfect, past perfect) as in (12) , clarified here in Italian, or in the 1st and 3rd Ps. Sg. of the Portuguese past tense, cf. (13). If the context does not provide clarification here, the subject form is used for clarification:

(8) a. Tu hai meritato il premio, non Carla.

b. * Æ hai meritato il premio, non Carla.

(9) Eu trabalho enquanto tu dormes.

(10) Sou eu que ganho o dinheiro.

(11) Se Mario balla con Carla, (lei) sceglie la musica.

(12) a. Voglio che (tu) sia felice.

b. Non so se (lui) abbia detto ciò.

c. Non credeva che (tu) avessi taciuto.

(13) (Eu, Ele / Ela, Você, O senhor / A senhora, ...) falava semper nisso.

A more detailed account of cases in which the subject pronouns overt is (must) be found for Italian, for example, in Renzi (1988: 538 ff.) And Krenn (1996: 260 ff.) As well as for Portuguese, among others, in Kilbury Meißner ( 1982: 16 ff.) And Hundertmark-Santos Martins (21998: 80 f.).

The extremely complex and controversially discussed problem of the position of the object pronouns can only be hinted at here. What triggers the movement of Klitika, which landing positions are possible for Klitika and what are the determinants of enclise and proclise? These and other questions can be seen as crucial in clitization in the Romance languages ​​(Rizzi 2000: 96). Roughly speaking, there are two approaches to clitization in the generative literature, especially in the Romance languages ​​(for a detailed description see Sportiche 1996: 220 ff.): An older analysis based on movement on the one hand (e.g. Kayne 1991) and one today On the other hand, largely represented analysis proceeding from base generation (e.g. Sportiche 1996).

Regarding the position of the unstressed object pronouns in Italian, it can be said that there - in contrast to Portuguese - there is a systematic proclise in finite clauses and the enclitic arrangement is limited to non-finite clauses (infinitive, participle, gerund) and affirmative imperatives. Things are more complicated, in particular, when modal verbs, verbs of movement, aspect verbs and auxiliary verbs occur (cf. Renzi 1988: 572 ff., Kayne 1991: 648 ff.).

For modern European Portuguese, in contrast to other Romance languages ​​such as Italian or French, the first thing that applies is that clitics cannot appear in an absolutely sentence-initial position (Tobler-Moussafia law). As a normal case, i.e. in the absence of certain, more precisely specified triggers of the proclise, enclise can be assumed for the position of object clitics in today's European Portuguese (for the support of this assumption by linguistic historical and language acquisition data see Brito / Duarte / Matos 62003: 850 ff. ). Trigger of the Proclise (atractores de próclise, proclisadores) must follow the host verb (hospedeiro verbal) precede the clitic and c-command it. They include sentence and constituent negators, wh -Phrases, (simple and complex) complementizers, adverbs, some quantifiers, a subset of the coordinating conjunctions and focus constructions. The special features of the position of the Portuguese clitica in non-finite clauses cannot be discussed in detail here. Also noteworthy is the mesoclise in the future and conditional tense that has remained in modern European Portuguese from older language levels, but is in the process of disappearing. For more information on the Portuguese clitica, see Uriagereka (1995), Barbosa (1996, 2000), Vigário (1999), Duarte / Matos (2000), Raposo (2000) and Raposo / Uriagereka (2005).

After this overview-like presentation of the personal pronouns in Italian and Portuguese, the possessive pronouns should now be considered, which for the two Romance languages ​​in (14) and (15)[25] - again without the corresponding forms of courtesy - are summarized. The number and person of the “owner” are shown vertically, the gender and number of the “property” are shown horizontally.

Figure not included in this excerpt

Figure not included in this excerpt

The Italian and Portuguese possessives are congruent - with the exception of it. loro, which is invariable - in gender and number with the noun to which they refer, i.e. with the "object of possession":

(16) a. Luigii, dov’è il tuoi dizionario?

b. Luigii, dov’è la tuai grammatica?

They can be used both adjectival (1) and noun (2):

(17) o meu (1) carro e o teu (2)

In adjectival use, the unmarked word order is the one before the noun. The noun is followed by possessives in connection with the indefinite article, cf. (18a), a number, cf. (18b), a wh -Phrase, cf. (18c) and after some quantifiers, cf. (18d). In addition, an adjustment is possible for emphatic reasons as in (18e):

(18) a. Este rapaz é um neto meu.

b. Vi sete amigos meus.
c. A que obra sua se refere?
d. Tens aí us / alguns / vários / bastantes / poucos / diversos livros meus.
e. Deus meu!

Possessives can occur not only with the (definite) article as in (19a) or a demonstrative pronoun as in (19b), but also with quantifiers, cf. (19c, d). Possible structure types are (disregarding the cases presented above, in which the possessive is placed after the noun or the article is omitted), the ones listed under (19):

(19) Art / Dem + (Quant) + Poss + N,

(Quant) + Art / Dem + Poss + N

a. São os nossos amigos franceses.
b. Esses teus defeitos enternecem-me.
c. os meus muitos / numerosos / vários livros
d. Todos os nossos amigos.

To conclude the presentation of the personal pronouns, the Italian and Portuguese reflexive pronouns, cf. (20) and (21), in their unstressed (form atone) or clitical (form clitiche) and emphasized (form clay) or free (form libere) Forms are listed:

Figure not included in this excerpt

Figure not included in this excerpt

As in German, the forms of the reflexive pronouns of the 1st and 2nd Ps. Coincide with those of the object pronouns, so that only the 3rd Ps., Identical in Sg. And Pl., Differ morphologically from the personal pronouns.

In some cases it is possible to use a corresponding personal pronoun instead of the reflexive pronoun (cf. Renzi 1988: 596 f., Krenn 1996: 247 f.). In prepositional phrases, which usually express a location, either the (stressed) reflexive pronoun or the corresponding (stressed) form of the personal pronoun lui / lei / loro to be needed:

(22) a. Ci hanno invitato a cena da sé / da loro.

b. Ho autorizzato Carlo a portare con sé / con lui i suoi amici.

The personal pronoun is also used instead of the reflexive in cases in which an undesired reference to the subject would otherwise arise:

(23) Il capitanoi ordinò ai soldatij di portare le armi con séi / j / con loroj.

In some cases, the (stressed) personal pronoun can even be used in place of the (stressed) reflexive pronoun when it is a direct object:

(24) Coprivano con abiti pesanti sé / loro e i loro figli.

3.1.2 Courtesy in the pronominal system of Italian

Like German and French and in contrast to Dutch or Spanish (cf. 3.1), Italian does not have its own forms for polite salutation pronouns, but these can also be found elsewhere in the paradigm of personal pronouns. Simon (2003) discusses whether forms of politeness such as German you, which "superficially considered [...] represent 'simply just normal' personal pronouns" (ibd .: 91) (in German 3rd Ps. Pl.), were merely transposed to another place in the paradigm and there fulfill a secondary function, ie are two variants of a single grammatical element, or rather whether a grammatical category 'respect' - in addition to the traditional categories 'person', 'number', 'gender' etc. - with the values ​​[honorific] and [non-honorary] are accepted would have to. After an overview of the treatment of polite addressees you in various German grammars (ibid .: 10 ff.) he examines the question of the extent to which this differs from the plural uninvolved referential you differs. He cites several structures (complex DPs, relative clauses, 'preposition + reflexive / personal pronouns' etc.) in which the two show different syntactic behavior (ibd .: 136 ff.). Because of this, he demands that you and you should therefore be viewed as independent within the grammar (ibd .: 146). Schubert (1985: 153) also deals with the question of whether 'courtesy'[28] useful as a grammatical category, but at least doubts it.

An analogous view would also be for the Italian lei (polite salutation pronouns and personal pronouns 3rd Ps. Sg. Fem.) as well as for the polite salutation pronouns of the plural (loro = 3rd Ps. Pl. Or voi = 2. Ps. Pl.) Conceivable.

On the formal and familiar form of address of the 2nd Ps. Sg., Which is unproblematic from a formal point of view (subject form: do, Object form and refexive: ti / te, Possessive: (il) tuo etc., for the forms see 3.1.1) will not be discussed further below. It should be about the much more complex system of forms of courtesy. Subject forms

The pronouns do, voi, lei, loro[29] From the point of view of most grammarians, assume the function of informal or polite form of address in Italian. These are the pronouns of the 2nd Ps. Sg./Pl. or the 3rd Ps. Sg./Pl. in the paradigm of subject personal pronouns presented above (cf. 3.1.1). It is disputed whether for the polite form of address in the plural in today's Italian voi instead of loro is used (descriptive) or may be used (normative)[30]. The German polite salutation pronoun you are in Italian due to the formal distinction, whether one or more people are addressed, at least[31] three polite pronouns opposite: lei as a salutation for a (female and male) person, loro as salutation for several people and voi as salutation for several or, in today's Italian, however, severely restricted[32], a person.

So while the usual polite form of address in the singular lei is, becomes the politeness form in the plural loro often through voi replaces that - in contrast to do - cannot necessarily be classified as familiar, confidential salutation pronouns. The salutations with loro and voi can coexist in discourse, according to Renzi (1988: 543). It can happen that the first to the second named salutation is "switched":

(25) Si accomodino (3rd Ps. Pl.). Che cosa desiderate (2nd Ps. Pl.)?

After this general overview of the inventory of polite subject salutations in today's Italian, the competing polite singular salutations will be discussed below voi and lei or plural form of address voi and loro as well as the different congruence behavior of the singular forms of politeness lei and ella (see footnote 31).

As already indicated, the 2nd Ps. Pl., voi, as a form of courtesy for a single addressee[33] today only diatopically limited mainly to southern Italy[34] or used in literary registers (see e.g. Renzi 1988: 543). The current two-part system of addressing a person (family-confidential do vs. polite-distanced lei)[35] However, it was about from Cinquecento until Novecento still represented as a three-part system (do, voi, lei)[36]. The congruence behavior of voi as a polite salutation pronoun for a person indicates, in relation to the category number, that it requires a verb in the plural; Adjectives, see (26a), and participles, see (26b), are in the singular. The gender congruence remains unaffected.

(26) a. Voi, signor, siete molto generoso / * generosi. [as a salutation one male person]

b. Non vi siete innamorato / * innamorati. [as a salutation one male person]

Such a congruence behavior with the polite plural, which is semantically singular, can also be found in today's standard French:

(27) Vous êtes venu / * venus. [as a salutation one male person]

With the introduction of lei (3rd Ps. Sg.) Instead of voi (2nd Ps. Sg.) For the polite address one Person became the previous numerical ambiguity of voi (Sg./Pl.) Eliminated. According to Joseph (1987: 273), ambiguities in the personal reference system always result in instability. The replacement mentioned led to a disambiguation and thus ultimately to a reduction in this instability. If not in terms of politeness or formality, because voi is both familiar-confidential and polite-distanced form of address in the plural, so is voi now at least clear with regard to the category number. This is different, for example, with the French salutation pronoun vous (polite form of address in the singular and polite or familiar form of address in the plural) or also in English you (polite and familiar form of address in singular and plural)[37].

On the other hand, it is now. lei ambiguous, as it simultaneously has the function of a polite form of address in the singular and the feminine personal pronoun of the 3rd Ps. Sg. However, this is partially disambiguated by the fact that on the one hand it is a deictic use and the other time it is an (uninvolved) referential use of the pronoun.

Danesi / Lettieri (1983: 331 f.) Take the view that, in my opinion, too radical, that today's Italian no longer distinguishes between polite formality and polite formality. Your investigation (ibid .: 327 ff.) Showed that (reciprocal) do (in plural: voi) is used among friends, colleagues, family members and peers, (reciprocal) lei in complementary distribution to doi.e. in situations where do is excluded, is used and that loro practically does not exist (any longer) as a politeness pronoun of the plural. They summarize these results in the following form (ibid .: 331):

Figure not included in this excerpt

(28) do [–Formal, + singular]

voi [± formal, –singular]

lei [+ formal, + singular]

Ricciardi (1984), who also deals extensively with the form, takes a more moderate and in my opinion closer to linguistic reality voi as the plural of lei deals. He first states the inadequacy of a prescriptive rule, which is still found in numerous grammars, according to which voi is only used as a plural form for a group of people who are individually involved with do would be addressed and loro only for a group of people facing each other individually lei would be used. As a tendency of modern Italian it can be stated that in many places voi is used where according to the above rule loro would be expected (ibd .: 201), e.g. in:

(29) Voi, signori, lo wallpaper meglio di me.

Ricciardi (1984: 203 ff.) Then investigates the (diachronic) question of whether the use of voi instead of loro represents an innovation or whether it is loro, despite his preference by prescriptivists, simply never managed to voi to displace. He comes to the conclusion that the plural form of politeness loro relatively late, namely in analogy to lei[38], was included in the Italian pronominal system and that plural voi does not represent an innovation.

Ricciardi (1984: 216 ff.) Also examines structural factors that influence the use of voi instead of loro favor. As in the case of singular and plural forms of address with voi (see above), ambiguities also play a role here. By the use of loro as plural politeness pronoun (dt. She PL) result from its formal equality with the (uninvolved referential) personal pronoun loro (German she PL) partially syntactic ambiguities that occur with polite plural salutation pronouns voi do not occur. This should be illustrated using an example that goes back to Pasquali (here quoted from Ricciardi 1984: 216):

(30) I signori chiedono se possono venire da loro.

To explain the context, it should be said that this sentence is uttered by a maid who, during a telephone conversation with friends of the house owners, consults with her employers to confirm an invitation. However, it is not clear here whether their superiors should go to the friends' house or, conversely, the latter want to come to them. The maid's utterance is not free from ambiguities. The following are some possible readings of (30), where co-indexing refers to co-referent expressions:

(31) a. I signorii chiedono se [loroi] possono venire da loroj.

"The gentlemen / youi ask if they can come to you (home)."

b. I signorii chiedono se [loroj] possono venire da loroi.

"The gentlemen / youi ask if you can come to themi (home)."

c. I signorii chiedono se [loroi] possono venire da loroi.

"The gentlemen / youi ask if you can come to your (home)."

d. I signorii chiedono se [loroj] possono venire da loroj.

"The gentlemen / youi ask if you can come to yourself (home)."

e. I signorii chiedono se [lorok] possono venire da loroj.

"The gentlemen / youi ask if you can come to you (home)."

f. I signorii chiedono se [lorok] possono venire da loroi.[39]

"The gentlemen / youi ask if you can come to themi (home)."

The pronoun loro refers either to a 3rd Ps. Pl. (uninvolved referential reading: "to them") or to a 2nd Ps. Pl. (polite-deictic reading: "to you")[40], which in principle can result in ambiguous structures. This ambiguity occurs in the case of voi not on. In example (30) would be voi, cf. (32), regarding the "direction" of the invitation was clear:

(32) I signori chiedono se possono venire da voi.

By replacing loro by voi becomes [loro] possono Dis-ambiguated in favor of the reading in (31a), since in the same sentence[41] both forms of politeness cannot coexist in parallel. The possibilities (31b-d, f)[42] (as well as (31g-h) in footnote 39) are therefore omitted.

Apart from any ambiguities that may arise when using loro can occur, there are still numerous distributional restrictions for lorothat are not up to the same extent voi apply (cf. Ricciardi 1984: 218 ff.). So can on voi (or. voialtri) and loro as in (33a) or (33b), a numerical immediately follows. Lor signori can in no case be combined with a numerical, cf. (33c):

(33) a. Voi tre / Voialtri tre dovreste partire con noi due.

b. Loro tre dovrebbero partire con noi due.

c. * Lor signori tre / * Tre lor signori / * Lor tre signori dovrebbero partire.

Furthermore, at voi (or. voialtri) a noun appear, cf. (34a), at loro however not, cf. (34b):

(34) a. Voi / Voialtri uomini siete molto gentili.

b. * Loro uomini / * Lor signori uomini sono molto gentili.

However, if this noun is used with the definite article as an apposition, both pronouns are possible:

(35) a. Voi / Voialtri, gli uomini, dovreste aiutarci.

b. Loro / Lor signori, gli uomini, dovrebbero aiutarci.


[1] The area of ​​non-verbal politeness, for example bowing, shaking hands, opening the door, offering space, etc., should be abstracted in the following.

[2] According to Haferland / Paul (1996: 7), 'courtesy' is an interpretative term insofar as different participants in the situation or observers may differ from one another to a greater or lesser extent when assessing a case of politeness.

[3] Often times, politeness can only emerge from the contrast with a lack of politeness, i.e. ex negativo be understood. A missing greeting appears impolite, while a successful greeting is not necessarily perceived as polite. If you behave properly, you are not necessarily considered polite; However, if you violate a socially binding convention, you will be seen as impolite (Haferland / Paul 1996: 27, 29). For example, the use of the salutation você in European Portuguese (as opposed to Brazilian) instead of an expected o / a senhor / a (Doutor / a Etc. ) Perceived as impolite, whereas choosing an appropriate form of address would not necessarily be seen as polite.

[4] The Italian pejorative word formation suffix can be used as possible examples -accio / -accia (cf. 5.1) as well as some uses of the imperative (cf. 4.2.1).

[5] For a first, intuitive approach to the concept of face the metaphor of “loss of face” or “preservation of face”, which is also common in German, should suffice.

[6] A classification of available forms of politeness according to their degree of politeness on such a scale can usually not be in the form of an absolute classification ("rude", "polite", "very polite" etc.), but rather in ("weaker") relative sizes ("is." more polite / less polite than “).

[7] Kröll (1993) uses certain substitute forms for the pronoun of the 1st Ps. Sg. (eu) on. Such a substitute can seem modest, as one's own person is (apparently) “belittled”. In Portuguese, for example, this is the case when using your own name (o Manuel Facão) instead of the personal pronoun, with (pro-) nominal substitute forms such as to homem, a gente, uma pessoa, when using the 3rd Ps. (a boa da Amélia cá está), especially with expressions like este seu (vosso) amigo, o rapaz, a minha graça, o filho de meu pai..., o tolo de mim, o perro de mim, o cachorro de mim..., o indígena, cá o meco etc. Similar strategies can be observed in a similar way for Italian and other languages.

[8] According to Yamashita (2000: 319 f.), Such clichés include, for example, the following:

- Keigo is characteristic of Japanese,
- Keigo is beautiful,
- who Keigo used correctly, is attractive (especially affects women),
- who Keigo masters, shows his education,
- if Keigo not mastered, that's shameful.

[9] A higher level of politeness usually increases the chances of a request being granted, for example. Paradoxically, politeness “binds” the interlocutor all the more the less she tries to determine his or her actions.

[10] Simon (2003: 73) also refers to this rule, which can already be found in the New Testament. According to Nagatomo (1986: 109), Confucius answered one of his students to the question about the nature of moral behavior with "[...] What you do not wish yourself do not do to others".

[11] Indirect prompts like There is the door! make the speaker's intention very clear and are anything but polite (cf. Haferland / Paul 1996: 23).

[12] Simon (2003: 72) aptly remarks that the beautiful appearance is therefore probably sufficient and cites a quote from Wilhelm Busch (ibid.):

I praise myself for the politeness

The petite cheating.

I know, you know

And everyone's having fun.

[13] Because of these two determining factors, the problem arises when strangers meet for the first time in Japan how the respective interlocutors find out who is to be treated as a higher or lower rank. Questions about age, income or expense account and exchanging business cards are therefore quite normal in Japan.

[14] To the subject wakimae, who describes "the almost automatic observation of socially-agreed-upon rules" (Hill et al. 1986: 348), see Hill et al. (1986: 347 ff.), Held (1995: 101) and Ide (1993: 8).

[15] The Japanese tea ceremony, for example, follows such precise compliance. Accordingly, a tea master is characterized by perfect compliance with the rules.

[16] As far as the linguistic expression of politeness, the forms of politeness, are concerned, Shibatani (1990: 380) sees the Japanese honorific system as a relative one, with an emphasis on the relative social distance between the interlocutors, and, in contrast, an absolute system in the Korean one.

[17] Czachur (2004: 744) also points out that, from a sociolinguistic point of view, the linked form of address cannot be left out in the long term, but the free form of address can be avoided in the event of uncertainty.

[18] Hammermüller (1993b: 33 f.) Uses the image of the person being addressed who in a sense does not dare to look his counterpart in the eye. This arises from a kind of “linguistic imagery” which “ultimately can only be historically or etymologically motivated” and is “rather misleading” for a systematic-synchronous approach (ibid.).

[19] Niculescu (1966), for example, examines the exclusive use of the 2nd Ps. Sg. do in an area whose center is the Abruzzo (lower social classes).

[20] Unstressed objects are replaced by emphasized object forms if there is "special emphasis" on the personal pronouns, e.g. when emphasizing and juxtaposing (Ho visto te, non lei. / * Ti ho visto, non lei.), in coordination structures in which another object follows (Ho parlato a lui e a sua moglie. / * Gli ho parlato e a sua moglie.) as well as after all prepositions (Parlavano di te / * ti.).

[21] The two options loro and gli do not relate to a distinction between Mask. and Fem., but are alternatives. Loro is actually the stressed form of the object pronoun of the 3rd Ps. Pl. and is increasingly used by (the more colloquial) gli replaced. Note the different positions of the pronouns, which are explained by the difference between stressed and unstressed: cf. Faro sapere loro l’ora del mio arrivo. vs. Gli faro sapere l’ora del mio arrivo.

[22] The preposition is an exception com which, together with the stressed object pronouns, forms its own, mostly contracted forms: comigo, contigo, com ele / com ela, connosco, (convosco) / com vocês, com eles / com elas.

[23] The subject pronoun vós (2nd Ps. Pl.) Is out of date and is only used regionally, in the church and occasionally for rhetorical purposes. In its place is (the colloquial) vocês (+ Verb in 3rd Ps. Pl.) Entered.

To an interesting parallel, namely the loss of vosotros (Replacement by ustedes) in American Spanish and its (syntactic) consequences see Company Company (1997).

[24] When learning a first language, a child needs to find out whether the language they are exposed to is a Per -drop language or not, for which obviously little evidence is already sufficient.

[25] Sousa-Möckel (1997) offers a comparison of the Portuguese and German possessives.

[26] If the reference of suo this is done with a prepositional phrase di + replaces stressed object pronouns, which disambiguates the reference: cf.

Carloi arriverà con sua mogliej e suoi / j padre. vs. Carlo arriverà con sua moglie e il padre di lei.

Annai è in montagna con il suo fidanzatoj e suai / j madre. vs. Anna è in montagna con il suo fidanzato e la madre di lui.

[27] In the forms of the 3rd Ps. Sg. And Pl. (o seu, a sua, os seus, as suas) there could be confusion about who the "owner" is. As will be discussed in more detail later (cf. 3.1.3), the (morphological) 3rd Ps. In Portuguese (as, incidentally, also in Italian) serves as a polite address, so that in the forms mentioned the "owner" either can be the person addressed or a third party. The preposition is usually used to refer to a third party de + stressed object pronoun used: dele, dela, deles, delas (on Italian see also footnote 26): cf.

o seu livro ("Your book, his / herSg. / YourPl. Book") vs. o livro dele ("his book")

[28] To choose the designation of a corresponding category with 'courtesy' (Schubert 1985) or 'respect' (Simon 2003) see introduction.

[29] There are two spelling variants of upper and lower case in the polite form of address: lei / Lei, loro / Loro, voi / Voi.

[30] When addressing two or more people at the same time, for whom one would individually choose on the one hand a familiar and on the other hand a formal and polite form of address, according to Moretti (31996: 133) the use of voi (instead of loro) mandatory: e.g. Voi due, tu, Carlo, e lei, signora Bianchi, dovreste sedervi qui, per favore. - In business correspondence, too, instead of loro usually voi used as a polite form of address.

[31] Next to it is found ella, which is used as a salutation in literary texts or for high-ranking people, e.g. in the language of bureaucracy: Ella, signor ministro, ...

[32] According to the study by Danesi / Lettieri (1983: 331 f.) Becomes singular voi never used by higher social classes. However, this form was known to lower social classes; it was classified by them as a sign of respect for the elderly.

[33] During fascism, the form of politeness was used lei prohibited due to the false assumption that they are of foreign origin. Instead, in 1938 an attempt was made to voi enforce. According to Serianni (1997: 188), this attempted language-political intervention led as a reaction to the further spread of do.

[34] On the dialectal use of the singular voi and its penetration into italiano regional different areas of Italy see Rohlfs (1966-1969: §477).

[35] According to the opinion of Italian sociolinguistics, a tendency can be observed that the originally confidential form of address is becoming more and more common in formal situations and with unknown interlocutors do is used. This can be observed, for example, in radio broadcasts (cf. Berruto 1989: 95).

[36] This is also the case in Alessandro Manzoni's work, which is particularly influential in recent Italian language history I Promessi Sposi.

[37] According to Joseph (1987: 273) this is made dialectal in French by additional forms such as vous-autres or in English yous, you-all, you-ones, you guys, you-people, you folks etc. tries to compensate.

[38] The use of lei as a form of politeness, on the other hand, probably emerged around the 15th century as a replacement form for Vostra Signoria. From an initial co-referential use, an independent salutation pronoun developed with immediate referential use. Before that, the very first politeness pronoun was the form voi + Sg. Before the introduction of loro During the 18th century the inventory of the Italian salutation proponents looked as follows (cf. Ricciardi 1984: 204 f.): in the Sg .: do, voi, lei - in the pl .: voi. The introduction of loro According to Ricciardi (ibid .: 206), the courtesy paradigm was a kind of compensatory reaction to the already existing, much finer differentiation possibilities in the singular.

[39] In addition, there is another ambiguity in this particular example, which, however, plays a subordinate role here. The personal pronoun of the 3rd Ps. Pl. In the prepositional phrase there loro could also be a substitute form for a corresponding reflexive pronoun (there sé) be (see 3.1.1):

(31) g. I signorii chiedono se [loroj] possono venire da loroj (= da séj).

"The gentlemen / they ask if you can come yourself."

H. I signorii chiedono se [loroi] possono venire da loroi (= da séi).

"The gentlemen / youi ask if you can come yourself."

[40] Here conversational roles (1st Ps. = Speaker, 2nd Ps. = Addressed, 3rd Ps. = Neither speaker nor addressed) are meant and not expressions of the grammatical category "person".

[41] According to Renzi (1988: 543), this would be possible beyond the sentence limits (see above): Si accomodino. Che cosa desiderate?

[42] This does not affect the ambiguity from (31e), there, as above, with [loro] possono venire In principle, a third group can also be meant (for example the children of the friends who are to be sent to the house owners).

End of the reading sample from 155 pages