Forms of address in French and Dutch : A sociopragmatic approach

Language Sciences

Volumn 18, Issue 3-4, 1996, Pages 765-775

  Martiny, T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NAMUR   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Address; Face strategies; Hearers; Power; Pragmatics; Requests; Sociolinguistics; Solidarity; Variation

Indexed keywords

EID: 0346046021     PISSN: 03880001     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00046-0     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Al, B. (1987). Etude quantitative des pronoms de dialogue en français et en néerlandais. In: Etudes de linguistique française offertes à Robert de Dardel par ses amis et collègues. (B. Kampers-Mahne, ed.), pp. 7-15.Rodopi, Amsterdam.
2. Bates, E. and L. Benigni (1975). Rules of address in Italy: a sociological survey. Language in Society, 4, 271-288.
3. Blum-Kulka, S., J. House and G. Kasper (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood.
4. Braun, F. (1988). Terms of Address. Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
5. Brown, P. and S. Levinson (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
6. Brown, R. (1965). The Basic Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationship. In: Social Psychology (R. Brown, ed.), pp. 51-100. Free Press, New York/London.
7. Brown, R. and M. Ford (1961). Address in American English. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 375-385.
8. Brown, R. and A. Gilman (1960). The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity. In: Style in language (T. Sebeok, ed.), pp.253-276. MIT Press, New York/London.
9. Clarck, H and T. Carlson (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58, 332-373.
10. Constable, D. (1984). Pouvoir et Solidarité en Afrique Francophone: Le cas du Mali. Le Français moderne, 52, 191-197.
11. Daan, J. (1978). U en je. Taal en Tongval, 30, 50-75.
12. Daan, J. (1982). Sociolinguïstiek. Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.
13. Friedrich, P. (1972). Social Context and Semantic Feature: The Russian Pronominal Usage. In: Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Communication (J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, eds.), pp.270-300. Rinehart and Winston Inc., New York.
14. Gardner-Chloros, P. (1991). Ni tu, ni vous : principes et paradoxes dans l'emploi des pronoms d'allocution en français contemporain. French Language Studies, 1, 139-155.
15. Gilman, A. and R. Brown (1958). Who says 'tu' to whom. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 15, 169-174.
16. Grimaud, M. (1989). Les appellatifs dans le discours. 'Madame', 'Mademoiselle', 'Monsieur', avec et sans nom propre. Le français moderne, 57, 54-78.
17. Haverkate, H. (1979). Impositive sentences in Spanish.: Theory and description in linguistic pragmatics. North Holland, Amsterdam.
18. Haverkate, H. (1981). Pragmatic aspects of speaker-reference in Dutch. In: Linguistics in the Netherlands (S. Daalder and M. Gerritsen, eds.), pp. 159-167. North Holland, Amsterdam.
19. Haverkate, H. (1983). Strategies in linguistic action. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 637-656.
20. Haverkate, H. (1984). Speech acts, speakers and hearers. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
21. Haverkate, H. (1992). Deictic categories as mitigating devices. Pragmatics, 2, 505-522.
22. Jucquois, G. (1977). Variantes sociolectiques du système pronominal de la deuxième personne en français contemporain. Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain, 4, 115-118.
23. Kramer, C. (1975). Sex-related.differences in address systems. Anthropological Linguistics, 17, 198-210.
24. Labov, W. (1971). The Study of Language in its Social Context. In: Advances in the Sociology of Language (J. Fishman, ed.), pp. 152-216. Mouton, The Hague.
25. Lambert, W. E. and G. R. Tucker (1976). Tu, vous, usted. A social-psychological study of address patterns. Newbury House, Rowley.
26. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (1980). The use and analysis of uncommon forms of address: a business example. Sociolinguistic Working Paper, 80, 1-18.
27. Maley, C. A. (1970). The Pronouns of Address in Modern Standard French. University of Michigan, Michigan.
28. Mok, Q. I. M. (1969). Les pronoms personnels de la deuxième personne en français et en hollandais. Het Franse Boek, 39, 71-80.
29. Perret, D. (1968). Termes d'adresse et injures. A propos d'un dictionnaire des injures. Cahiers de lexicologie, 12, 3-14.
30. Schoch, M. (1978) Problème sociolinguistique des pronoms d'allocution: 'Tu' et 'Vous'. Enquête à Lausanne. La Linguistique, 14, 55-73.
31. Van den Toorn, M. C. (1977). De problematiek van de Nederlandse aanspreekvormen. De Nieuwe Taalgids, 70, 520-540.
32. Van den Toorn, M. C. (1982). Dutch second-person pronouns. Dutch Crossing, 16, 5-18.
33. Van den Toorn, M. C. and J. A. M. Vermaas (1988). Veranderingen in de aansprekingen van de ouders. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal-en Letterkunde, 104, 210-228.
34. Van de Velde, M. (1980). Taal in de politiek. Pronominale aanspreekvorm in verkiezingspropaganda. Koninklijke Zuidnederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal-en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis. Handelingen, 34, 223-248.
35. Verschueren, J. (1987). Pragmatics as a theory of linguistic adaptation. International Pragmatics Association, Wilrijk.
36. Whitcut, J. (1980). The language of address. In: The state of the language (L. Michaels and C. Ricks, eds.), pp. 89-97. Univesity of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/ London.
37. Zwicky, A. M. (1974). Hey, Whatsyourname!. CLS, 10, 787-801.