Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T12:45:46.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A bit of this and a bit of that: on social identification in Early and Late Modern English letters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2012

MINNA NEVALA
MINNA NEVALA*
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki, PO Box 24 (Unioninkatu 40B), FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article deals with the use of deictic pronouns this/these and that/those as demonstrative determiners in person-referential terms in Early and Late Modern English personal letters. The material for the study comes from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence and its Extension. The data chosen for this study cover personal correspondence between 1600 and 1800. The main purpose of the study is to show the link between the use of such demonstratives and what e.g. Tajfel & Turner (1979; also Hogg & Abrams 1988) call social identification. Since previous research has shown that the use of person reference in Present-Day English is biased towards group distinction, linking positive characteristics to members of one's in-group and distancing people in the out-group with negative reference, it is probable that this was the case in historical language use as well.

The study shows that most of the referents in the letter writers’, and in many cases also in the recipients’, in-group are indexed with positive descriptions and reference terms in positive contexts, whereas identifiable out-group referents mostly receive negative descriptions. The negatively, positively and neutrally evaluative functions were found to be central during both centuries. The neutral function is more prevalent than the others in the seventeenth century, but the negative and positive gain more emphasis in the eighteenth century. This shows that when both pronouns increasingly started to appear as connotative demonstrative determiners, their use as mere indexicals decreased. Overall, we can conclude that although the historical use of demonstrative pronouns as determiners in reference did not show a similar bias towards negative foregrounding to their Present-Day English equivalents, there is some indication that a change towards a more specialised use was on the way from the eighteenth century onwards.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 2: Selected papers from the Fourth International Conference on Late Modern English , July 2012 , pp. 261 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Clark, Herbert H. & Bangerter, Adrian. 2004. Changing ideas about reference. In Noveck, Iva A. & Sperber, Dan (eds.), Experimental pragmatics, 25–49. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Marshall, Catherine R.. 1981. Definite descriptions and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, Bonnie L. & Sag, Ivan A. (eds.), Elements of discourse understanding, 10–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Murphy, Gregory L.. 1982. Audience design in meaning and reference. In Le Ny, Jean-François & Kintsch, Walter (eds.), Language and comprehension, 287–99. Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Stivers, Tanya (eds.). 2007. Person reference in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton A. & Shroyer, Suzanne. 1989. The cataphoric use of the indefinite this in spoken narratives. Memory and Cognition 17, 536–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gumperz, John J. (ed.) 1982. Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. 1992. The indexical ground of deictic reference. In Duranti, Alessandro & Goodwin, Charles (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 43–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. 1996. Language and communicative practices. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, Michael A. 2005. Uncertainty, social identity and ideology. In Thye, Shane R. & Lawler, Edward J. (eds.), Social identification in groups, 203–29. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Michael A. & Abrams, Dominic. 1988. Social identifications. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Horton, William S. & Gerrig, Richard J.. 2002. Speakers’ experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 589–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, Richard. 2004. Social identity. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, Peter & Harré, Rom. 1990. Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nevala, Minna. 2004. Address in early English correspondence: Its forms and socio-pragmatic functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevala, Minna. 2009. Altering distance and defining authority: Person reference in Late Modern English. In Jonathan Culpeper (ed.), Historical sociopragmatics, a special issue of the Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10 (2), 238–59.Google Scholar
Perdue, Charles W. et al. 1990. Us and them: Social categorization and the process of intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59, 475–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickford, John R. & McNair-Knox, Faye. 1994. Addressee- and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. In Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 235–76. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In Barbara, Fox (ed.), Studies in anaphora, 437–85. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Categories in action: Person-reference and membership categorization. Discourse Studies 9 (4), 433–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Sara W. & Jucker, Andreas H.. 1998. Interactive aspects of reference assignment in conversations. Pragmatics & Cognition 6 (1/2), 153–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2007. Alternative recognitionals in person reference. Enfield & Stivers (eds.), 73–96.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, Stephen C.. 2007. Person reference in interaction. In Enfield & Stivers (eds.), 1–20.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henry (ed.) 1982. Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henry & Turner, John C.. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, William G. & Worchel, Stephen (eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations, 33–47. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
‘that, pron.1, adj., and adv.’. OED Online. September 2011. Oxford University Press. Accessed 30 November 2011.Google Scholar
‘this, pron. and adj.’. OED Online. September 2011. Oxford University Press. Accessed 30 November 2011.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 2009. Society and discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Andrew J. & Zeitlyn, David. 1995. The distribution of person-referring expressions in natural conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (1), 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar