Cover not available
Part of
Positioning the Self and Others: Linguistic perspectives
Edited by Kate Beeching, Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 292] 2018
► pp. 51–79

Chapter 3
Sociocultural and linguistic constraints in address choice from Latin to Italian

This chapter identifies the changes which led from the Early Latin address system, when address choice was unmarked as to the reverential dimension, to Late Latin, when such functions progressively emerged establishing the opposition between tu and Vos (2pl), and then to the Italian system. Speakers of Old Italian continued the differentiation in the address system, and, starting from the tu/Vos opposition, subsequent developments led to a tripartite system (tu/Voi/Lei).
The chapter traces the main pragmatic and structural steps in the development of address terms and the external and internal factors involved. Whereas the emergence of reverential forms in the history of Latin is mainly due to socio-cultural factors, the change from Voi to Lei can be attributed to both social (contact with Spanish) and linguistic factors, since the use of honorifics triggered anaphoric abstract reference to a third person, then morphologised as third singular pronouns (Lei).
Keywords: politeness, address system, Latin, Italian, honorifics, tu/Vos pronouns
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methods
  • 3.The development of the system of address in Latin
    • 3.1Classical Latin
    • 3.2Late Latin
  • 4.The system of address in Italian
    • 4.1Old Italian
    • 4.216th century
    • 4.318th century
    • 4.420th-century
    • 4.5Present-Day Italian
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.292.03mol
References (42)
References
Andersen, Gisle, and Karin Aijmer. 2011. Pragmatics of Society. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman. 1960. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity”. In Style in language, ed. by Thomas Albert Sebeok, 253–276. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Merja Kytö. 2000. “Data in Historical Pragmatics: Spoken Interaction (Re)cast as writing”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1:2: 175–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi, and Gerd Haverling. 2009. “Syntax, Sociolinguistics, and Literary Genres”. In New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax. Vol. 1. Syntax of the Sentence, ed. by Philip Baldi, and Pierluigi Cuzzolin, 19–64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dickey, Eleanor. 2002. Latin Forms of Address: From Plautus to Apuleius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. “A Model for Relevant Types of Contexts in Grammaticalization”. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, Vol. 49, ed. by Ilse Wischer, and Gabriele Diewald, 103–120. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferri, Rolando. 2008. “Politeness in Latin Comedy. Some Preliminary Thoughts”. Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 61: 15–28.Google Scholar
Fridh, Åke J. 1956. Terminologie et formule dans le Variae de Cassiodore . Études sur le développement du style administratif aux derniers siècles de l’antiquité. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara. 2015. “Thanking Formulae. The Role of Language Contact in the Diachrony of Italian”. In Contatto interlinguistico fra presente e passato, ed. by Carlo Consani, 315–343. Milano: LED.Google Scholar
Haverling, Gerd. 1995. “Illogical vos in Late Latin”. In Latin vulgaire – latin tardif IV: Actes du 4e colloque international sur le latin vulgaire et tardif. (Caen, 2–5 septembre 1994), ed. by Louis Callebat, 337–353. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann.Google Scholar
Head, Brian F. 1978. “Respect Degrees in Pronominal Reference”. In Universals of Human Language. Vol. 3. Word Structure, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg ed. 151–211. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. “On the Role of Context in Grammaticalization ”. New Reflections on Grammaticalization, ed. by Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald, 83–101. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2003. “Politeness Distinctions in Second Person Pronouns”. In Deictic Conceptualization of Space, Time and Person, ed. by Friedrich Lenz, 185–203. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “A Typology of Non-prototypical Uses of Personal Pronouns: Synchrony and Diachrony”. Journal of Pragmatics 88: 176–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, Johann B. 2003. La lingua d’uso latina (It. trans. ed. by Licinia Ricottilli). Bologna: Pàtron.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Johann B., and Anton Szantyr. 1965. Lateinische Grammatik. II Band. Syntax und Stilistik. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Ed. by Janner, Maria C., Mario A. Della Costanza, and Paul Sutermeister. 2014. Noi – Nous – Nosotros. Studi romanzi – Études romanes – Estudios románicos. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lilja, Saara. 1971. “The Singular Use of nos in Pliny’s Letters”. Eranos 69: 89–103.Google Scholar
Malsch, Derry L. 1987. “The Grammaticalization of Social Relationship: the Origin of Number to Encode Deference”. In Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Anna Giacalone Ramat, Onofrio Carruba and Giuliano Bernini. 407–418. Amsterdam: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Migliorini, Bruno. 1957. “Primordi del lei ”. In Saggi linguistici, 187–196. Firenze: Le Monnier.Google Scholar
Molinelli, Piera. 2002. “ Lei non sa chi sono io!: potere, solidarietà, rispetto e distanza nella comunicazione”. Linguistica e filologia 14: 283–302. ([URL]).Google Scholar
. 2010. “Pronomi allocutivi”. In Enciclopedia dell’italiano, ed. by Raffaele Simone, Gaetano Berruto, and Paolo D’Achille, 47–49. Roma: Istituto dell’enciclopedia italiana Treccani. [URL].Google Scholar
. 2015a. “Polite Forms and Sociolinguistic Dynamics in Contacts between Varieties of Italian”. In Contatto interlinguistico fra presente e passato, ed. by Carlo Consani, 283–313. Milano: LED. [URL]Google Scholar
. 2015b. “Plural Pronouns and Social Deixis in Latin: a Pragmatic Development”. Studi e Saggi Linguistici LIII (2), Special Issue Ancient Languages between Variation and Norm, ed. by Giovanna Marotta, and Francesco Rovai, 65–88.Google Scholar
Niculescu, Alexandru. 1974. Strutture allocutive pronominali reverenziali in italiano. Firenze: Olschki.Google Scholar
Norberg, Dag. 1999. Manuale di latino medievale. Cava de’ Tirreni: Avagliano Editore.Google Scholar
Pieri, Maria Pace. 1967. “Singolare e plurale di prima persona nell’epistolario di Cicerone”. Studi italiani di filologia classica 39: 199–223.Google Scholar
Raffaelli, Sergio. 1993. “Un lei politico: cronaca del bando fascista (gennaio-aprile 1938)”. In Omaggio a Gianfranco Folena, III: 2061–2073. Padova: Editoriale Programma.Google Scholar
Renzi, Lorenzo. 1993. “La deissi personale e il suo uso sociale”. Studi di Grammatica Italiana XV: 347–390.Google Scholar
. 2002. “ Tu e voi in italiano antico: da Dante, Paradiso (XV e XVI) al corpus elettronico TLIO”. In Roma et Romania. Festschrift für Gerhard Ernst zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Sabine Heinemann, Gerald Bernhard, and Dieter Kattenbusch, 269–285. Tuebingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Deissi sociale”. In Grammatica dell’italiano antico, ed. by Giampaolo Salvi, and Lorenzo Renzi, 1289–1304. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Ronconi, Alessandro. 1946. Il verbo latino. Principi di sintassi storica . Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Sasse, Josephus. 1889. De numero plurali qui vocatur maiestatis. Lepzig: Hoffmann.Google Scholar
Schmid, Wilhelm. 1923. “Pluralis Maiestatis [Majestic Plural].” Philologische Wochenschrift 43: 478–480.Google Scholar
Serianni, Luca. 2006. Prima lezione di grammatica. Roma: Laterza.Google Scholar
Svennung, Josef G. A. 1958. Anredeformen. Vergleichende Forschungen zur indirekten Anrede in der dritten Person und zum Nominativ für den Vokativ. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Ed. by Taavitsainen, Irma, and Andreas H. Jucker. 2003. Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unceta Gómez, Luis. 2014. “La politesse linguistique en latin: Bilan d’une étude en cours”. In Dictionnaire Historique et Encyclopédie Linguistique du Latin, Paris-Sorbonne ([URL], last retrieved, November 11th 2016).Google Scholar
. 2017. “Estrategias de cortesía lingüística en Querolus”. Latomus 75 (1): 140–161.Google Scholar
Uspenskij, Boris A. 2008. “Deissi e comunicazione. La realtà virtuale del linguaggio”. In Deissi, riferimento metafora. Questione classiche di linguistica e filosofia del linguaggio, ed. by Artemij Keidan, and Luca Alfieri, 107–163. Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
Ed. by Watts, Richard J., Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich. 1992. Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Nicole Baumgarten & Roel Vismans
2023. It's different with you [Topics in Address Research, 5], DOI logo
Bresin, Agnese
2023. Chapter 14. Investigating address in regional varieties of Italian. In It's different with you [Topics in Address Research, 5], ► pp. 340 ff. DOI logo
Gennies, Linda
2023. German and Romance civility in contact. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 24:1 ► pp. 86 ff. DOI logo
Bresin, Agnese, John Hajek & Heinz L. Kretzenbacher
2019. Transition from V to T address among restaurant customers and waiters in Italy. In It’s not all about you [Topics in Address Research, 1], ► pp. 222 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Address Variation in Sociocultural Context [Topics in Address Research, 2], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.