Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues: Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues Pragmatics & Beyond New Series (P&BNS) Pragmatics & Beyond New Series ...

Author: Terry Walker

60 downloads 555 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series (P&BNS) Pragmatics & Beyond New Series is a continuation of Pragmatics & Beyond and its Companion Series. The New Series offers a selection of high quality work covering the full richness of Pragmatics as an interdisciplinary field, within language sciences.

Editor Andreas H. Jucker

University of Zurich, English Department Plattenstrasse 47, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]

Associate Editors Jacob L. Mey

University of Southern Denmark

Herman Parret

Jef Verschueren

Susan C. Herring

Emanuel A. Schegloff

Belgian National Science Foundation, Universities of Louvain and Antwerp

Belgian National Science Foundation, University of Antwerp

Editorial Board Shoshana Blum-Kulka Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Jean Caron

Université de Poitiers

Robyn Carston

University College London

Bruce Fraser

Boston University

Thorstein Fretheim

University of Trondheim

John C. Heritage

University of California at Los Angeles

Indiana University

Masako K. Hiraga

University of California at Los Angeles

David Holdcroft

Georgetown University

Sachiko Ide

Kobe City University of Foreign Studies

Catherine KerbratOrecchioni

Sandra A. Thompson

Claudia de Lemos

Teun A. van Dijk

Marina Sbisà

Richard J. Watts

St.Paul’s (Rikkyo) University University of Leeds Japan Women’s University

University of Lyon 2 University of Campinas, Brazil University of Trieste

Deborah Schiffrin

Paul Osamu Takahara

University of California at Santa Barbara Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona University of Berne

Volume 158 Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues: Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy Terry Walker

Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy

Terry Walker Uppsala University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Thou and You in early modern English dialogues: trials, depositions, and drama comedy / Terry Walker. p. cm. (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, issn 0922-842X ; v. 158) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. English language--Pronoun. 2. You (The English word). 3. Thou (The English word). PE1261.W36

2007

425/.55--dc22

2007006649

isbn 978 90 272 5401 6 (Hb; alk. paper) © 2007 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

To my parents, Beryl and Cedric Walker

Table of contents

Preface and acknowledgements List of tables, figures, and maps chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Aims and scope 1 1.2 Methodological framework 3 1.2.1 Corpus linguistics 4 1.2.2 Historical pragmatics 4 1.2.3 Historical sociolinguistics 5 1.2.4 An eclectic framework 6 1.3 Presentation of corpus examples 6 1.4 Outline of the study 7 chapter 2 Corpus and genre overview 2.1 Introduction 9 2.2 A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (CED) 9 2.3 The corpus used for the present study 10 2.4 The genres investigated 12 2.4.1 Authentic dialogues: Trials and Depositions 12 2.4.1.2 Depositions 13 2.4.1.3 The reliability of the records of authentic dialogues 14 2.4.2 Constructed dialogues: Drama Comedy 18 2.5 Summary 19 chapter 3 Data classification 3.1 Introduction 21 3.2 The classification system for the parameters of sex, age, and rank 21 3.2.1 Sex and gender 21 3.2.2 Age 22

xiii xv 1

9

21

viii Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues

3.2.3 Rank 23 3.2.3.1 Type of information available in the genres 23 3.2.3.2 The social order and the classification system for rank 24 3.2.3.3 The status of women in Early Modern England, and the classification system 28 3.2.3.4 Titles and status names 30 3.2.4 The application and adaptations of the age and rank classifications 31 3.3 Summary 37 chapter 4 Previous research on thou and you in Early Modern English 4.1 Introduction and historical background 39 4.2 Theoretical approaches to the study of pronoun usage 40 4.2.1 Power and solidarity 40 4.2.2 Politeness theory 44 4.2.3 Markedness 46 4.3 Genre studies of pronoun usage 49 4.3.1 Drama 49 4.3.2 Trials 54 4.3.3 Depositions 55 4.3.4 Other genres: Letters, Handbooks, and Fiction 57 4.4 Thou and you in contemporaneous grammars 59 4.5 The development of address systems in Early Modern European languages 61 4.6 Summary 63

39

chapter 5 Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760 5.1 Introduction 65 5.2 The Trials sub-corpus 66 5.3 The macro-analysis 68 5.3.1 The overall distribution of thou and you in Early Modern English Trials 68 5.3.2 The formulaic use of thou and you 69 5.3.3 The sex parameter 72 5.3.4 The age parameter 74 5.3.5 The rank parameter 77 5.3.6 Summary of the macro-analysis 80

65

Table of contents

5.4 The micro-analysis: Pronoun usage in the Trials sub-corpus 80 5.4.1 Summary of the micro-analysis 91 5.5 Summary 92 chapter 6 Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760 93 6.1 Introduction 93 6.2 The Depositions sub-corpus 94 6.3 The macro-analysis 96 6.3.1 The overall distribution of thou and you in Early Modern English Depositions 96 6.3.2 Region 98 6.3.3 The sex parameter 103 6.3.4 The age parameter 106 6.3.5 The rank parameter 109 6.3.6 Summary of the macro-analysis 114 6.4 The micro-analysis: Pronoun usage in the Depositions sub-corpus 115 6.4.1 The approach to the micro-analysis 115 6.4.2 Pronoun usage in the period 1560–1599 117 6.4.2.1 Dialogues between women 118 6.4.2.2 Dialogues between men 126 6.4.2.3 Dialogues between women and men 131 6.4.2.4 Summary of pronoun usage in Depositions 1560–1599 140 6.4.3 Pronoun usage in the period 1600–1639 142 6.4.3.1 Dialogues between women 142 6.4.3.2 Dialogues between men 144 6.4.3.3 Dialogues between women and men 146 6.4.3.4 Summary of pronoun usage in Depositions 1600–1639 148 6.4.4 Pronoun usage in the period 1640–1679 149 6.4.4.1 Dialogues between women 149 6.4.4.2 Dialogues between men 150 6.4.4.3 Dialogues between women and men 152 6.4.4.4 Summary of pronoun usage in Depositions 1640–1679 153 6.4.5 Pronoun usage in the period 1680–1719 154 6.4.5.1 Dialogues between women 155 6.4.5.2 Dialogues between men 156 6.4.5.3 Dialogues between women and men 158 6.4.5.4 Summary of pronoun usage in Depositions 1680–1719 159 6.4.6 Pronoun usage in the period 1720–1760 160 6.4.6.1 Dialogues between women 160

ix

x


6.4.6.2 Dialogues between men 161 6.4.6.3 Dialogues between women and men 163 6.4.6.4 Summary of pronoun usage in Depositions 1720–1760 165 6.4.7 Summary of the micro-analysis 166 chapter 7 Thou and you in Drama Comedy 1560–1760 171 7.1 Introduction 171 7.2 The Drama Comedy sub-corpus 172 7.3 The macro-analysis 175 7.3.1 The overall distribution of thou and you in Early Modern English Drama Comedy 175 7.3.2 The sex parameter 177 7.3.3 The age parameter 180 7.3.4 The rank parameter 183 7.3.4.1 Comparison of the findings with a previous quantitative study (Johnson 1959, 1966) 187 7.3.5 Summary of the macro-analysis 190 7.4 The micro-analysis: Pronoun usage in the Drama Comedy sub-corpus 191 7.4.1 Pronoun usage in aside and apostrophe 191 7.4.2 The influence of assumed sex, age and/or rank on pronoun usage 197 7.4.3 Pronoun usage in direct address in the Drama Comedy sub-corpus 201 7.4.3.1 Trends in pronoun usage in the period 1560–1599 201 7.4.3.2 Trends in pronoun usage in the period 1600–1639 208 7.4.3.3 Trends in pronoun usage in the period 1640–1679 216 7.4.3.4 Trends in pronoun usage in the period 1680–1719 222 7.4.3.5 Trends in pronoun usage in the period 1720–1760 227 7.4.4 Summary of the micro-analysis 232 chapter 8 237 The role of selected linguistic factors in thou and you usage 8.1 Introduction 237 8.2 Is there evidence of grammatical conditioning of thou and you usage? 238 8.2.1 Closed-class vs. lexical verbs 238 8.2.2 Modal verbs vs. be, have, and do 245 8.2.2.1 Thou and you co-occurrence with will, shall, and be in Depositions 1560–1599 249

Table of contents

8.2.3 Public vs. private verbs 256 8.2.4 Section summary 259 8.3 Pronoun forms and their syntactic function 260 8.3.1 The distribution of thou and you and their variant forms 260 8.3.2 Thine vs. thy 262 8.3.3 Ye vs. you 265 8.3.4 Pray + second person singular pronouns 270 8.3.5 Fixed expressions 278 8.3.6 Section summary 284 chapter 9 287 Summary and conclusions 9.1 Overview of the aims and hypotheses 287 9.2 Summary of findings for the three genres 288 9.2.1 The overall distribution of thou and you in the three genres 288 9.2.2 Trials 289 9.2.3 Depositions 289 9.2.4 Drama Comedy 291 9.3 Factors influencing pronoun usage 292 9.3.1 Extra-linguistic factors 292 9.3.2 Linguistic factors 293 9.4 Were the hypotheses confirmed? 294 9.5 Suggestions for further research 294

Appendix References Index

297 327 337

xi

Preface and acknowledgements

The present work is a revised version of my doctoral thesis, which was examined and accepted in June 2005 at the Department of English at Uppsala University, Sweden. I would like to thank everyone who has helped me during the course of writing this book. I am very grateful to Professor Merja Kytö, who supervised my doctoral studies, for her unfailing support, encouragement and advice. Many thanks also to Professor Ulrich Busse, who acted as faculty examiner at the public ventilation of the thesis, for his help: he will finally get his copy of Bock’s thesis back. Thanks are also due to the seminar and conference participants who offered valuable criticism at various stages of this book’s development. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Peter Grund for his careful checking of my transcriptions of manuscript material that are included in this volume, and to Dr. Erik Smitterberg for reading and commenting on the draft of this book. Naturally any remaining errors or infelicities are my own. I am also grateful to Professor Andreas Jucker and the two anonymous reviewers for accepting my manuscript for publication, and to Isja Conen and the team at John Benjamins.

List of tables, figures, and maps

Tables Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 4.1 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5

Table 5.6

Table 5.7 Table 5.8 Table 6.1

The five 40-year periods of the CED The corpus used for the present study The classification system for the age parameter The detailed classification system for the rank parameter The classifications for age and rank for A Trve and Plaine Declaration of the Horrible Treasons, Practised by William Parry (1585) The classifications for age and rank for The Genuine and Authentick Tryal of Mr. Bartholomew Greenwood (1740) The classifications for age and rank for A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against Three Witches (1682) The classifications for age and rank for The Miseries of Inforst Mariage by George Wilkins (1607) The rank groupings as applied in the quantitative studies for each of the three genres The stage of T and V usage by the late sixteenth century (adapted from Trudgill 1995: 89) The Trials sub-corpus Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760: Raw figures and percentages Formulaic use vs. non-formulaic use of thou and you respectively in Trials 1560– 1760: Raw figures and percentages Thou and you (non-formulaic forms only) in Trials 1560–1760: Raw figures and percentages Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker: Raw figures and percentages (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic) Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker and addressee: Raw figures and percentages (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic) Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760 according to age of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic) Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760 according to rank of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic) The Depositions sub-corpus

xvi Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues

Table 6.2 Table 6.3

Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Table 6.7 Table 6.8 Table 6.9 Table 6.10 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 7.3 Table 7.4 Table 7.5 Table 7.6 Table 7.7 Table 7.8 Table 7.9 Table 7.10 Table 7.11 Table 8.1 Table 8.2a Table 8.2b Table 8.3a

Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760: Raw figures and percentages Number of occurrences of thou, and percentage of thou (in relation to you) in Depositions by region and period (cells highlighted in bold type indicate ‘thouregions’) Thou and you in ‘thou-regions and ‘you-regions’ in Depositions 1560–1760: Raw figures and percentages Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker: Raw figures and percentages Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker and addressee: Raw figures and percentages Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760 according to age of speaker and addressee Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760 according to rank of speaker and addressee The distribution of the dialogues in Depositions 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker and addressee The distribution of the dialogue types in Depositions 1560–1760 The Drama Comedy sub-corpus Thou and you in Drama Comedy 1560–1760: Raw figures and percentages Thou and you in Bock’s corpus 1560–1768: Raw figures and percentages (data from Bock 1938: Appendix) Thou and you in Drama Comedy 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker: Raw figures and percentages Thou and you in Drama Comedy 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker and addressee: Raw figures and percentages Thou and you in Drama Comedy 1560–1760 according to age of speaker and addressee Thou and you in Drama Comedy 1560–1760 according to rank of speaker and addressee Thou and you in Johnson’s Drama Comedy (and Fiction) corpus 1600–1649 according to rank of speaker and addressee (data from Johnson 1966: 266) Thou and you in Johnson’s Drama Comedy (and Fiction) corpus 1650–1699 according to rank of speaker and addressee (data from Johnson 1966: 266) Pronouns of address in aside and apostrophe in Drama Comedy 1560–1760: Raw figures and (for totals) percentages Pronoun usage in Drama Comedy 1560–1760 in cases in which characters have a false identity Thou and you according to type of verb and sentence, with examples from Trials and Depositions Thou and you in Statements before closed verbs and lexical verbs in the three genres in periods 1, 3, and 5 Thou and you in Questions after closed verbs and lexical verbs in the three genres in periods 1, 3, and 5 Thou and you in Statements before closed verbs and lexical verbs in Drama Comedy in periods 1, 3, and 5

List of tables, figures, and maps xvii

Table 8.3b Thou and you in Statements before closed verbs and lexical verbs in Trials in the five 40-year periods Table 8.3c Thou and you in Statements before closed verbs and lexical verbs in Depositions in the five 40-year periods Table 8.4a Thou and you in Questions after closed verbs and lexical verbs in Drama Comedy in periods 1, 3, and 5 Table 8.4b Thou and you in Questions after closed verbs and lexical verbs in Trials in the five 40-year periods Table 8.4c Thou and you in Questions after closed verbs and lexical verbs in Depositions in the five 40-year periods Table 8.5a Closed-class verbs in Statements in Drama Comedy in periods 1, 3, and 5 Table 8.5b Closed-class verbs in Questions in Drama Comedy in periods 1, 3, and 5 Table 8.6a Closed-class verbs in Statements in Trials in periods 1 and 2–4 Table 8.6b Closed-class verbs in Questions in Trials in periods 1 and 2–4 Table 8.7a Closed-class verbs in Statements in Depositions in periods 1, 2–3, and 4–5 Table 8.7b Closed-class verbs in Questions in Depositions in periods 1, 2–3, and 4–5 Table 8.8a Drama Comedy in period 1 (1560–1599): Public and private verbs co-occurring with thou and you in statements and questions Table 8.8b Trials in period 1 (1560–1599): Public and private verbs co-occurring with thou and you in statements and questions Table 8.8c Depositions in period 1 (1560–1599): Public and private verbs co-occurring with thou and you in statements and questions Table 8.9 List of words co-occurring with the determiners thy or thine in each genre and period (raw figures in parentheses) Table 8.10 Pronoun forms co-occurring with the two most common imperative verbs with an expressed subject (i.e. look and hark) in each genre and period (raw figures) Table 8.11 Ye vs. you as subject in Menaecmi by William Warner (1595) in questions, imperatives, and statements Table 8.12 Ye vs. you as subject in Depositions in period 1 (1560–1599) in questions and statements Table 8.13 The distribution of the verb pray + second person singular pronouns in each genre and period Table 8.14 Formulaic expressions, i.e. your + title (and your + servant in Drama Comedy) by genre and period: Raw figures and percentages (in relation to all your forms)

Tables (in Appendix) Table 5.9

Thou and you in period 1 Trials (1560–1599) according to age of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic) Table 5.10 Thou and you in period 2 Trials (1600–1639) according to age of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic)

xviii Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues

Table 5.11 Thou and you in period 3 Trials (1640–1679) according to age of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic) Table 5.12 Thou and you in period 4 Trials (1680–1719) according to age of speaker and addressee Table 5.13 You in period 5 Trials (1720–1760) according to age of speaker and addressee Table 5.14 Thou and you in period 1 Trials (1560–1599) according to rank of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic) Table 5.15 Thou and you in period 2 Trials (1600–1639) according to rank of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic) Table 5.16 Thou and you in period 3 Trials (1640–1679) according to rank of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic) Table 5.17 Thou and you in period 4 Trials (1680–1719) according to rank of speaker and addressee Table 5.18 You in period 5 Trials (1720–1760) according to rank of speaker and addressee Table 6.11 Regions and administrative areas represented by the Deposition collections Table 6.12 Thou and you in period 1 Depositions (1560–1599) according to age of speaker and addressee Table 6.13 Thou and you in period 2 and 3 Depositions (1600–1679) according to age of speaker and addressee Table 6.14 Thou and you in period 4 and 5 Depositions (1680–1760) according to age of speaker and addressee Table 6.15 Thou and you in period 1 Depositions (1560–1599) according to rank of speaker and addressee Table 6.16 Thou and you in period 2 and 3 Depositions (1600–1679) according to rank of speaker and addressee Table 6.17 Thou and you in period 4 and 5 Depositions (1680–1760) according to rank of speaker and addressee Table 7.12 Thou and you in period 1 Drama Comedy (1560–1599) according to age of speaker and addressee Table 7.13 Thou and you in period 2 Drama Comedy (1600–1639) according to age of speaker and addressee Table 7.14 Thou and you in period 3 Drama Comedy (1640–1679) according to age of speaker and addressee Table 7.15 Thou and you in period 4 Drama Comedy (1680–1719) according to age of speaker and addressee Table 7.16 Thou and you in in period 5 Drama Comedy (1720–1760) according to age of speaker and addressee Table 7.17 Thou and you in period 1 Drama Comedy (1560–1599) according to rank of speaker and addressee Table 7.18 Thou and you in period 2 Drama Comedy (1600–1639) according to rank of speaker and addressee

List of tables, figures, and maps xix

Table 7.19 Thou and you in period 3 Drama Comedy (1640–1679) according to rank of speaker and addressee Table 7.20 Thou and you in period 4 Drama Comedy (1680–1719) according to rank of speaker and addressee Table 7.21 Thou and you in in period 5 Drama Comedy (1720–1760) according to rank of speaker and addressee Table 8.15a The distribution of thou and you by syntactic function in Drama Comedy in periods 1, 3, and 5 Table 8.15b The distribution of thou and you by syntactic function in Trials in the five 40-year periods Table 8.15c The distribution of thou and you by syntactic function in Depositions in the five 40-year periods Table 8.16a The distribution of pronoun forms in their syntactic function in Drama Comedy in periods 1, 3, and 5 Table 8.16b The distribution of pronoun forms in their syntactic function in Trials in the five 40-year periods Table 8.16c The distribution of pronoun forms in their syntactic function in Depositions in the five 40-year periods

Figures Figure 4.1 Figure 5.1

Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4

Figure 6.5

Figure 6.6 Figure 7.1

The main uses of thou and you during the medieval period (adapted from Wales 1983: 116) Percentage for all instances of thou (in relation to you) and percentage for nonformulaic thou only (in relation to non-formulaic you) in Trials in the five 40year periods (data from Tables 5.2 and 5.4 respectively) Ratio of thou and you in Depositions in the five 40-year periods (data from Table 6.2) Percentage of thou (in relation to you) according to sex of speaker in Depositions in the five 40-year periods (data from Table 6.5) Percentage of thou (in relation to you) according to sex of speaker and addressee in Depositions in the five 40-year periods (data from Table 6.6) Percentage of thou (in relation to you) by older age groups to youths and children, and between the age groups ‘adult’ and ‘adult or old adult’ respectively, in Depositions in periods 1, 2–3, and 4–5 (data from Tables 6.12–6.14 in the Appendix) Percentage of thou (in relation to you) exchanged by lower commoners in periods 1, and 2–3, and that exchanged by professionals, and by upper commoners, in periods 1, 2–3, and 4–5 in Depositions (data from Tables 6.15–6.17 in the Appendix) Ratio of thou dialogues, you dialogues, and mixed dialogues in Depositions in the five 40-year periods (data from Table 6.10) Percentage of thou (in relation to you) in the play samples in order of publication date in the Drama Comedy sub-corpus for 1560–1760

xx


Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3 Figure 7.4 Figure 7.5 Figure 7.6 Figure 7.7

Figure 8.1 Figure 9.1

Percentage of thou (in relation to you) in the plays in Bock’s corpus for the roughly corresponding period i.e. 1560–1768 (data from Bock 1938: Appendix) Percentage of thou (in relation to you) in Drama Comedy in the five periods (data from Table 7.2) Percentage of thou (in relation to you) in Bock’s corpus in the five periods (data from Table 7.3) Percentage of thou (in relation to you) according to sex of speaker in Drama Comedy in the five 40-year periods (data from Table 7.4) Percentage of thou (in relation to you) according to sex of speaker and addressee in Drama Comedy in the five 40-year periods (data from Table 7.5) Percentage of thou (in relation to you) among characters of the same rank in Drama Comedy in the five 40-year periods (data from Tables 7.17–7.21 in the Appendix) Extract from Excel Database for Depositions 1560–1599 Percentage of thou (in relation to you) in each genre in the five 40-year periods from 1560–1760 (data from Tables 5.2, 6.2, and 7.2)

Maps Map 6.1 Map 6.2 Map 6.3

Dioceses represented in the Depositions sub-corpus Counties and towns represented in the Depositions sub-corpus Areas where thou (thou or thee) and you (ye or you) occur as subject pronoun in Present-day English dialects. Adapted version of map 33 (p. 66) from An Atlas of English Dialects by Upton, Clive & Widdowson, J. D. A. (1996). By kind permission of Oxford University Press

chapter 1

Introduction

1.1

Aims and scope

The present work is a quantitative and qualitative investigation of all forms of the second person singular pronouns thou and you (including the determiners thy and your)1 in Early Modern English dialogues, as found in three genres consisting of speech-related texts. The genres are Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy (see Chapter 2). The texts representing these genres are taken for the most part from A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (CED), which covers the period under investigation in the present study. According to previous research, this period is crucial in the history of thou and you; it spans the time from when you first became dominant, to when thou was finally relegated to dialects and specialised registers (see e.g. Görlach 1999: 10–11; Barber 1997: 152–157; Chapter 4 of the present study). Of the three genres, Drama Comedy has been widely studied by previous researchers, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and using both a semanto-pragmatic and a morpho-syntactic approach. However, comparatively little research into thou and you has been carried out on Trials and Depositions, which are genres made up of texts purporting to record ‘authentic’ dialogues. Trials have been considered by scholars, such as Finkenstaedt (1963), but, to my knowledge, no large-scale quantitative analysis has been done. Depositions have received very little attention, with the exception of Hope (1993). My intention with the present study of second person singular pronouns is to help fill this gap in the scholarly literature by carrying out both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the two genres, Trials and Depositions. A similar analysis of Drama Comedy is made for comparison both with the findings for the other two genres and with those of previous research. The aims of the present study are as follows:

1. Thou subsumes thou, thee (including prithee), thy, thyself, and thine, and you subsumes ye, you, your, yourself, and yours.

2


– to study the variation in the use of thou and you across the period 1560– 1760 – to examine which extra-linguistic factors (e.g. relative status of speaker/addressee, genre, and time) appear particularly influential in the selection and relative distribution of thou and you – to consider the influence of linguistic factors (e.g. verb type) on pronoun usage. The overarching hypothesis of the present study, based on the findings of previous research (see Chapter 4), is that the selection of thou or you is primarily dependent on extra-linguistic factors. These factors include the relative status (e.g. on the basis of sex, age, and rank) of speaker and addressee, the degree of social distance between them (whether strangers, neighbours, friends, intimates etc.), their social role (e.g. judge/witness), the level of emotion, the level of formality, and the specific context (location/purpose) of the dialogue. According to previous research, those of greater status would tend to address those of lesser status as thou, but receive you. In addition, the greater the social distance and/or formality, the greater the likelihood that you would be used, while strong emotion is said to encourage the use of thou. Moreover, the extra-linguistic factor of genre is expected to play a role in pronoun selection; for example, dramatists might exploit pronoun usage as a means of characterisation. Furthermore, the distribution of thou and you is likely to differ in each genre, judging by the findings of previous research, and as demonstrated quantitatively for example by Busse (2002) with regard to the different Drama genres in the Shakespeare Corpus (i.e. Histories, Tragedies, and Comedies). With regard to my material, differences in the distribution of thou and you may be due to differences in, for instance, the situational context(s), and type of speaker and addressee typically represented (see Chapters 5–7 on Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy respectively). Moreover, a decline in the use of thou across the period 1560–1760 is predicted on the basis of previous quantitative studies, such as Bock’s (1938) study of Drama Comedy. I intend to map this decline by considering the frequency of thou in relation to you in five 40-year periods, for each genre. I also hope to show whether and to what extent thou became restricted, for example, to reflecting the speaker’s mood rather than the relative social status of speaker and addressee, as suggested by Bock (1938). Previous research, which has focused on Shakespeare’s plays, has not found conclusive evidence that linguistic factors, for instance the sentence type and/or the verb with which the subject forms of thou and you co-occur, play a role in pronoun selection (see Chapter 8). However, thus far, there has been no investiga-

Chapter 1. Introduction

tion into the possible influence of linguistic factors in Drama Comedy, other than Shakespeare, or in the genres of Trials and Depositions. Nor has the diachronic perspective in this regard been considered in previous studies. As mentioned above, the present study offers both a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of the data obtained for the three genres investigated. While all of the above-mentioned extra-linguistic factors are discussed in the qualitative analysis, it proved impossible to quantify the data according to certain of these, such as level of emotion, formality, or degree of intimacy. The data could however be quantified in terms of the relative status of the speaker and addressee. Therefore, this became the focus of the quantitative analysis. Brown and Gilman (1960: 255–257) include the parameters of sex, age, and rank (or ‘social class’) in their discussion of the bases of status, or ‘power’, and the influence of the relative status of speaker and addressee on pronoun usage. Being of the male sex, greater age, and higher rank, are all presumed to give greater status in society. On the basis of the available information in my material for the three genres, the data could, for the most part, be coded according to the sex of speaker and addressee, and according to which age group and rank the speaker and addressee belonged to (see Chapter 3). Therefore, I am able to examine whether there is quantitative evidence that the parameters of sex, age, and rank respectively do in fact influence pronoun selection.2 With regard to rank, the quantitative analysis may also reveal whether those of similar low rank tend to exchange thou, and those of similar high rank tend to exchange you, a claim much debated by scholars.

1.2

Methodological framework

The present study embraces the fields of corpus linguistics, historical pragmatics, and historical sociolinguistics. Here I will briefly comment on these approaches and their relevance to this investigation. Particular theories that have been applied to thou and you usage, such as politeness theory, are discussed in the context of previous research, in Chapter 4.

2. Ideally, these three parameters would also be considered together, using a multivariate analysis (e.g. GoldVarb: see Rand & Sankoff 1990) to ascertain which has the strongest influence on pronoun selection. However, as both speaker and addressee need to be taken into account, and there are several different age and rank groups, the data proved too widely distributed to allow such an analysis.

3

4


1.2.1 Corpus linguistics The use of electronic corpora has greatly facilitated the study of language in that much larger amounts of data can now be stored in an accessible format, and particular linguistic features can be searched for, isolated, and extracted via the computer, on a much greater scale than was previously feasible manually within reasonable time limits (see e.g. McEnery & Wilson 1996; Biber et al. 1998). Moreover, electronic corpora, which exemplify, for instance, a language variety or genre, are typically designed to be a representative sample of that variety or genre as a whole. Therefore a corpus-based study is expected to yield results more likely to be valid for the whole of that variety or genre, than is a study of a single text, which has not infrequently been the basis for studies of thou and you. Busse (2002) has shown the value of the corpus linguistics approach, with regard to the study of thou and you, for revealing such things as genre differences (see above, 1.1). However, he also draws attention to a particular problem connected to the corpus-based study of thou and you, which is the necessity of sifting manually through the data to distinguish plural you forms from singular you forms (Busse 2002: 40–41). Busse resolves this by using a control corpus consisting of a sub-set of his material. By contrast, for the present study, all plural forms in the material were identified manually and excluded from the data. Nevertheless, using an electronic corpus, the CED, enabled the collection of data on a scale which would otherwise have been extremely time-consuming.

1.2.2 Historical pragmatics According to Leech (1983: x) “[p]ragmatics can be usefully defined as the study of how utterances have meanings in situations”. For example, the same words uttered in two different contexts may have two totally different pragmatic meanings. To produce and understand the pragmatic meaning, one must have pragmatic competence, which includes knowledge of the social distance between speaker and addressee, their relative social status, and cultural knowledge including what is considered polite in a particular society or situational context. Historical pragmatics is the application of pragmatics to the language of the past. Spoken data (upon which pragmatics tends to focus) is obviously not available for periods before the advent of audio recording. However, we do have access to written texts which include constructed dialogue and written texts which purportedly record

3. For a discussion of corpus design and the issue of representativeness, see e.g. Biber (1993); McEnery and Wilson (1996).


authentic dialogue. As mentioned in 1.1, Trials and Depositions have been hitherto relatively neglected, despite their providing perhaps relatively faithful renderings of authentic spoken language of the past (see Chapter 2). Historical pragmatics is a particularly relevant approach for the study of second person singular pronouns, as both thou and you had a range of pragmatic functions. For example, the words thou art welcome might be said by one intimate to another, and the address pronoun would reflect this intimacy, but the same words to a stranger, or a social superior, would likely be taken as an affront by the addressee, as the speaker would be assuming an intimacy or equality that was unfounded. Jucker (2000: 161) calls for the study of thou and you from a “micro-pragmatically motivated perspective”, in which specific conversations are analysed. This is the approach taken in the qualitative discussion in Chapters 5–7 with reference to Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy respectively.

1.2.3 Historical sociolinguistics The term ‘historical sociolinguistics’ might be defined as adapting modern sociolinguistic theory to the study of language use and language change in the past, taking account of the socio-historical context of the period under investigation. Romaine (1982), Kytö (1993), and Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1996, 2003) among others, have illustrated that sociolinguistic patterns found to apply in modern society can also be applicable to earlier periods. The variables of sex, age, class, and region, which have been shown to influence linguistic behaviour in Present-day English, can also be studied from a historical perspective, as the relevant information is often available. Certain sociolinguistic theories based on research on Present-day English may be applicable to second person singular pronoun usage, with you as the prestige variant associated with cultivated speech, and thou the vernacular form associated with the lower ranks. Labov (1972: 122–142) and Trudgill (1972) show that members of the lower middle class, especially those of middle age, and women, tend to use a prestige variant in more careful speech, which is when they are most conscious of their language, more than do the upper class that they are emulating. Such hypercorrection promotes linguistic change that is both above the level of conscious awareness and in favour of the variant introduced by the class above, which leads to the establishing of new prestige variants. With reference to Early Modern England, Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003: 154) find evidence that “professionals [...] often acquired their linguistic models from their social superiors and consequently played an important part in the diffusion of new variants”. If this is applicable to pronoun usage, the social group below the

5

6


gentry, women, and those of middle age, might have been at the forefront of the spread of you at the expense of thou. Trudgill (1972) suggests that covert prestige could explain why women in present-day society have been found to use more prestige variants than men of the same social class do. While women prefer the overtly prestigious variant, men are attracted to the covert prestige attached to the non-standard or vernacular variant, which is associated with toughness and masculinity. Also the young are more likely than are older speakers to be attracted to the covert prestige of the vernacular. The same principle is used to explain class differences; while the lower middle class emulate the upper middle class, the lower class identify themselves with their social equals. With regard to the Early Modern English period, this might explain why members of the lowest ranks continued to exchange thou, according to some researchers, when you was exchanged among higher ranks. Furthermore, groups of urban adolescents in present-day society have been found to reinforce each other’s use of more non-standard variants; they adopt more standard norms after reaching adulthood (Chambers 1995: 169–185). If this has any bearing on my Early Modern English data, it might lead to the newer, prestige variant you being less favoured among youths than among older speakers.

1.2.4 An eclectic framework The advantages of adopting an eclectic framework involving corpus linguistics, historical pragmatics, and historical sociolinguistics, are twofold. First, it is hoped that the corpus-based investigation will provide sufficient data for conclusions to be drawn which may be valid for the three dialogic genres (Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy) as a whole. Second, such an approach may result in our better understanding the variation between thou and you, in that it takes into account relatively static social variables (e.g. sex), and linguistic behaviour which might be typical of particular groups (e.g. the middle ranks), as well as considering situation-bound variables (e.g. speaker attitude).

1.3

Presentation of corpus examples

The material used for the present study (see Chapter 2) is drawn from the CED and from manuscript material. Examples from the CED follow the printed source texts (the coding which surrounds the text in its CED format is omitted). Thus lineation, spacing, fonts (plain and italic), and orthography are maintained insofar as this is possible (where e.g. lineation could not be maintained, this is noted


below the example concerned). However, black letter, when used in a source text as the basic font (while plain font is used for emphasis), has been rendered as plain font (and italics used for emphasis). Moreover, the modern form ‘s’ is used to represent all forms of this letter. Square brackets, ‘[ ]’, are used for my glosses, such as ‘buckler [= protect]’. Examples from the manuscript material consist of my transcriptions of this material. My manuscript transcriptions are in accordance with the following editorial principles. Lineation and punctuation have been retained where possible (exceptions to this are noted under the relevant example). I have reproduced the capitalisation used in the manuscripts; in the case of doubtful readings, capitalisation has been modernised. The modern form ‘s’ is again used to represent all forms of this letter. Superscript letters are retained, as in ‘yu’ (‘thou’), ‘you’ (‘you’), ‘yt’ (‘that’), and ‘mr’ (‘master’). Superscript ‘r’ is also used in cases where it is difficult to distinguish between superscript ‘r’ and a flourish in the same position. Otherwise, abbreviations are expanded and the added letters are italicised. Abbreviations for ‘and’ or Latin ‘et’ are rendered as ‘&’. Word division, often unclear in the manuscripts, is modernised; for example what appears to be ‘a lyve’ in the manuscript is rendered as ‘alyve’. The exception to this principle concerns forms commonly found in Early Modern English, such as pronoun + self, for instance ‘thy selfe’, as two words, and ‘wilbe’, for ‘will be’, as one word. Curly brackets, ‘{}’, indicate that the text enclosed is written above the line in the manuscript; a caret, ‘^’, is used only when it appears in the manuscript. Words that have been cancelled by the scribe have been reproduced with strikethrough, as in ‘said’. Angular brackets, ‘< >’, signal unclear letters, for example blotted letters. Square brackets, ‘[ ]’, are used for my editorial comments, such as where the reading may be ambiguous, for instance ‘the [= they]’. The intention behind the adoption of these editorial principles is to reproduce the text as it appears in the manuscript as closely as possible.

1.4

Outline of the study

Having presented the aims and scope of the study, and the methodological framework in this introductory chapter, I give a short description of the corpus used in the present study and the three genres investigated, in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 explains the method and classification system used, and Chapter 4 is a selective survey of previous scholarship on thou and you. Chapter 4 also considers pronoun development in England in relation to that of several other European languages in the Early Modern period. The analyses of the data are then presented in Chapters 5–8. Chapters 5–7 treat pronoun usage in Trials, Depositions, and Drama Com-

7

8


edy respectively. Each of these chapters consists of a macro-analysis followed by a micro-analysis of the data.4 The final data chapter, Chapter 8, considers the possibility of grammatical conditioning of thou and you usage, before reporting on particular pronoun forms and their syntactic function. As Chapters 5–8 are each divided into two main parts, readers are directed to the section summaries for an overview of findings for each chapter. Chapter 9 then gives an overall summary of the findings and the conclusions reached.

4. The terms ‘macro-analysis’ and ‘micro-analysis’ are used in preference to the terms ‘quantitative analysis’ and ‘qualitative analysis’ respectively. This is because both sections may contain both a quantitative and qualitative element, and also because the macro-analysis presents a more general overview of pronoun distribution, while the micro-analysis is an in-depth look at the data.

chapter 2

Corpus and genre overview

2.1

Introduction

This chapter describes the corpus used and the three speech-related genres investigated in the present study. Two of the genres, Trials and Depositions, are related to authentic dialogues. It is important to consider both the question of the reliability of such texts which supposedly record real speech events and the relative merits of the different text formats available. (The text formats relevant to this discussion are manuscripts, early printings, and later editions.) The question of which is the most suitable text format for linguistic study also needs to be raised with regard to the third speech-related genre. This genre, Drama Comedy, contains constructed dialogues. Whereas when studying Trials and Depositions, one must consider the input of the scribe, when investigating the language of Drama Comedy, one must take into account the role of the author.

2.2

A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (CED)

The material used for this study is taken by and large from A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (CED), compiled at Uppsala University (Sweden) and Lancaster University (England) under the supervision of Professor Merja Kytö and Dr. Jonathan Culpeper. The focus of the corpus on dialogue reflects the compilers’ interest in “the role that impromptu speech and interactive two-way communication play in language change” (Culpeper & Kytö 1997: 60–61). The aims of the corpus are to facilitate variationist studies, research into historical pragmatics, and the study of speech presentation, from a diachronic perspective (Culpeper & Kytö 1997: 60–62). The CED consists of two main text categories, which together subsume five genres. The text category ‘authentic dialogues’ (based on real speech events) includes two genres: Trial Proceedings and Witness Depositions. The category ‘constructed dialogues’ (dialogues invented by an author) includes three genres: Drama Comedy, Didactic Works, and Prose Fiction. The genres differ regarding the degree to which there is non-dialogic text, such as stage directions in Drama

10


Table 2.1 The five 40-year periods of the CED Period number 1 2 3 4 5

Period dates 1560–1599 1600–1639 1640–1679 1680–1719 1720–1760

Comedy, or third person narrative in Prose Fiction. This narratorial or scribal intervention is minimal in all genres except Witness Depositions and Prose Fiction. The CED consists of approximately 1,200,000 words of running text, and is divided into five 40-year periods as shown in Table 2.1. (For further details of the CED, see Kytö & Walker 2006.)

2.3

The corpus used for the present study

The selection of texts for the present investigation, primarily taken from the CED, was based on methodological and practical considerations. Texts representative of three of the five genres in the CED were chosen for inclusion in the present work.1 The main focus of interest in this study is on pronoun usage in texts purporting to record authentic dialogues, that is, Trial Proceedings (henceforth Trials) and Witness Depositions (henceforth Depositions). The inclusion of Drama Comedy, the focus of much previous research (see Chapter 4), was considered important for comparative purposes. The corpus used in this study thus comprises texts representing these three genres, as illustrated in Table 2.2. Text samples in the CED are, where possible, approximately 10,000 words in length (see Kytö & Walker 2006), but this was not always achievable for Trial texts or Deposition collections (including the supplementary Depositions material, commented on further below). For the corpus used for the present investigation, the approximate word count for each genre, text category, and the corpus as a whole is given in Table 2.2. Full details of the three sub-corpora – one for each genre investigated – which make up my corpus, including specific word counts, can be found in the respective chapters relating to each of the three genres (Chapters 5, 6, and 7). As second person singular pro1. The genres Didactic Works and Prose Fiction were not included in this study. Texts representing these genres were still being sampled for the CED when the present investigation was underway.

Chapter 2. Corpus and genre overview

Table 2.2 The corpus used for the present study

Considerable narratorial intervention

Minimum narratorial intervention Total

Authentic Dialogue Constructed Dialogue Depositions 4 collections of varying length for each of the five 40-year periods = 150,000 words Trials Drama Comedy 3 texts totalling c. 20,000 3 texts of c. 10,000 words for each of the words for each of the five 40-year periods five 40-year periods = 100,000 words = 150,000 words 150,000 words 250,000 words

Total 150,000 words

250,000 words

400,000 words

nouns tend to be quite a frequent feature in the dialogue material, it was deemed sufficient to take three texts for each 40-year period for each genre. However, due to the relative paucity of direct speech in Depositions, I included four collections per 40-year period for this genre: this made it necessary to locate further material, from outside the CED, to represent this genre (see below). Another factor influencing the selection of texts for my corpus was whether both female and male speakers or characters were represented. As the influence of the parameter of ‘sex of speaker and addressee’ was one of the foci of this study, I favoured those texts which included speakers of both sexes. The texts used to represent the Trials genre and the Drama Comedy genre in my corpus were all selected from among those in the CED (see Chapter 5 and 7 respectively for details, but see also 2.4.1.3). However, despite the Depositions genre being well represented in the CED, it was necessary to find supplementary material. This was because in the Depositions genre, as mentioned above, direct speech – a prerequisite for second person pronouns to occur in the material – is less frequent (see 2.4.1.2). Moreover, not all the Deposition texts in the CED met the demands of the present study: Deposition texts were needed which not only offered direct speech that included second person singular pronouns, but also represented both male and female speakers. Suitable printed material with which to supplement my corpus was not found; therefore, it was necessary to use manuscript material. By far the greater part of Depositions material is extant only in manuscript form, in national and local archives and other repositories in England. My material was largely taken from the National Archives in Kew, London, but also from the Hampshire Record Office (Winchester), and the Essex Record Office (Chelmsford and Colchester), as well as Durham University Library (Archives and Special Collections). For a list of the material used to represent the

11

12


Depositions genre, both the printed material from the CED and the manuscript material, see Chapter 6 (and References).

2.4

The genres investigated

2.4.1 Authentic dialogues: Trials and Depositions 2.4.1.1 Trials The genre of Trials is represented by texts in which the proceedings in court have been taken down by a scribe. The dialogue consists by and large of direct speech in the form of questions and answers, and second person singular pronouns are frequent, as exemplified in (1). Narratorial intervention by the scribe is limited primarily to speaker identification, or brief statements that a certain witness is sworn in or appears in court, as also illustrated (in bold face) in (1). (1) Coll. Call Henry Hickman, (who appeared.) Mr. Serj. Holl. Where do you live, Sir? Mr. Hickm. At Holborn-bridge. Mr. Attorn. Gen. What Trade are you? Mr. Hickm. A Cabinet-maker. L. Ch. Just. What do you ask him? Coll. Do you know Haynes? Hickm. Yes, very well; [...] (The Arraignment, Tryal and Condemnation of Stephen Colledge, 1681: 40)

Occasionally there are also other explanatory comments on the proceedings, including comments on non-verbal interaction, such as making a bow or a curtsy, or comments on the manner in which words were spoken, as shown (in bold face) in (2). (2) mr ffanshawe ffrances Countes of Somerset what saiest thowe arte thowe gultie of this murther of Ouerberie or not / The Countese making an obeissance to the Lord High Steward answerred gulty and wth a lowe voice and ferfull / (British Library, London. MS Stowe 401, A rellation of the arraignmt of the [...] Ladie of Somerset [...] 1616, f. 50r)

Such attention to detail by the scribe suggests that the record is a relatively reliable report on the proceedings (see 2.4.1.3).


2.4.1.2 Depositions A deposition is a written record of the oral testimony of a witness, plaintiff, or defendant in a criminal, civil, or ecclesiastical case. Cusack (1998: 92) explains that “[d]epositions are spoken text, written down by a clerk […] The regular procedure was for depositions to be made in advance and in private, and to be read aloud in court, the witness being present to confirm his or her evidence and to answer any questions that might arise”. The actual testimony is given orally in the form of a first person narrative, for instance, “I did this, and then he did that to me, and I asked him why he had done it” (an invented example), but it is rendered in writing by the scribe as a third person narrative. Hence the above example might be rendered thus: “She saith that she did this, and then he did that to her...”. An extract from a deposition written in the form of a third person narrative is shown in (3). The Examination of John Man, taken the 29. of May, 1564. upon Oath. Saith, THat upon Thursday was sevennight, he being with shop one Willam Dodd an apprentice, in his Masters without Ludgate, and near thereunto, whether he went on purpose to call the said Dedd to goe along with him to Bowe to a Faire: And asking him whether he would goe with him, he said, No, for that he had earnest business in the afternoon; And this Examinate demanding of him what that was, he asked him whether he heard no Newes; The Examinate told him No: Who then said, That there was very great news, which he would disclose to him this Examinate, if he would keep it secret; [...] (A True Account of the Late Bloody and Inhumane Conspiracy against His Highness the Lord Protector, 1654: 25)

(3)

Naturally, second person singular pronouns – pronouns of direct address – do not normally occur when the speech is rendered in this way. However, thou and you are often found in Depositions when the deponent reports an earlier speech event, and the scribe renders the words quoted as direct speech. The use of direct speech is particularly likely when the exact words uttered in this earlier dialogue are important to the case. Direct speech in a Deposition is highlighted (in bold face) in the extract in (4). There is, as mentioned above (2.3), relatively little direct speech in this genre compared with both Trials and Drama Comedy. In Depositions, again unlike the other two genres studied, there is usually considerable scribal intervention in the form of legal formulae, as well as infor-

13

14


mation such as the age, domicile, and occupation (or marital status) of the witness. These expressions, and biographical and other information, all of which may be in Latin or English, are added by the scribe to ensure that there is no ambiguity regarding who is saying what, when, and about whom. This is illustrated in (4). (4)

17. Ianuarij 1572.

Super lilo ex parte Vibert contra white dato

franciscus Deane servus humphrid Norton de Civite winton etatis xx annorum &c liberalis &c testis &c dicit qd Dictum Vibert per vij annos et dictum white tam diu bene novit

Ad i. refert se ad iurem Ad 2. depot et dicit that abowt six wekes agone (vt recolit et aliter non recolit tempus) this depot being abed in his said masters howse abowt viij {ix} a clock at night did here (as he saieth) the saide Iames Vibert & mistres white achiding in the strete right against his masters howse and in the ende amongst other wordes this depot did here the saide mistres white say these wordes to the said Iames Vibert Thow art a whormonger knave and thow occupiedst my fathers mayde vpon a hepe of brickes & didst runne away wth thy breches abowt thy heeles And if thow hadst not made the better shifte thow hadst byn taken wth thy breches abowt thy heles et aliter nescit deponere (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/5: 97)

2.4.1.3 The reliability of the records of authentic dialogues The question of the reliability of speech-related texts purporting to record real speech events, with particular reference to the CED but also to my additional material, has been discussed in Kytö and Walker (2003). I draw on this article here, in order to justify the label ‘authentic’ with regard to the dialogues in the genres of Trials and Depositions (as sampled in the CED and my corpus) in contrast to the ‘constructed’ dialogues in Drama Comedy. All these genres consist of written texts, which could thus be argued to be ‘constructed’ by the scribe/author: however, there is evidence to show that those responsible for certain Trial and Deposi-


tion records aim at reporting an original speech event faithfully. This is despite the obvious limitations in the absence of audio recording equipment. Where especially relevant, I comment on evidence in the text, as well as problems concerning certain texts, specifically relating to the study of thou and you. To what extent are written records of real speech events reliable renderings of authentic spoken interaction? Evidence which suggests that certain written records may be relatively faithful renderings of authentic spoken language of the past includes comments in the Trial records, such as on the title page, that the dialogue was written in shorthand by a scribe present at the speech event (see Kytö & Walker 2003: 224–230). In other words, the report was not based on hearsay or noted down from memory, but rather is possibly the closest we can get to a verbatim report in times before audio recordings. Records based on reports by those participating in the actual legal proceedings, such as the defendant, were excluded from the CED (and are thus not used in my corpus either), as it would clearly be impossible for such a record even to approach a verbatim report (Kytö & Walker 2003: 230). Shorthand systems did exist at this time (Kytö & Walker 2003: 224), but we do not always know whether shorthand was used. Neither do we know whether the scribe was a professional. However, when it is stated in the record that the scribe was licensed by the court, or the record is officially endorsed, it is at least likely that the reporter was not an amateur. It must be kept in mind, nevertheless, that the report may suffer from accidental errors on the part of both scribe and printer, and it may also have been tampered with by scribe or printer in order to present a certain party in a better or worse light (Kytö & Walker 2003: 230). A case in point is The Trial of the Lady Alice Lisle, in State-Trials, for which there is no extant manuscript. This record, which I used for an earlier study of thou and you (Walker 2003) has since been removed from the CED as being of dubious and unverifiable origin: it has been suggested that the record is “an amplified version of notes taken at the trial by one of the counsel, and that the abuse showered by [Judge George] Jeffreys on some of the witnesses was added [to the record] after the Revolution” in an attempt to discredit him (Keeton 1965: 314). The fact that in this record Judge Jeffreys very frequently uses thou, to show contempt for a witness, further suggests that the record may be unreliable: he shows a much more restrained use of thou, even when cajoling witnesses, in the three Trial texts in my corpus in which he plays a role.2 Also discussed in Kytö and Walker (2003: 225–226) is the occurrence in the written record of features of spoken interaction such as slips of the tongue, and

2. See Note 8 in Chapter 5.

15

16


interruptions, the inclusion of which also lends support to the reliability of these records. Further evidence, such as notes in which the writer declares he did not hear what was said at a certain point (see Kytö & Walker 2003: 226) suggests that the recorder is attempting to record faithfully, in that he is only prepared to report what he himself hears. In Depositions, different witnesses independently reporting the same or very similar words being used in an earlier speech event is also evidence in favour of the reliability of the records (Kytö & Walker 2003: 227–228). It is not particularly common, for example, for deponents to disagree on which second person pronoun, thou or you, was used, when quoting an earlier speech event: such disagreement occurs with regard to nine dialogues reported in my Depositions material (see Chapter 6). Moreover, the glossing of dialect words, whether the gloss is offered by the witness or added by the scribe, may also reflect an attempt by the scribe to present a faithful account, in that these dialect words are retained in the written record, although the gloss would have been sufficient if only the gist, rather than the actual words spoken, was required (see Kytö & Walker 2003: 226–227 for an example). On the other hand, this clearly shows a characteristic of Depositions: that of scribal intervention. It is often not clear where the words purportedly spoken by the witness end, and scribal intervention begins (Kytö & Walker 2003: 228). For the purposes of the present study, this is less of a problem: second person pronouns tend to be reported when witnesses cite direct speech from an earlier speech event, and are not as likely to be used in the text added by the scribe. Nevertheless the following example (5) suggests that the scribe may even interfere with regard to pronoun usage: (5) and this depot comminge ouer the bridge harde Smithes wiff cale Ellene wattes thou arte whore witche / And Elene wattes replied & said / Ame I a whore witch<e> yea said Agnes smith smith / then art thou ane arrant whore qd Elene wattes then qd Agnes Smith / thou can not prove me a whore / yeas qd Elene wattes rather than thou shalt prove me a whore wytche for I am none (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/4: 99)

In (5), the scribe added “thou arte” (highlighted here in bold) in the margin, although the text was syntactically correct before the addition. Whether the scribe


added this at the behest of the witness, or later from memory, or with some other motivation, we cannot know. In sum, there is evidence that scribes aimed at rendering reliable accounts, but we can never be sure of the accuracy of these records: certainly we cannot claim that these records are equivalent to actual speech. However, possibly these records offer the nearest thing we have to authentic spoken interaction of the past. A further related question raised in Kytö and Walker (2003: 231–241) concerns which version of the record of a speech event is the most reliable. The records may exist in various formats, for example, manuscripts, early printings, and later editions, and certain formats may be more reliable than others. In the CED (and hence also my corpus), printed records contemporaneous with the speech event have been preferred to later editions. Such early printed records are subject to interference, as noted above, by the scribe and/or the printer, but at least the conscious emendations would still reflect linguistic usage of the period in which the speech event occurred (Kytö & Walker 2003: 234). In later editions the record is not infrequently rendered with modernised spelling and punctuation; moreover, later editions based on manuscript material may suffer from further silent emendations, cuts, and translations, as well as erroneous transcriptions (see Kytö & Walker 2003: 231–241 for details). Later editions have been included in the CED (and also in my corpus: see below) when there is no extant early printed version, on condition that a manuscript source is available so that findings can be verified.3 Of the three text formats, manuscripts can perhaps be considered the most reliable; being the first written record of the speech event, they are the least subject to interference (Kytö & Walker 2003: 231). However, it must be acknowledged that for certain Trials, there can be several copies of the manuscript record, and we cannot always be sure whether the manuscript is the original or a copy: in the latter case there is the added likelihood of interference by the copyist (Kytö & Walker 2003: 231). As mentioned above, for the Depositions genre, I have added manuscript material to the corpus used for the present investigation. The data on thou and you extracted for this study from later editions sampled in the CED, and included in my corpus, has been checked against the manuscripts on which these editions were based, and amendments have been made to my data accordingly. The Trial texts sampled from the 1730 edition of State-Trials are found to suffer primar3. For the CED project it was not a viable option to sample manuscript material in place of these later editions, given the time and cost that would be required for transcribing such material: however, the CED guide (Kytö & Walker 2006) gives references to the manuscript sources for these editions, for checking purposes, and comments on the ways in which each edition may differ from its source manuscript.

17

18


ily from modernisation, and some few transcription errors, very occasionally involving second person singular pronouns, when compared with the available manuscripts. For my corpus, I replaced one Trial text sampled in the CED from State-Trials with the manuscript version (see Chapter 5 for details). The largest number of erroneous transcriptions found, with regard to second person singular pronouns, when the edition was compared to the source manuscript, were in James Raine’s (1845) edition Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham (see Chapter 6, and Kytö & Walker 2003: 235).

2.4.2 Constructed dialogues: Drama Comedy Unlike the two genres, Trials and Depositions, described above, Drama Comedy is not based on real speech events. Nevertheless, Drama Comedy is often seen as bearing a close similarity to everyday speech, and as a result has been the focus of many previous studies of thou and you. However, it has to be kept in mind that the dialogue is fictional: the text is constructed by an author. Moreover, the intention of the author is presumably to entertain, and the language is often manipulated, for example, for purposes of characterisation and/or humour (see Chapter 7). The format of Drama Comedy texts is similar to that of Trials in that much of the text consists of dialogue, with minimal intervention by a narrator or scribe, as illustrated in (6). Other than speaker (character) identification, the flow of dialogue is generally only interrupted by stage directions, highlighted (in bold face) in (6), and act and scene divisions.

(6)

Enter Master William, and Barbara. M. W. Come, thou mak’st such a Matter, of Nothing. Bab. Nothing, doe you call it, Master William? I know not, but I am sure, I feel it something – Tis almost, kicking ripe already. M. W. Almost, kicking ripe already, – Come, come, thou art, A Chamber-maid still; – And I prethee, whats this, but a work that belongs to the Chamber? Kicking ripe already, This is not the first time, that thou hast been kickt with an urchin. Once, Twice, – this is the third time of kicking. Bab. Well, you wo’not, marry me? M. W. And hazard my place, wo my Lady? – and yet, Now I think on’t. – I will – Bab. Marry me? M. W. To some of my old acquaintance. There be a hun-


dred in the City, that have swallowed worse bits then thou art. Hist [= Quiet!]. Enter the Lady Mosely in mourning, veild; the Lady Malory, and an old Gentlewoman. (Brewer, The Covntrie Girle, 1647: B3r)

Those text samples from the CED used in my Drama Comedy sub-corpus consist entirely of early printings rather than later text editions. Such later editions tend to be collations based on a number of early printings of a Drama Comedy text: these are intended to result in the best literary version, and may not bear a close relation to any one original text. However, the purpose in the present study is to consider the text as a piece of linguistic evidence dating from the period under investigation; hence the earliest extant version was selected where possible. Nevertheless, in two cases the version selected was not the earliest printing, as explained below. In the case of Shakespeare’s The Merry Wives of Windsor, the First Folio of 1623 was preferred to the earlier ‘bad’ quarto of 1602 and the second quarto of 1619. The quarto versions are reputed to be “printed from a memorial reconstruction of an acting version prepared by Shakespeare”, whereas the 1623 folio version was “[p]rinted from a transcript made by the scribe Ralph Crane. He may have used working documents belonging to the King’s Men, perhaps a promptbook together with other papers connected with stage performances of the play” (British Library Online4). The play The Mother-in-Law by James Miller, published in 1734, is the second edition, which includes a new scene: it was printed in the same year as the first edition.

2.5 Summary The corpus used for the present investigation draws on the CED to a large extent, but is supplemented with manuscript material. My corpus consists of texts representing three speech-related genres: Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy. The authentic dialogues in Trials are normally rendered as direct speech, with a question and answer format, whereas Depositions are records of the testimony of a witness, plaintiff or defendant, written down by and large in the form of a third person narrative, but with citations from earlier speech events sometimes rendered as direct speech. Drama Comedy consists primarily of direct speech, but it must be remembered that these texts are constructed by an author. With 4. http://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/windsor.html. Accessed November 21, 2004.

19

20 Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues

regard to the reliability of the records of authentic dialogues, there is evidence suggesting that attempts were made by scribes to render reliable reports. Of the different text versions of the material, it was suggested that the manuscript versions or early printings are preferable, as they are less subject to interference than later editions.

chapter 3

Data classification

3.1

Introduction

The method adopted in this study for classifying the data is described in what follows. The extra-linguistic parameters focused on in my investigation are the sex, age and rank of the speaker and addressee,1 and it is necessary to explain the classificatory system used for these parameters. The classifications for age and rank were designed on the basis of information obtained from historical studies of Early Modern English society. Moreover, the range of information available in the corpus texts was taken into account, as well as the limitations of this information, since clearly it would be of little use to simply impose classification systems upon the data. The system for the rank parameter in particular is described in the light of the historical context: the social order, the status of women in Early Modern England, and also titles and status names are all taken into account. The application of my classification system for both age and rank is then discussed in some detail in order to explain the resulting modifications made to the system.

3.2

The classification system for the parameters of sex, age, and rank

3.2.1 Sex and gender In this study the adjectives ‘female’ and ‘male’ are used to refer to the biological sex of the speaker or addressee. (The corresponding nouns used are woman/women and man/men.) The term ‘gender’ is avoided in this context, as it can be related to social roles and behaviour typically associated with a particular sex rather than biological fact. However, in a number of the Drama Comedy texts, characters dis-

1. Initial exploratory attempts to code for other extra-linguistic variables, such as degree of intimacy (e.g. family, friend, acquaintance, stranger etc.) and emotion (e.g. none apparent, weak positive, strong positive etc.) were soon abandoned as both too subjective for precise quantification and often simply impossible to discern (e.g. at what point might an acquaintance become a friend?).

22


guise themselves as members of the opposite sex by assuming a set of behaviours associated with that sex (see 7.4.2). Not surprisingly, in these cases the language attributed to the character is usually affected to a greater or lesser extent when this disguise is assumed. Therefore the results involving characters thus disguised are treated separately from the rest of the data with regard to the sex parameter, as these examples pertain more to gender as defined above than biological sex.

3.2.2 Age The age of a speaker or addressee in the corpus is not infrequently specified in Depositions (at least when the speaker or addressee is the deponent), but rarely in Trials or Drama Comedy. However, the exact age is not as important as the ‘stage of life’ of a speaker or addressee; for example, a boy of 14 might be viewed as a ‘child’ if still dependent on parents, but as a ‘youth’ if apprenticed out to a master. These stages, and the age ranges that roughly correspond to them, are given in Table 3.1. For the majority of the population of Early Modern England, both male and female, it was generally in their early teenage years that they would leave home to go into service, or begin an apprenticeship (the latter option normally being open only to boys), while marriage tended to be in their late twenties (see e.g. Laslett 1983: 14; Sharpe 1987: 40, 209–210; Ben-Amos 1994: 226–227). For the gentry, and especially the nobility, and daughters of rich merchants, marriage might be slightly earlier (Laslett 1983: 82; Coward 1988: 20). The life stage which generally coincided with marriage and the raising of children is classified as ‘adult’, whereas ‘old adult’ refers to those whose children have left home, and/or are regarded by others as old or senior. If not the precise age (which is usually specified for the deponent in Depositions), at least the information required to identify these life stages is normally present in Drama Comedy; for instance, it is usually made clear whether a character is married or unmarried. Moreover, old age or youth are almost always specified. In cases where a character is specified as young, even if recently married, the

Table 3.1 The classification system for the age parameter Code

Stage of life

Explanation

Typical age range

C

child

dependent on parents

0–13

Y

youth

usually apprentice, servant or student

14–26

A

adult

27–early 40s

O

old adult

after period of service, or education, usually coinciding with marriage and child-rearing with adult children, described as ‘old/older’

mid 40s+

Chapter 3. Data classification

character is labelled as ‘youth’ (coded as ‘Y’2). This usually applies to characters representing the gentry: as mentioned above, members of this rank tended to be married at a relatively early age in comparison to the lower ranks. The Trial texts are a little more problematic; although biographical information can often be found for lawyers, this is rarely possible for witnesses, especially in less wellknown trials. Therefore, in difficult cases, speakers and addressees may for example be labelled as ‘youth or adult’ (‘Y/A’) or ‘adult or old adult’ (‘A/O’) to avoid the even less useful alternative, ‘unknown’ (‘X’). As with the sex parameter, cases in which a character in disguise in Drama Comedy is pretending to be older or younger are considered separately (in 7.4.2) rather than in the discussion relating to the age parameter.

3.2.3 Rank Classifying the corpus examples according to the rank of each speaker and addressee required a system which would not only be a representation of Early Modern English society valid for the whole 200-year period (1560–1760), which in itself is highly problematic, but which would also facilitate the allocation of a particular rank to a particular speaker or addressee in the data used. Below I comment on what kind of information on rank is typically found in each genre (3.2.3.1) before describing the classification system and how it reflects the social order of Early Modern England (3.2.3.2). With reference to this classification system for the rank parameter, the status of women is briefly discussed (3.2.3.3) and a distinction is made between titles and status names (3.2.3.4).

3.2.3.1 Type of information available in the genres The information given in my corpus texts about the status of each speaker or addressee varies from genre to genre. Occupations and titles (or status names, see 3.2.3.4) are frequently stated in Depositions and Drama Comedy, because in these two genres the specific identity of the deponent and character respectively is usually important. However, in Depositions, the relevant information on speakers and addressees in dialogues quoted by the deponent is not always available. In Trials, specific information on occupation, for instance, may be present in the text (or available from history books) but frequently this is not the case. In some Trial texts, speakers are not identified by name; for example, in The Genuine and

2. Reference codes such as this, which I used in my databases, are given throughout this chapter. They act as a convenient shorthand for the discussions and tables in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4.

23

24


Authentick Trial of Mr. Bartholomew Greenwood (1740), the speech of lawyers is introduced by ‘Council’. Also, in the record of trials from 1632 given in Reports of Cases in the Courts of [...] High Commission, edited in 1886 by Samuel Rawson Gardiner, some defendants are presented as unnamed ‘conventiclers’ (see Chapter 5). Information relating to status, other than occupation and/or title or status name, tends not to be available in the corpus texts; the income of particular judges in the Trials may be discovered with some background research, but otherwise knowledge of income is restricted to the occasional use of modifiers such as ‘poor’ or ‘wealthy’. Therefore, of necessity, the classification system designed for this study is based primarily on title and occupation. The classification system also needed to account for both urban and rural society. The Restoration Drama Comedy texts, and Trials, contain speakers mainly from urban society, whereas the Depositions are largely rural in context. In the earlier Drama Comedy texts, both rural and urban society are represented.

3.2.3.2 The social order and the classification system for rank In Table 3.2, I illustrate the detailed classification system for the rank parameter: this system underlies that used for the data analysis. The modification of this system, in which certain rank groupings in Table 3.2 are pooled, is described in 3.2.4. The divisions coded A–G (see Table 3.2) were made on the basis of the work of historians (e.g. Laslett 1983, Wrightson 1982), and influenced by the models of social stratification, and rank groupings, considered by Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1996, 2003), while also taking my own material into account. Defining the upper ranks of Early Modern English society poses little problem, as there was a fixed order of precedence for those with titles (see e.g. Laslett 1983: 38–43). The highest status group is, of course, royalty, and the next group comprises those who could sit in the House of Lords, that is, the nobility and the high clergy (in descending order: Duke and Archbishop, Marquis, Earl, Viscount, and Baron and Bishop). For the present study, these status groups have been combined (coded as group A: see Table 3.2) and are henceforth referred to in my classification system as ‘nobles’. Both contemporaries and historians tend to identify those just below the nobility as one group, often referred to as ‘the gentry proper’ which is subdivided into knights (and baronets after 1611, when James I created a new hereditary order), esquires, and gentlemen (see e.g. Raumolin-Brunberg 1996: 26; Laslett 1983: 31). As illustrated in Table 3.2, I have divided this group into two: knights and baronets, carrying the title ‘Sir’ (group B: henceforth ‘sirs’), and esquires and gentlemen (group C1: henceforth ‘gentry’), for the reason explained later in this section (see also Chapter 7).


Table 3.2 The detailed classification system for the rank parameter Non-commoners

Commoners

Code

Description

Official title

A

royalty, nobility, and the high clergy

Occupation

B

knights and baronets

Queen, Duke, Archbishop, Baron, Bishop Sir

C C1

gentry

Esquire

C2

those in the professions, Doctor, Colonel lawyer, doctor, army officer, clergyman, wealthy traders, wholesale merchants teacher, financier yeoman, shopkeeper, well-to-do farmers, and retailers, urban masters, and innkeeper, cutler certain urban craftsmen poorer farmers and (espehusbandman, weaver, cially) rural craftsmen blacksmith, shoemaker, alehouse keeper poor wage-earners, or labourer, servant, apthose bound to a master prentice pauper, vagrant, whore, unemployed, criminals thief

D

E

F G

These upper ranks (groups A, B, and C1 in Table 3.2) were traditionally those who did not do manual work, but lived off the income from land ownership (see e.g. Wrightson 1982: 24–25). The greatest divide in society was between these and the common people (groups D–G in Table 3.2), that is, those who performed manual labour (Laslett 1983: 42). (Group C2, which includes those in the professions, and merchants, is discussed later in this section.) Among the commoners, status was usually defined by occupation, in both rural and urban society (Laslett 1983: 43). The rural social order was summarised by a contemporary, in the context of a Kent village, as ‘gentry, yeomen, tradesmen, labourers, and poor men’ (Laslett 1983: 64). This summary can be qualified to include husbandmen, or lesser farmers, in addition to yeomen. The term ‘yeoman’ was generally used to refer to a fairly substantial farmer with over 50 acres of freehold land, although not all those labelled ‘yeoman’ were freeholders, and not all freeholders called themselves ‘yeoman’ (Wrightson 1982: 31–33). Husbandmen were roughly on a par with craftsmen (which seems to be what is meant by the term ‘tradesmen’ above) such as weavers and tailors (Laslett 1983: 44, 67), though the poorest of craftsmen might have more in common with labourers (Wrightson 1982: 35). Some craftsmen might also be small farmers or farm labourers, but tend to be described by their craft occupation, and are classified thus. In the classification system, un-

25


der the umbrella term ‘commoners’ (see Table 3.2), the following gradations have been used: yeomen (group D), husbandmen and craftsmen (group E), labourers, servants, and craftsmen’s apprentices (group F), and paupers, beggars and petty criminals (group G). These groupings allow for the possibility of pooling groups D and E into one group which consists of people working for themselves, and pooling groups F and G into a group which is made up of those who work for others or rely on others for alms (cf. Archer & Culpeper 2003: 49). Nevertheless, the distinctions between groups D and E, and between groups E and F, were made in the hope that there would be sufficient data to validate the use of these finer gradations. One group (group C2: see Table 3.2) is less easy to place in the social scale. This group consists of wealthy merchants and members of the professions, which is essentially, but not exclusively, an urban group, and does not fit into the traditional social hierarchy based on land ownership. By merchant, I refer to those in the distributive trades: wholesalers, import/exporters as well as financiers and the like. Those in the professions primarily include lawyers, clergymen, members of the medical profession, teachers, and army and naval officers. Those referred to as ‘citizens’, in Drama Comedy, are also included in this group (see Chapter 7). Merchants and those in the professions are often grouped together as being those whose wealth and influence is roughly parallel to that of the gentry, but whose income is based on commerce and service respectively rather than on land ownership. In some cases, especially in rural areas, those such as clergymen and teachers might be relatively poor. However, in general, the wealth and influence of merchants and those in the professions gave them a status higher than that of the yeomanry, yet not strictly equal to the established land-owning gentry (Wrightson 1982: 27). This is on account of the very fact of their having an occupation, together with their origins: despite claims by some historians, research has shown that recruitment to the professions was by no means exclusively from the gentry (Prest 1987: 8–9). Indeed, members of the professions might claim the label of ‘gentleman’ (and were hence called ‘Mr’: see 3.2.3.4), or even ‘Esquire’, but by virtue of their calling, not their birth (Prest 1987: 9). In my classification system (see Table 3.2), I have placed merchants and those in the professions (group C2) above the divide between gentry and commoners, belonging not to the gentry (group C1), but rather as a separate group, the ‘pseudo-gentry’ (a term borrowed from Everitt 1969: 43). However, upward social mobility for both the pseudo-gentry (group C2) and the gentry (group C1), would be to ‘sirs’, that is, knights and baronets (group B), which is one reason for the distinction made in the classification system between group B and group C1. The division of group C allows for a difference between urban and rural society; for example, upward social mobility for a yeoman (group D) would be to the landed gentry (group C1), whereas the retailer


(group D, see below) would move up into the mercantile ‘pseudo-gentry’ (group C2). This said, a member of the gentry (group C1) would tend to be regarded as being of higher status than a merchant or member of the professions (group C2), as mentioned above. For convenience, members of group C2 are henceforth labelled ‘professionals’. Regarding urban society, those involved in retail, the more lucrative of urban crafts, and urban masters are treated as roughly equivalent to the yeomanry in status (and thus placed in group D). The division is in a way arbitrary, as admittedly a retailer might be wealthier than certain wholesalers; nevertheless the average shopkeeper would not be considered a ‘gentleman’ or ‘gentlewoman’, while the average wholesaler would be of sufficient wealth and influence to belong to the ‘pseudo-gentry’ (group C2). For my classification system (see Table 3.2), the remaining divisions regarding urban occupations are similar to those for rural society, with poorer craftsmen (group E), followed by servants and labourers (group F) and paupers (group G). As with retailers versus wholesalers, the division between ‘craftsmen’ (i.e. in ‘the more lucrative’ crafts) and ‘poorer craftsmen’ is somewhat arbitrary; moreover, there are no convenient occupational terms used in the corpus material that are equivalent to ‘yeoman’ and ‘husbandman’ to indicate degrees within a particular craft, and a practitioner of a specific craft could earn widely varying amounts (Sharpe 1987: 202). The classifications are based therefore on typical status, unless other evidence in the corpus texts contradicts this. In practice, the evidence used to classify each speaker/addressee is cumulative; usually more than one item of information was required in order to allocate a specific rank code to a speaker and/or addressee. Such points will be discussed when illustrating the application of these classifications below. Moreover, there are differences in status within each of my rank groups (A–G), but it is neither practical to make further divisions in the classification system, nor possible for the most part to recognise such differences. As with the sex and age parameters, there are occasions when the speaker and/or addressee has assumed a certain rank (in Drama Comedy): this data is not included in the discussion of the rank parameter. By way of comparison, the social groups distinguished by Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1996, 2003) for their work on historical sociolinguistics using the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC) are not dissimilar to my classification. Their corpus consists of informants whose identity and background is relatively well-known, and whose letter collections offer data across a period of time. The groups which I label A, B and C1 (see Table 3.2) were similarly treated as distinct social groups by Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (for details see Nevalainen 1996: 57–76) for the analysis of data from the pilot version of the CEEC (although the high clergy, or ‘upper clergy’ in their system, were considered

27

28


separately). Merchants were treated as a separate group. As the lower ranks were relatively poorly represented in the CEEC, Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg did not attempt to divide the non-gentry (which I label ‘commoners’) into smaller groups, as I did (groups D–G in my system). Based on results from the pilot version, Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003: 136–137) divided the data from the CEEC into a four-group social model. They found the original model too detailed for their analysis, and instead divided the data into upper ranks (nobility, upper clergy, gentry), middle ranks (professionals and merchants), and lower ranks (non-gentry), plus ‘social aspirers’3 (previously labelled ‘social climbers’). As explained further in 3.2.4, when my classification system was applied to the data, I similarly pooled some of the groups. Although I always treat speakers and addressees with titles (i.e. nobles, and ‘sirs’) as separate from the gentry, commoners are only divided into two groups in practice, that is, ‘upper commoners’ (codes D and/or E) and ‘lower commoners’ (codes F and/or G). These two groups of commoners are essentially the same as those distinguished by Archer and Culpeper (2003: 49) when annotating a subsection of the CED, consisting of Trials and Drama Comedy from 1640 to 1760. However, unlike my system and the two above-mentioned models, Archer and Culpeper (2003: 48) place merchants and craftsmen together, in a group below those in the professions, in their classification.

3.2.3.3 The status of women in Early Modern England, and the classification system Some comment regarding the status of women, in relation to my classification system, is necessary. Women were defined in Early Modern England, at least in law, by their marital status (Shoemaker 1998: 148). A wife was expected to submit to the authority of her husband, while the husband was expected to provide for the wife (a view reflected in several dialogues sampled in the CED). By law, a husband controlled his wife’s person and property (see e.g. Stone 1990: 13). Married women automatically assumed the status of their husband (Shoemaker 1998: 92). Therefore, whether they work in their husband’s shop, are involved in managing the husband’s estate or in running the household and so on, I have classified married women in my data according to their husband’s status, when the husband’s rank is known. Evidence from my material supports this classification: in depositions, for example, women are identified in terms of who they are married to, as in “The Information of Anna Aram of Knaresbro Wife of Eugine Aram late of

3. There is very little data for upwardly mobile informants at different stages of their career in my material; thus such a group was not considered in the present study.


Knaresbro Schoolmaster” (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1724–1758. MS ASSI45/26/3). Unmarried women who do not work have been allotted the status of their father (or widowed mother): this naturally applies primarily to the higher ranks, who are those who would not need to work. Examples are the young characters from the gentry in Drama Comedy, or women such as Mary Blandy, a 32-year-old spinster daughter of a wealthy lawyer, in a Deposition collection from period 5 (National Archives, London. Henley upon Thames, Oxon Sessions Examinations: Rex v Mary Blandy, 1751. MS TS 11/864). An exception to this rule is that daughters (and sons) of ‘sirs’ (group B) are classified as gentry (group C1). Only on the death of the father would the eldest son inherit the title: the children would thus be plain ‘gentlemen’ and ‘gentlewomen’. Widows are classified according to the status of their late husband: it was possible for some widows to carry on the business (Laslett 1983: 8), or run the estate. An example from my corpus is “Mrs. Crostill, a rich Vintners Widow” (Brome, A Mad Couple Well Match’d, 1653: A8v), who is classified in the present study as ‘C2’. This principle is followed unless the status of the late husband is not known, or other information, about occupation for example, contradicts this classification. Erickson (1993: 196) points out that widows of poor craftsmen, labourers and the like (who would normally be coded ‘E’ and ‘F’ respectively in the present study) were often left in poverty and unable to remarry: examples of such unfortunate women can be seen in A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against Three Witches from 1682 (discussed in 3.2.4). Such women often became dependent on charity, in which case they have been classified as ‘G’ for ‘pauper’ in this study. In contrast, wealthy widows were the least likely to remarry, as they already had financial security (Erickson 1993: 196). Working women, if it is not stated that they are married, are classified on the same basis as men, that is, according to their occupation, such as that denoted in a typical deposition, which reads: “The Information of Elizabeth Hall Servt to Mr Ralph Steel Innkeeper” (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1724–1758. MS ASSI45/26/2). The marital status of a woman is often not specified with regard to, for instance, shopkeepers and alehouse keepers in Drama Comedy, or stall-holders in both Drama Comedy and Depositions, but whether married or not, these women can be classified according to their occupation. Some single women (and widows) did practise trades, and work as, for example, glaziers and butchers, but “[o]fficially men’s trades were not regarded as equally available to women”: however, trades such as baking, brewing, and cooking seem to have been more acceptable for women to practise (Fletcher 1995: 242). In all genres, occasionally neither marital status nor occupa-

29

30


tion is given: women may be referred to only by the status name ‘Mistress’. This, as discussed below, is not helpful in determining status in Early Modern England.

3.2.3.4 Titles and status names Here I distinguish between ‘titles’ and ‘status names’, and comment on those which are found in my corpus material, before focusing on the particularly problematic terms ‘Mr’ and ‘Mrs’. By ‘title’ I refer to the labels given to the various grades of nobility (‘Viscount’, ‘Baron’) and gentry (‘Sir’, ‘Esquire’), to the ranks of officers (‘Colonel’), and professionals (‘Doctor’); in other words, ‘titles’ denote a specific rank or professional status, and are hence those given in Table 3.2 above (although ‘Sir’ could also be used as a courtesy title to a priest). In contrast to inherited or earned ‘titles’, the terms ‘Goodman’, ‘Goodwife’, ‘Lord’, ‘Lady’, ‘Mr/Master’ and ‘Mrs/Mistress’, as well as ‘gentleman’ and ‘gentlewoman’, which are ‘status names’, are less useful for classifying the data. The terms ‘Goodman’ and ‘Goodwife’ could be used to refer to those of yeoman or husbandman status (Laslett 1983: 38). The terms might have been useful, as after pooling certain rank groupings (see 3.2.4) the distinction between yeoman and husbandman shown in Table 3.2 was not maintained in my rank classification system. However, as these terms were obsolescent in the period investigated (Laslett 1983: 38), they are found only rarely in the corpus material. ‘Lord’ was used not only of the nobility, but also of those in high office, who were by no means always of noble birth or rank. ‘Lady’, which was strictly speaking the term used to address a noblewoman, was already often extended to the wives of knights (instead of the correct term ‘Dame’) at the beginning of the period under investigation, and by the seventeenth century all gentlewomen, and even commoners, might be afforded the term ‘ladies’ (Nevalainen 1999: 438–439). In the corpus data ‘Lady + name’ is not infrequently used for wives of knights or baronets, and the term alone is thus insufficient to determine rank accurately, that is, whether ‘A’ or ‘B’. Also, the terms ‘gentlewoman’ and ‘gentleman’ were increasingly used with reference to commoners (Barber 1997: 249–250), which relates to the discussion of ‘Mr’ and ‘Mrs’ that follows here. In principle ‘Mr’ and ‘Mrs’ were reserved for gentlemen and gentlewomen respectively, that is, those I classify as gentry (group C1), who otherwise had no title (Nevalainen 1999: 438) – other than perhaps the title ‘Esquire’ as in “Mr John Smith Esquire” – while commoners only had a Christian name and a surname (Laslett 1983: 27). As mentioned above, these terms were also used for merchants and members of the professions (group C2). However, in my corpus material, increasingly after the middle of the seventeenth century, one finds people who are unlikely to have been members of either the gentry (group C1), or even the ‘pseudo-gentry’ (i.e. professionals, group C2), being labelled ‘Mr’. For example,


the status name ‘Mr’ is given to a cabinet-maker, as well as publicans and innkeepers (as in “Mr Ralph Steel Innkeeper” in the deposition quoted in 3.2.3.3). I should clarify here that for the data classification I only consider titles/status names introducing the speech of a particular person or character in the material or, for example, in the list of characters for a Drama Comedy text, not names given by other speakers or characters, as these may be inaccurate. An example of such inaccuracy is when the defendant Lawrence Hill, who is described as a labourer, and is a servant who waits at table, is addressed by the judge as ‘Mr Hill’ (in The Tryals of Robert Green, Henry Berry, & Lawrence Hill published in 1679). In other corpus examples, witnesses are called ‘Mr’ but no further information is found to clarify status. As with ‘gentleman’ and ‘gentlewoman’, there was in fact a growing tendency during the Early Modern period to generalise ‘Mr’ and ‘Mrs’ to include those not belonging to the gentry, especially when their status was uncertain (Nevalainen 1999: 438–439). To complicate matters further, in the Trial texts, certain justices are termed ‘Mr Justice + surname’ when in fact a little background research shows them to have been baronets (a similar usage is noted by Barber 1997: 248–249). Finally, the term ‘Mrs’ did not distinguish marital status, although ‘Miss’, for young, unmarried women, did (Nevalainen 1999: 439). In a trial text published in 1703, The Tryals of Haagen Swendsen, an heiress of 17 is referred to as ‘Mrs’: therefore, the term by itself does not help decide either the status or the age of a speaker or addressee. However, the modern meaning of ‘Mrs’ seems to have emerged by the end of the period, as Horace Walpole is quoted (OED s.v. Mrs n.) as stating in 1745 that ‘Mrs’ was not used until a woman was married.

3.2.4 The application and adaptations of the age and rank classifications The practical application of the classification system with regard to both age and rank will now be exemplified in some detail in order to show problems that arose and the solutions adopted. This is best done by taking the classification with regard to particular texts from the three genres as illustrations. I will consider the classification of speakers and addressees in two texts from the Trials genre, one Deposition collection, and one Drama Comedy text. Additional examples of individual cases which were difficult to classify will also be discussed. Note that for all texts, I have only included those speakers and addressees who use or are addressed with second person singular pronouns, ignoring any other participants or characters in a text. Where information was insufficient to allot a specific code for age and/or rank, double codes have been used, as mentioned above with regard to

31

32


Table 3.3 The classifications for age and rank for A Trve and Plaine Declaration of the Horrible Treasons, Practised by William Parry (1585) Name

Age

Rank Title/Occupation

Further information

William Parry

A/O

C2

Dr/Doctor of the Law

date of birth not found

Miles Sands

A/O

C2

Esq/Clerk of the Crown

date of birth not found

Henry Carey

O

A

Baron Hunsdon

b. 1524

Christopher Hatton

A

B

Sir/Vice-chamberlain

b. 1540

John Popham

O

B

Sir/Attorney-General

b. 1531

Christopher Wray

O

B

Sir/L. C. J. of England

b. 1524

age (3.2.2), and further exemplified in what follows. The usefulness of this doublecoding when actually analysing the data is also discussed. In Table 3.3, the speakers and addressees in A Trve and Plaine Declaration of the Horrible Treasons, Practised by William Parry (1585) are given, together with the codes for the allotted age and rank group. For this trial almost all the necessary information was readily available from the text, or after additional research to find out, for instance, the identity of the Attorney-General, and the dates of birth of the participants: their rank is clear from the titles and/or their occupation. Where the date of birth was not found (as was the case for the defendant in this trial, William Parry), it was apparent from the occupation given that the age would be within either the ‘adult’ (‘A’) or ‘old adult’ (‘O’) age range, and hence the double code ‘A/O’ was used. Before looking at another, more problematic, example text, I will describe my approach to pooling the available information when classifying rank by discussing two specific cases. The first example is ‘Mr’ Jeffreys (in The Genuine Trial of John Swan and Elizabeth Jeffreys from 1752) who had the occupation of butcher. Taking into account how the appellation ‘Mr’ might be used in the period investigated (described in 3.2.3.4), I would accordingly label Jeffreys with a double code ‘C/D’ if no further information was available (on the grounds that ‘Mr’ is less likely to be applied to one of higher or lower rank than ‘C1’, ‘C2’ or ‘D’). He would otherwise have received the code ‘D’ for his occupation as a retailer or tradesman. However, as Jeffreys is described as wealthy (and indeed was murdered for his money) he has instead been allotted the code ‘C2’. This classification is further encouraged by the ambiguous nature of the occupation ‘butcher’, which could entail wholesale or retail, and on a large or small scale. Had the information been only ‘John Jeffreys, butcher’ the code allotted would have been ‘D’, as a lack of the increasingly generalised term ‘Mr’ is more telling than its use. This leads us to the second case. Those in the professions are normally called ‘Mr’ (unless of course a title such as ‘Dr’ is relevant). There is, however, an exam-


Table 3.4 The classifications for age and rank for The Genuine and Authentick Trial of Mr. Bartholomew Greenwood (1740) Name unidentified unidentified Lawrence Carter unidentified Wheatley Thomas Baker

Age A/O A/O O

Rank C2 C2 B

Title/Occupation Further information Council for the Prosecution Council for the Prisoner b. 1672, ‘Court’, ‘my Lord’ Sir/judge

Y/A Y/A Y/O

X C1 C/D

Mr/gentleman Mr

John Baker George Baker Thompson Bartholomew Greenwood Bartholomew Greenwood Cicely Mow Dobbigen Chatler Turner Sinicrose Frazier

Y/O Y/O A/O O

C/D C/D C2 C1

Mr Mr Mr/medical doctor Mr

Y/A

C1

Mr/landed gentleman, officer young, plays tennis

Y Y/O Y/O Y/O Y/O A/O

F C/D C/D C/D C/D C2

maid to ‘old’ Greenwood Mr Mr Mr Mr Mr/justice

Mr Wheatley’s assailant wealthy, plays tennis Mr Wheatley’s tenant i.e. lodger

defendant’s old uncle

flirts with defendant old Greenwood’s neighbour

ple from a deposition quoted above (see 3.2.3.3), where the schoolmaster Eugine Aram is given no title or status name. Thus, despite the fact that he is apparently a professional and, therefore, belongs to the C2 group, this speaker and/or addressee would have been coded ‘C/D’. This is because the title ‘Mr’ is conspicuous by its absence, combined with the fact that school-teachers were “socially less established” than those in, for example, the legal profession (Corfield 1995: 31). However, the code ‘C/D’ was not actually used, as another deposition reveals more information about the status of Aram. He is described as “Eugenius Aram late of Knaresbrough [...] Yeoman” (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1724–1758. MS ASSI45/26/3); he is therefore a commoner, and is allotted the rank code ‘D’. This example illustrates how any uncertainties about apparent status should be reflected in the coding, and the possible value of double codes (although the use of a double code proved unecessary in this case), as this should result in more accurate, if less specific, classifications. For The Genuine and Authentick Trial of Mr. Bartholomew Greenwood (1740), the age and rank classification (see Table 3.4) was not quite so straightforward as with the first example text. The speakers for the defence and the prosecution are

33

34


not identified by name. However, as they must be lawyers, they have accordingly been classified as professionals (C2): similarly, to be qualified lawyers, they are likely to be in their late twenties or older (and are therefore labelled ‘A/O’). Mr Thompson, a doctor, and Mr Frazier, a justice, are automatically coded ‘A/O’ and ‘C2’ for the same reasons. The judge is identified as Sir Baron Carter (i.e. Sir Lawrence Carter, Baron of the Exchequer), and thus alloted the code ‘B’. His speech is introduced by ‘Court’: luckily, ‘Court’ is addressed as ‘my Lord’ on several occasions, thus allowing speaker identification (as there are no other candidates for this form of address present at the trial). Other coding is similarly based on inference in combination with specific information. The defendant and the man who accuses him of robbery are described as ‘gentlemen’. Both play tennis, which suggests they lack neither leisure time nor vitality. Moreover, the defendant not only holds the post of ‘Riding Master to the Troop’ but also has a small estate from which he collects rents. Greenwood is also described as young (although this is only in comparison to his uncle, labelled ‘the old gentleman’, of the same name). This seems sufficient to code both defendant and accuser as gentry (C1), and not old (i.e. ‘Y/A’ or ‘youth or adult’). As there is no further information about many of the people labelled ‘Mr’ in this text, they are coded ‘C/D’. The age of these speakers is also unknown, and thus the rather less than useful code ‘Y/O’ (i.e. ‘youth, adult or old adult’, but not a child) has been used. The man who robbed Mr Wheatley can only be coded ‘X’ for rank (as he is unidentified, the code ‘G’ is not really applicable in this case), but he can be assumed to be of similar age to the accused Mr Greenwood himself, else the case of mistaken identity, which has led to the trial, would be odd. Finally, the status of the maid, Cicely Mow, is that of a servant (F). Servants were generally young (Sharpe 1987: 210–211; Kussmaul 1981: 3) and, in addition, Mow flirted with the defendant; therefore the age group ‘Y’ seems applicable to her. The classifications are given in Table 3.4. Some examples taken from the other two genres investigated, and which include female speakers and addressees, are in order. Table 3.5 gives the speakers and addressees involved in the Deposition collection A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against Three Witches (1682). The information with regard to age and rank sufficed to enable specific codes to be given for rank, if not for age. This information was obtained from the depositions themselves and from Gent (2002). Sufficient information was not always available for some other Deposition collections. In certain cases, for example, a speaker or addressee was known only to be a commoner: hence the code ‘D/G’ was given. How useful this code might be is discussed below. One final example of the age and rank coding is given in Table 3.6, relating to the 1607 Drama Comedy The Miseries of Inforst Mariage by George Wilkins.


Table 3.5 The classifications for age and rank for A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against Three Witches (1682) Name

Age

Rank

Title/Occupation Further information

Temperance Lloyd

O

G

beggar

Grace Thomas

Y/O

C1

Mary Trembles

O

G

gentleman’s daughter beggar

widow, older than the other two ‘witches’ = 70+ unmarried, sister married to a shopkeeper singlewoman, described as ‘old’

Susanna Edwards

O

G

beggar

illegitimate, born c. 1612, widow

Anthony Jones

A/O

E

husbandman

married

Table 3.6 The classifications for age and rank for The Miseries of Inforst Mariage by George Wilkins (1607) Name

Age

Rank Title/Occupation

Further information

Sir Francis Ilford

Y

B

Wentloe

Y

C1

Ilford’s friend, waiting to inherit estate?

Bartley

Y

C1

Ilford’s friend, waiting to inherit estate?

‘boy’

C/Y

F

Sir

torch-bearer

servant of Scarborrow?

W. Scarborrow Y

C1

ward to Lord Falconbridge also named William, aged 23

John Harcop

O

B

titled ‘sir’, gentleman

Butler

O

F

servant

Lord Falconbridge

O

A

guardian to W. Scarborrow

Sir William Scarborrow

O

B

uncle of W. Scarborrow

Thomas Scarborrow

Y

C1

brother of W.

John Scarborrow

Y

C1

brother of W.

servant of Scarborrow family, aged 60

sister

Y

C1/B after marriage to Ilford = B sister of W., John and Thomas

Katherine

Y

C1

niece of Lord F., wife of W. Scarborrow

servant

Y

F

servant, man, other, attending Harcop

35

36


For Drama Comedy, it tended to be easier to code characters for age and rank, as there was more direct or implicit information available than was found in Trials and, for speakers other than the deponents themselves, in Depositions. As shown in Table 3.6, the characters in the play represent nobles (A), ‘sirs’ (B), gentry (C1), and servants (F). Their status is made clear from the titles used, kinship with titled characters, or hints in the text, for example, that characters are waiting to inherit estates. Whether a character is old or young is often stated. The only ambiguous case in this play is the age of the ‘boy’ (hence the label ‘C/Y’ i.e. ‘child or youth’): for such minor characters information is often lacking. Having coded the data for the three genres as explained and illustrated above, I tabulated the data for the thou and you examples according to the sex, age, and rank respectively of speaker and addressee for each genre and 40-year period. With regard to the coding for age, the code ‘Y/O’ proved to be of no use, as comparisons with more precise age groups could not be made. Therefore this code was replaced by ‘X’ for ‘unknown’, and excluded from the tables for the quantitative analyses. Similarly, with regard to the rank coding, ‘C/D’ and other codes (‘C/E’ etc.) which straddled the boundary between gentry and commoners were ‘X’-ed. Moreover, as mentioned above, it was found that the data should actually be pooled to a certain extent: breaking down the data into seven groups (A–G) resulted in very low raw figures, or no data at all, in many data cells. Also, the ranks represented in the individual genres differed. In Trials (see Chapter 5), not surprisingly, group C2 (lawyers) and group B (as judges usually fall into this group) are well represented, while groups D–G (commoners) are poorly represented. By contrast, in Depositions (see Chapter 6), commoners dominate the data, while a member of the nobility is involved in only one case. In Drama Comedy (see Chapter 7), all ranks, but especially groups C1, C2, and F (servants) are represented. Not infrequently, speakers or addressees in all genres had been coded ‘D/E’ or ‘F/G’ due to a lack of precise information. It was therefore decided to divide groups D–G as mentioned above (3.2.3.2), that is, into ‘upper commoners’ (codes ‘D’ and ‘E’, and ‘D/E’) and ‘lower commoners’ (codes ‘F’ and ‘G’, and ‘F/G’), to enable these examples to be included in the quantification. In Trials, even these two groups ‘upper commoners’ and ‘lower commoners’ were pooled into one group, ‘commoners’. This allowed the inclusion of data with such codes as ‘D/G’ mentioned above. For Drama Comedy, the two highest ranks (A and B) were combined. Furthermore, in Depositions, rather than exclude a considerable amount of data, the examples involving speakers or addressees coded ‘D/F’, ‘E/F’ and ‘D/G’, that is, those straddling the boundary between ‘upper commoners’ and ‘lower commoners’, were also included in the quantification under a separate heading (cf. ‘commoners’ in Trials). In Depositions this group was labelled ‘non-gentry’ rather than ‘commoners’. This was in order to distinguish this group from the


Table 3.7 The rank groupings as applied in the quantitative studies for each of the three genres Code NonA Commoners B C Commoners D E F G

Rank grouping nobles sirs C1 gentry C2 professionals upper commoners ¨ lower commoners ¨

Trials nobles

nobles

Drama Comedy nobles and sirs

sirs gentry professionals commoners

sirs gentry professionals upper commoners ¨ lower commoners ¨

¨ gentry professionals upper commoners ¨ lower commoners ¨

¨ ¨ ¨

Depositions

nongentry ¨ ¨ ¨

more precise groups of ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ commoners in the ensuing discussion (in Chapter 6) of the findings relating to the rank parameter in Depositions. Table 3.7 shows how the data was pooled for each genre. A further difference between Depositions and the other genres, regarding the presentation of the quantified results, is that periods 2 and 3 (1600–1639 and 1640–1679) and periods 4 and 5 (1680–1719 and 1720–1760) were combined for the quantitative analysis for the age and rank parameters. This was done for the same reason as with the pooling of certain rank groupings, in other words, in order to avoid very low raw figures or many empty cells.

3.3

Summary

The data was classified according to the sex, age, and rank of speaker and addressee. The classification with regard to age and rank, which takes into consideration the Early Modern English social order as well as the information available in the material, resulted in the data being divided into four age groups (‘child’, ‘youth’, ‘adult’ and ‘old adult’) and, initially, eight rank groups. When the classification system was applied to the data, the rank groups were adapted to avoid splitting the data unnecessarily. The resulting rank groups are ‘nobles’, ‘sirs’, ‘gentry’, ‘professionals’, and ‘commoners’ for the Trials genre, and ‘nobles’, ‘sirs’ (combined as one group ‘nobles and sirs’ in Drama Comedy), ‘gentry’, ‘professionals’, ‘upper commoners’, and ‘lower commoners’ for Depositions and Drama Comedy. The umbrella group ‘non-gentry’ for Depositions was added, in order to include commoners who might be either upper or lower commoners in the quantification.

37

chapter 4

Previous research on thou and you in Early Modern English

4.1

Introduction and historical background

There is an abundance of research into the use of thou and you in Early Modern English; predominantly studies have focused on pronoun usage in Drama, and especially in the works of Shakespeare. In this chapter, I summarise the most influential research with regard to second person singular pronoun usage in Early Modern English that is of particular relevance to the present study. The summary is in two parts: I first concentrate on theoretical approaches that have been applied to investigations into the use of thou and you, and then focus on previous studies of pronoun usage in specific genres, primarily the three genres to be investigated in the present study. I also mention comments made on thou and you usage by grammarians and other observers in the Early Modern period. Finally, I place the development of pronouns of address in England in the context of that of a number of other European languages in the Early Modern period. Prior to the selective survey of previous research, an introductory overview of the historical development of thou and you usage leading up to the period studied (1560–1760) is in order. The use of you to address a superior is found from the thirteenth century (see e.g. Mossé 1968: 94). This usage originated in fourthcentury Latin address to the Emperor (see e.g. Byrne 1936: xiv), and was then adopted in address to other high-ranking individuals (see e.g. Wales 1983: 108–109). The spread to English came either directly from the Latin literature or from Latin via the French courtly literature (for a detailed discussion of the influence of Latin vs. French, see e.g. Byrne 1936: xiv–xix). Byrne summarises previous research on the rivalry between thou and you in the singular from the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries (based primarily on the work of Oliphant 1886, Spies 1897, Kennedy 1915, and Stidston 1917), from which I have drawn the following points: – In the thirteenth century, you was used in courtly literature “by inferiors, both political and social, to superiors”, but not “in literature of an admonitory or moralizing quality”. As yet “the number of literary compositions which


employ it [you] is very small”. Thou was used by superiors to inferiors, between equals, or to show either contempt or defiance (Byrne 1936: xx–xxi). – In the fourteenth century, the literature of the period suggests thou was still the more common pronoun, even among the upper ranks. When it does occur, you tends to be used by the higher echelons rather than by the middle and lower ranks: the lower ranks prefer thou even when addressing a superior. You is used by the upper ranks to those above them mainly to flatter, appease or show humility: to the king, to a husband, by a child addressing a parent. Knights and nobles use you to each other “to display their knowledge of good form, and cultured speech” (Byrne 1936: xxii–xxv). – In the fifteenth-century literature, singular you has become established: you is used by subjects, servants, and children to address kings, masters, and parents respectively, who use thou in return. In a legal case, the accused uses you, but the Archbishop and the clerks address the accused as thou (Byrne 1936: xxv–xxvii). The verb ‘to thou’ first occurs (Byrne 1936: xxvi), which perhaps suggests a new sensitivity to the use of thou. Also, Oliphant (1886 vol. I: 262) notes that “another verb ȝeet-yn, or saying ye with worship” occurs in a mid-fifteenth-century English-Latin dictionary. Thou is used to express “equality, familiarity, or intimacy, superiority on the part of the speaker, and contempt or scorn for the person addressed” (Byrne 1936: xxvi). – In the sixteenth century, with regard to the upper ranks, you was established as “the pattern for polite conversation”, while the use of thou to a non-intimate of equal rank was considered rude (Byrne 1936: xxviii). Byrne (1936: xxxii) concludes that, allowing for switches dependent on the attitude of the speaker to the addressee, you “was the ordinary form in the average speech of the higher and middle classes; but thou endured in the use of the lower classes”. With regard to this last point, however, subsequent research into sixteenthcentury pronoun usage in specific genres has suggested that the lower ranks also use you to a greater extent than previously supposed (see 4.3).

4.2

Theoretical approaches to the study of pronoun usage

4.2.1 Power and solidarity Brown and Gilman, in their influential 1960 article, attempt to account for the development of thou and you together with their grammatical equivalents in other

Chapter 4. Previous research on thou and you in Early Modern English

languages (labelled as T for Latin tu and V for Latin vos respectively)1 in terms of the dimensions of ‘power’ and ‘solidarity’. In an unequal power relationship (whether based on birth, age, sex, institutionalised role, profession etc.), the superior uses T, but receives V from the inferior, a development resulting from the reverential Latin address to the Emperor, mentioned above (Brown & Gilman 1960: 255–257). Where the power relation is equal, the pronoun used is reciprocal, which would originally have been T (Brown & Gilman 1960: 256–257). Because the use of reverential V began in the higher ranks (those likely to address their ruler) and slowly spread downwards in society, the use of singular V “incidentally came to connote a speaker of high status”: as a result, V began to be used reciprocally among the higher ranks as a mark of elegance, while the lower ranks continued to use T reciprocally (Brown & Gilman 1960: 256–257). They argue that “[t]here was at first no rule differentiating address among equals,” but the solidarity dimension, the use of T to express intimacy and V to express formality, developed gradually as “[d]ifferences of power cause V to emerge in one direction of address; differences not concerned with power cause V to emerge in both directions” (Brown & Gilman 1960: 257). Thus the more two people had in common – the stronger the solidarity – the more likely they were to exchange T reciprocally, and conversely the greater the difference, the greater the likelihood they would adopt reciprocal V (Brown & Gilman 1960: 258). Brown and Gilman (1960: 259) argue that in cases where power and solidarity were in conflict (e.g. members of the same family have a high degree of solidarity, but a father has more power than a son) power overruled solidarity (e.g. the son would use V to address the father despite their intimacy).2 The ‘norm’ by the late sixteenth century (Brown & Gilman 1960: 276) according to the power and solidarity theory would be as shown in Table 4.1. Further, Brown and Gilman (1960: 273–274) point out that switching between thou and you was used to express “transient attitudes”, which was particularly common in English, but view a switch from whichever pronoun was dictated by power or solidarity in a particular context as a deviation from the norm. Such pronoun switching occurred when expressing feelings such as contempt (e.g. the use of T between those who usually exchange V), irony or mockery (e.g. the use of

1. With regard to certain European languages, treating address systems as binary, with “a familiar and a polite pronoun” (Brown & Gilman 1960: 254), is rather an oversimplification, as there might be a range of forms available at any one time, expressing different degrees of politeness (see 4.5). 2. However, Brown and Gilman (1960: 259) claim that “in the past century the solidarity semantic has gained supremacy” in the other European languages considered, i.e. French, German, Italian, and Spanish.

41

42


Table 4.1 The stage of T and V usage by the late sixteenth century (adapted from Trudgill 1995: 89) Power relationship

Solidarity

No solidarity

+ P → + P

T

V

– P → – P

T

V

+ P → – P

T

T

– P → + P

V

V

V by a superior to an inferior), or estrangement (e.g. a switch to V when intimates argue) (Brown & Gilman 1960: 275–276). Wales (1983: 108), among others, has criticised Brown and Gilman’s theory, with regard to the use of second person pronouns in English, arguing that “a theory based on universals can be too ‘powerful’, to the point, paradoxically, of crudity”. She concludes that their model does not sufficiently allow for “individual variation or development on the part of specific speech communities” (Wales 1983: 122). Moreover, Wales (1983: 123) objects to their seeing “changes in the linguistic system [...] as ‘essential concomitants’ of features of the social system”, changes that she argues are “merely ‘relatable’ to social factors”. She argues that there were frequent fluctuations in pronoun usage in address to the same person from medieval times and with a greater variety of expressive meanings than Brown and Gilman suggest, to the extent that one cannot speak of ‘norms’ and ‘deviations’ (Wales 1983: 109–114). Wales (1983: 116) illustrates the functions of thou and you, in the medieval period (see Figure 4.1), arguing that “[i]t is important that we see thou and you here not as if in opposition in each of these broad functions, but as if on a sliding-scale”. She points out that you was adopted as the ‘fashionable’ pronoun among the upper ranks, and more common in public contexts, and conversely thou became reserved for more private contexts, contexts in which the expression of emotion and intimacy might also be more appropriate: you thou address to social superiors ← – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – → address to social inferiors address to social equals: upper ranks ← – – – – – – – → address to social equals: lower ranks address in public ← – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – → address in private formal or neutral address ← – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – → familiar or intimate address respect, admiration ← – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – → contempt, scorn

Figure 4.1 The main uses of thou and you during the medieval period (adapted from Wales 1983: 116)


thus you was associated with ‘polite’ usage and thou with familiar or impolite. Wales (1983: 116–117) argues that “you-forms increasingly encroached on the territory of the thou-forms, so that the distinction between ‘polite’ and ‘non-polite’ usage came gradually to be replaced by [...] ‘un-marked’ versus [...] ‘marked’ ” by the end of the sixteenth century (see also 4.2.3). Wales, moreover, suggests several factors encouraging the decline of thou in the sixteenth century: in line with sociolinguistic theory (see Chapter 1 of the present study), she argues that the social aspirations of the urban middling sort, especially women, promoted the use of the prestige form you (prestigious because it was favoured by the upper ranks), while the uncertain status of new social groups meant thou was avoided in case of giving offence (Wales 1983: 117–119). In the seventeenth century, the decline of thou was possibly further encouraged by the tendency towards loss of inflectional endings (Wales 1983: 122; see also Finkenstaedt 1963: 220–222), and as a reaction to the insistence of Quakers on using only thou in the singular (Wales 1983: 119), as also suggested by Brown and Gilman (1960: 266). In a more recent study by Brown and Gilman (1989: 176–179), they give a slightly revised explanation of rules affecting pronoun usage, with specific reference to the language of Shakespeare, which they equate with Elizabethan usage in general. They state that upper ranks exchanged you, while lower ranks exchanged thou, and that “the between-class rule was you to the upper and thou to the lower”, but they point out that “[t]he status (or power) rule will not account for all uses of thou and you singular” (Brown & Gilman 1989: 177). They argue that what they term the ‘expressive rule’ needs to be added, that is, “[i]n cases where you is expected, the occurrence of thou indicates that the speaker is emotionally aroused”: they claim that thou is marked for affect, expressing positive (love and affection) or negative (anger and contempt) emotions, whereas you is the default pronoun (Brown & Gilman 1989: 177–178). Brown and Gilman (1989: 178) argue that the rule of solidarity, or affectionate intimacy, as described in Brown and Gilman (1960), applies for instance to French and German, but that “expressive thou works differently”, as a switch to thou is not permanent but retractable, once “the emotional moment has passed” (see also 4.5). However, they admit that this still does not account for all examples of thou and you: they add that thou always expresses less distance than you does, but conclude that some cases cannot be satisfactorily explained (Brown & Gilman 1989: 178).

43


4.2.2 Politeness theory Brown and Gilman (1989: 177) state that “[c]asual grammars say that you was the “polite” form and thou the familiar form, and that characterization suggests that the two singular pronouns of address are relevant” to their application of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory to Shakespearean Tragedies. Brown and Levinson (1987: 74) suggest that level of politeness – in rational communication – is determined by relative power and social distance between speaker and addressee, and the extremity of a face-threatening act, or ‘FTA’. They argue that a person has positive and negative face ‘wants’, which are explained rather succinctly by Brown and Gilman (1989: 161): positive face is the desire that “others want for him what he wants for himself; for example: life, health, honor, a positive self-image”, and negative face is the desire to be “free from imposition and distraction and to have her personal prerogatives and territory respected”. These face wants are threatened by an FTA: for example, an order, request or suggestion threatens negative face, while “criticisms, insults, disagreements and corrections” threaten positive face (Brown & Gilman 1989: 173). There are five politeness strategies for carrying out FTAs according to Brown and Levinson’s theory. These strategies in order of increasing levels of politeness are: (i) bald on record, do not redress the FTA, (ii) redress by appealing to positive face wants, (iii) redress by appealing to negative face wants, (iv) do the FTA off-record, indirectly, (v) do not do the FTA (Brown & Levinson 1987: 69). The greater the power of the addressee or social distance between speaker and addressee, together with how extreme the FTA is, the greater the level of politeness (Brown & Gilman 1989: 163). For instance, “pass the salt” would involve a lesser FTA than “lend me £1000” (my examples). At the same time, a speaker takes into account his own face wants, and maximum efficiency of communication, and thus does not use a higher strategy than is necessary (Brown & Levinson 1987: 60). The five strategies are divided into substrategies; for example, showing deference is a form of negative politeness (Brown & Levinson 1987: 178). Brown and Gilman (1989: 165) modify the five strategies into four, combining (ii) and (iii) into one strategy, that is, redressing an FTA by appealing to positive and/or negative face wants. Rudanko (1993: 167) argues that to these strategies should be added that of ‘nastiness’, namely, aggravate the FTA or ‘add insult to injury’: he points to the fact that rationality does not necessarily lead to politeness (or simple lack of politeness), as Brown and Levinson seem to claim. Culpeper (1996) goes further by suggesting a system which takes account of ‘impoliteness’, where it is in the speaker’s interest to disrupt rather than promote social harmony. He gives an example of this: the prosecution in American trials has been known to use impoliteness in an attempt to provoke the defendant into losing control (Culpeper 1996: 354).


Culpeper (1996: 355–358) offers a mirror-image set of strategies/substrategies to those of Brown and Levinson, in order of decreasing levels of impoliteness: (i) bald on record impoliteness, (ii) positive impoliteness (attacking addressee’s need for approval), (iii) negative impoliteness (attacking addressee’s need for freedom from imposition), (iv) sarcasm or mock politeness, and (v) withhold politeness where politeness would be expected, for instance, do not offer thanks. Culpeper (1996: 357–358) lists some substrategies for positive and negative politeness, such as “[c]ondescend, scorn or ridicule – emphasize your relative power. Be contemptuous [...]”. This would be a negative impoliteness substrategy (cf. the negative politeness substrategy “show deference” mentioned above). If politeness/impoliteness theory is applied to the use of thou and you it might be argued that thou is likely to be used as a positive politeness strategy: expressing in-group membership, familiarity, intimacy, liking, and you used as a negative politeness strategy: expressing deference. Conversely, using Culpeper’s suggestion for impoliteness strategies, thou would be used to attack negative face (expressing condescension, contempt), whereas you would attack positive face (expressing distance, coldness). You can also be used to express irony and mock politeness. However, there are several problems with attempting to apply politeness theory to pronoun usage. First, pronouns are not only used to pay attention to or attack face, and thus politeness theory does not cover all thou and you usage. Second, as pronoun usage is not restricted to redressing or aggravating an FTA, the use of a particular pronoun to mitigate/aggravate an FTA would not always be noticeable and effective. For example, if one is already using you to address a person and then wants to show deference, the use of the pronoun alone may well be insufficient to achieve this end. Third, there are contexts in which both pronouns can be used to the same end, for example, in insults (a negative impoliteness strategy according to Culpeper 1996: 358): thus politeness theory does not always explain the selection of one particular pronoun over another, and therefore is of less help as a framework for understanding the rivalry between thou and you. As mentioned above, Brown and Gilman (1989: 176–179) include a discussion of second person pronouns in their study of politeness theory and Shakespearean Tragedy: they find that thou and you are not very important in the context of their study of politeness. They say this is partly due to some pronoun shifts being difficult to account for with confidence, but also because “in many of the clear cases that follow the status rule, the pronoun of address, an obligatory aspect of speech, is automatic and ever-present and so does not function to redress an FTA” (Brown & Gilman 1989: 179). In conclusion, it seems that thou and you can be used to attack or save face, but this does not always help predict a particular pronoun, and of course does not account for thou and you usage in contexts where there is no FTA. In other

45


words, the selection of thou or you cannot be predicted on the basis of politeness theory, and neither does the theory explain all pronoun usage. The frequent description of you as the ‘polite’ form should not be taken to mean that you functions exclusively as a politeness marker, but rather should be understood as a reference to its use in ‘polite society’: for example, ‘polite’ is used by Early Modern English grammarians, with reference to you usage, in the sense of ‘cultured’, ‘gentile’ (see 4.4 below).

4.2.3 Markedness In his discussion of Shakespeare and the English language, Quirk (1974: 50) states that thou and you should be seen in terms of a contrast between marked and unmarked rather than in terms of ‘polite’ versus ‘familiar’ forms: “[y]ou is usually the stylistically unmarked form: it is not so much ‘polite’ as ‘not impolite’; it is not so much ‘formal’ as ‘not informal’ ”. As mentioned above (4.2.1), Brown and Gilman (1989: 177) argue that “[i]n cases where you is expected, the occurrence of thou indicates that the speaker is emotionally aroused” and thus thou is marked for affect, “making you the unmarked or default form”. And Wales (1983: 117) also claims thou to be the marked form by the end of the sixteenth century, which is a reversal of the original situation in the thirteenth century when you would have been the marked variant. However, the claim that thou was the marked form by the end of the sixteenth century is based almost exclusively on studies of literary sources, and can thus not be taken to represent the language as a whole, a point noted by Barber (1981: 287), Hope (1993: 85), and Busse (2002: 30), among others. Hope (1993: 95–96), looking at ‘authentic’ dialogues reported in Depositions from the late sixteenth century (see 4.3.3), reaches the conclusion that thou was the marked form in these records (but see Chapter 6 for an alternative interpretation in this regard), yet not necessarily in the works of writers such as Shakespeare or Marlowe. It seems that to consider thou as marked and you as unmarked as the rule is an oversimplification: Quirk (1974: 51) adds that “in a relationship where thou is expected, you can likewise be in contrast and conspicuous”. Thus, according to Quirk, in certain contexts you is in fact ‘marked’, as noted also by a number of other researchers. For example, Barber (1981: 287) argues that – in Richard III – although there is a great deal of evidence suggesting that thou is the marked form among the upper classes, you is the marked form with regard to certain of these characters. Stein (2003) presents a very thorough study of social relationships in King Lear and As You Like It. He illustrates that either thou or you could be the unmarked pronoun, depending on the particular type of relationship (e.g father


addressing daughter), and analyses specific examples of each type of relationship (e.g. Lear addressing Cordelia). He argues that “[t]here could be no meaningful variation if there was not constancy enough to establish what is normal, socially determined use” and analyses departures from these uses as deviant, marked uses (Stein 2003: 252). Using both a quantitative and qualitative analysis, he concludes that pronoun usage between the highest and lowest ranks of society, and among the lowest ranks, is entirely predictable according to the “relatively static social norms” (Stein 2003: 252, 302). In other words, unmarked thou is used by superiors to inferiors, unmarked you by inferiors to superiors, and unmarked thou is exchanged by the lower ranks. Meanwhile, thou is the marked form used by the middle and upper ranks to display emotion (Stein 2003: 302). However, even accepting thou as an unmarked form and you as the marked in certain contexts (e.g. in address to servants) does not account for all cases of pronoun switching. For example, Bruti (2000: 36–38) interprets the King’s address to Katherine in Henry IV Part II as a switch from unmarked you (between high-ranking social equals) to an intimate thou followed by a shift to a distancing ‘marked’ you, rather than a return to the ‘neutral’ or ‘unmarked’ you. The interpretation she offers for the exchange between Katherine and Henry, as well as for certain other examples, is not very convincing.3 However, the point that you can be ‘marked’ (e.g. used to reject, or mock, the addressee), even in a context where the pronoun of exchange based on social status would be you, is valid. Moreover, Bruti (2000: 26, 44) argues that what is marked on one axis (based on relative social status), may not be on the other (the axis of emotional attitude), which she refers to as ‘markedness reversal’ (after Shapiro 1983). However, as Mazzon (2003: 227) notes, “her results do not seem to progress much beyond her predecessors’ ”. It becomes increasingly difficult to see how useful the concept of markedness is with regard to thou and you, if both may be used to express a range of social relationships and emotions. Calvo (1992: 14), again with reference to a Shakespeare play (As You Like It), objects to the approach which “reduces the meanings of thou to expressive or emotional connotations and does not even consider the potential social meanings of you and thou” and which also cannot explain momentary shifts to you. Although agreeing that certain pronoun usage was expected according to social convention (e.g. you by a servant to a master), Calvo (1992: 17) argues that characters “may be using pronoun selection and sudden second person singular pronominal shifts as in-group or out-group social mark3. For instance, Bruti (2000: 38, 43) argues that Henry switches back to you as a result of Katherine’s response, yet the switch comes before this response; furthermore, Henry’s use of plural you (including the form yourselves) to address both Falstaff and Pistol is misinterpreted as address to Falstaff alone.

47


ers in order to negotiate their social identities”. Also, the pronouns could perform a textual function, acting as discourse markers, in that changes in topic could be heralded by a switch in pronoun (Calvo 1992: 22–26), e.g. a shift from you to thou could mark a switch from business to personal matters (see also Lass 1999; discussed in 4.3.4). Hope (1993: 95) notes that the norm/deviant model is limiting for the analysis of pronoun shifting: “[s]uch a model demanded the identification of a ‘normal’ form for any exchange on the basis of the social relationship of the speakers, a form which by definition held good for the whole of the exchange” and thus “only one of the forms became available for carrying emotional meaning”. In order to achieve “much more powerful, and satisfactory, analyses of usage”, Hope (1993: 95) calls for a “social/nonsocial system” which “frees both forms as potential carriers of meaning”. By this he means that pronoun usage in a conversation tends to be socially conditioned – dependent on the power/solidarity semantic – but only to begin with, as pronoun switching then takes place in response to the individual situational context (Hope 1993: 95). Jucker (2000: 161) also argues that analysis of pronoun usage based on the norm/deviance or unmarked/marked dichotomy is insufficient, because it is “too static”. He suggests that “all pronoun choices have to be accounted for”, and concludes that researchers should “adopt a more micro-pragmatically motivated perspective that focuses on the interactional status of the interactants and on the individual progressions of specific conversations” (Jucker 2000: 160–161). In sum, to simply label thou as the marked form (by the time of Shakespeare) has increasingly been deemed insufficient by researchers, as you can be marked in certain contexts. Alternatively, to treat one pronoun as marked depending on the social relationship of the speaker and addressee also seems not always to apply: for example, in a switch from thou to you, the latter can be marked even in an exchange between a dyad for which you would normally be unmarked. Therefore a useful starting point is to examine usage irrespective of whether it might be labelled marked or unmarked, and study how pronouns were actually used in particular dialogues by one person/character to another, and then consider trends on the basis of this analysis. In this way, as mentioned in Chapter 1, I approach the qualitative micro-analysis of my data from the perspective suggested by Jucker (2000), described above.

4.3


Genre studies of pronoun usage

4.3.1 Drama A number of the most relevant works on pronoun usage in Shakespeare have already been discussed above, with regard to theoretical approaches to the use of thou and you (certain other works on Shakespeare, e.g. Millward 1966, and Mulholland 1967, are mentioned in Chapter 8). Therefore, after considering further the monograph on thou and you in Shakespeare by Byrne (1936), I will turn to findings with regard to other Early Modern English Drama. Probably the most in-depth investigation of the use of second person pronouns in Shakespeare is that by Byrne (1936): she interprets the use of both thou and you in each play, scene by scene, with a detailed summary. It is worth acknowledging the results of this huge undertaking by presenting her conclusions in some detail. Byrne (1936: 144, 159) claims that Shakespeare’s usage is “Elizabethan usage4 at its height”, and that Shakespeare also exploited the pronouns as part of the means of characterisation. She believes that Shakespeare only rarely used pronouns ‘artificially’, “in those cases in which he sacrificed drama and character to the tricks of his verse” (Byrne 1936: 145). Byrne (1936: 167, 158) states that “Shakespeare misses no opportunity to call the pronoun [thou] to his aid in the depiction of character qualities” (e.g. the Host’s constant use of thou in The Merry Wives of Windsor shows him to be a braggart), and that sometimes “Shakespeare is primarily concerned with character qualities rather than social position”. She argues that “in Shakespeare thou is the pronoun which betrays all emotional responses, except where it is so customarily used that a change of feeling or an excess of feeling can be conveyed only by a reversion to the less familiar you [...] it is entirely proper to apply both pronouns to the same person, providing that the change go with a corresponding change in attitude” (Byrne 1936: 167–168). More specifically, Byrne (1936: 146–158) summarises (alphabetically by character type) the major trends of thou and you usage in Shakespeare. This can be further summed up as follows:5 “the courtly you” used by the nobility and gentry is also “in common use by the rising middle class folk” (including those in the professions, citizens, and the commercial classes), and thou is reserved to express 4. Byrne’s understanding of “Elizabethan usage” is based on studies of literary texts, on other constructed texts such as language teaching handbooks, but also on occasional letters and anecdotal evidence from journals (Byrne 1936: xxviii–xxxii, 144). 5. I exclude here Byrne’s findings with regard to very specific but uncommon character types e.g. forester, and address to non-human entities, as being of lesser interest for the purposes of the present study.

49

50


emotions or intimacy; however, the “servant class instinctively used the cruder, more familiar thou” (Byrne 1936: 146). Moreover, attendants and servants give you to their superiors, but receive thou, unless disapproval is being shown by the use of you. However, gentlemen (e.g. stewards) and gentlewomen employed by nobility give and receive you, although a lady-in-waiting may be addressed with a confidential thou by her mistress. Minor officials such as constables, gaolers, and watchmen are addressed as thou, but give you to those who outrank them. Upper-class friends, lovers, siblings, and husbands and wives all exchange you except when expressing intimacy. Byrne (1936: 164–167) disagrees with earlier research (i.e. Abbott 1870: 154,6 and Franz 1909: 254) with regard to parents and children: she finds that children address parents as you, but receive thou only if they are very young, or in the privacy of the home. Byrne (1936: 152) points to thou being used occasionally to address kings, and clergy (when in their role as spiritual advisers), “in faithful adherence to the older idea of reverence, with the high and mighty thy of honor”. She refers to the following address to the King by a herald in Henry V as an example of this usage (Byrne 1936: 152): “No great King: I come to thee for charitable License [...]” (Act IV, lines 74–75). A further monograph on second person pronouns in Shakespeare is that by Busse (2002), mentioned above (4.2.3). Busse has carried out a thorough examination of the Shakespeare corpus with regard to thou and you, using both quantitative and qualitative analyses. However, whereas most research, including the present study, by and large adopts a semanto-pragmatic approach, the focus of Busse’s book is on morpho-syntactic variability. Therefore, his findings are considered in Chapter 8, which looks at linguistic factors that possibly influence pronoun selection, as well as treating pronoun form and syntactic function. Three monographs, by Bock (1938), Johnson (1959: summarised in Johnson 1966), and Mitchell (1971) all investigate pronoun usage in Early Modern English Drama, using quantitative and qualitative analyses. Bock’s quantitative findings are commented on briefly below (see also Chapter 7). A detailed comparison is made between Johnson’s quantitative results and my own results with regard to the rank parameter in Drama Comedy, in Chapter 7. Mitchell’s data is discussed in Chapter 8, as her work focuses on the different pronoun forms and their syntactic function. Bock also offers quantitative data in this respect (see Chapter 8). With regard to qualitative findings, the studies of Bock (1938) especially, and Johnson (1966) are described below in some detail, as they are particularly relevant to my investigation for the genre of Drama Comedy (see Chapter 7).

6. Byrne cites the date of publication as 1897. As I am unable to find this edition, I refer to the 1870 edition, as given in my list of references.


In his investigation of Drama Comedy from 1497 to 1779, Bock (1938) gives a qualitative commentary supplemented by examples and close readings from his corpus. In sixteenth-century Drama Comedy, Bock (1938: 7–11) finds that you was the pronoun of exchange in unemotional speech between characters of the upper ranks almost without exception, and thou was exchanged by the lower social strata in everyday conversation. He notes however, that you can occur among the lower ranks by the end of the century (Bock 1938: 87). He disagrees with Franz (1909: 254) that thou between the lower ranks was limited to humourous or emotional exchanges as he finds both pronouns occurring in such contexts (Bock 1938: 10). Thou was used to indicate the superior position of the character speaking in relation to the addressee, whereas the latter would use you in recognition of his lower social standing (Bock 1938: 11). Thou was also used to address oneself, or, often, by peeved or embittered servants in address to masters who are out of hearing range (Bock 1938: 8–9). To a master’s face, servants use you but receive thou. However, Bock (1938: 15–16) notes that female servants are addressed as you by employers of the upper ranks. Moreover, Bock (1938: 16–17) illustrates that lower-ranking female servants address each other as you: but he admits there are only two relevant exchanges in his material. Otherwise, servants use thou amongst each other unless they are of the upper ranks (Bock 1938: 14–15). Regarding pronoun usage among family members, Bock (1938: 17, 20) finds that parents as ‘superiors’ usually address children as thou and receive you. However, he does not discuss how the age of the ‘child’ might affect pronoun usage: thus it is difficult to know how his findings relate to those of Byrne in her study of Shakespeare. He discusses one play in which the changes in pronoun usage between a mother and her adult son reflect changes in mood and the changing fortunes of the son (Bock 1938: 21–23). Siblings exchange you unless expressing intimacy or contempt, although the use of you can indicate distance or reproach (Bock 1938: 18–19). As Byrne also notes, married (and engaged) couples normally use you in unemotional contexts (Bock 1938: 20). Also in such contexts, elders use thou to youths and receive a respectful you in return (Bock 1938: 23). Bock (1938: 36) argues that thou is used to express emotion, in contrast to the you of calm conversation. But he takes up the problem of thou used for affect, that is, to express contempt, animosity, familiarity, intimacy, love and so on, in cases where thou is the pronoun used in unemotional conversation. Bock (1938: 36) argues that in these cases the use of thou for affect could be discerned by intonation and tone of voice rather than pronoun switch. This is a point seldom noted. Bock (1938: 40–41) also points to you being used for affect, by characters who normally exchange thou (e.g. among the lower ranks), not only in mockery (in which it could be interpreted as an ironic use of the ‘polite’ form), but also in anger. Affect or emotion can also be expressed by the switching back and forth be-

51

52


tween thou and you (Bock 1938: 42–44). Thou is also used for pathos, in scenes where the character is to be pitied, such as when the speaker is love-sick, melancholy, or pleading for forgiveness (Bock 1938: 44–47). In the light of the figures7 obtained for each play, Bock (1938: 78–79, Appendix) finds that the subject form thou fell from around 40 per cent (in relation to singular you/ye) to approximately 20 per cent in the 1590s, although the object form thee declined less dramatically, with a resurgence in the second half of the seventeenth century due to the use of prithee. In the second quarter of the eighteenth century, both forms had all but disappeared from the genre of Drama Comedy (Bock 1938: 78). Not surprisingly, the decline is not a steady one as there is some variation from play to play (see Chapter 7 of the present study for a graphic presentation of his figures for thou versus you in these plays, in comparison with my own data). Bock (1938: 77–118) traces changes in pronoun usage in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by considering the usage of different playwrights, focusing on the use of thou. He argues that, essentially, Shakespeare used thou and you as described above with reference to sixteenth-century usage, but notes a change in pronoun usage after the earliest of the three plays he investigates (Bock 1938: 87). He shows that Shakespeare begins to allow the use of you when characters express rage and jealousy, as well as among the lower ranks in unemotional speech. Bock (1938: 84) finds that pronoun usage is also less consistent, or hard to explain, between characters of different ranks, namely, when a superior addressing an inferior fluctuates between thou and you. Jonson’s characters generally use you: servants, and criminal types, exchange thou, and are thus addressed by masters and superiors; otherwise thou usually only occurs in emotional speech (Bock 1938: 87–90). After this Bock suggests that the use of thou becomes even more inconsistent: in Shirley’s plays (both from 1633), you is clearly taking over from thou. For example, you is found in intimate address, in address to inferiors, and in disputes, although thou may still occur in such contexts (Bock 1938: 90– 93). Etherege’s earlier play (1664) illustrates the use of thou in pathos, when intimate, when angry, and to inferiors, but it is infrequent. In his later play (1676) thou is even more rare, and basically restricted to prithee, or used for characterisation purposes (Bock 1938: 93–97). Wycherley’s plays also include many prithee examples. Thou is only occasionally inserted into intimate or angry speech in the earlier play, The Country-Wife (1675: also sampled for my corpus). Thou is more frequent in the later play (1677), but largely restricted to two characters, again to 7. Bock (1938) quantifies subject and object pronouns, both singular and plural, according to form i.e. you, ye, thou, thee (including prithee) for each play. Thus your, yours, thy, thine are not included in the quantification.


help show character type (Bock 1938: 97–101). Moreover, he finds that pronoun usage in the 1677 play is especially unsystematic and inconsistent. Congreve uses a relatively high percentage of thou in his earlier play (1693), but thou is infrequent in the later (1700): it is used intermittently to express emotion and mood, especially intimacy, but very rarely to reflect social rank (Bock 1938: 101–105). Similarly, Cibber only includes thou by characters expressing emotion in his 1696 play (Bock 1938: 106–107). Only Vanbrugh’s characters in a play from 1697 use thou to inferiors (but also use you to certain artisans), as well as using it to express intimacy and anger (Bock 1938: 105–106). A maid is addressed as thou by her mistress in Steele’s later play (1705), but there is a hint of contempt in this address; elsewhere it is used to express emotion and mood (Bock 1938: 107–110). Gay’s Beggar’s Opera from 1726 goes against the trend quantitatively, in that thou is much more frequent (19%) than in the other plays in Bock’s corpus after 1693, yet thou is only inserted to show emotion, not social rank, and you may also occur when expressing strong emotion (Bock 1938: 110–112, Appendix). In plays after 1726 in his corpus, the examples of thou are negligible, ranging from 2–18 examples only (Bock 1938: Appendix). The general pattern of development traced by Bock will be compared to my findings, in Chapter 7. Finally, Johnson (1966) offers some general trends in thou and you usage in seventeenth-century Drama Comedy. However, she also includes a number of Fiction texts in her corpus, and admits that “the usage of fiction is more conservative than that of drama” (Johnson 1966: 265). The main trends that Johnson (1966: 266–269) highlights are as follows: thou, or an ironic you, is used by superiors to inferiors, who return you. Young relatives may receive an intimate or emotional thou from their elders, but give you (unless drunk or feigning madness). Siblings and cousins exchange thou to express intimacy, as do spouses, although Johnson notes that husbands give thou, but wives give you in some plays, two of which are included in my corpus (see Chapter 7). Thou is frequent among lovers, but engaged couples only exchange thou in the early part of the century; later fiancés but not fiancées use an occasional thou. Johnson finds that members of the ‘lower class’ usually exchange you, but commonly use thou if they share the same occupation. Men throughout the seventeenth century use intimate thou to their friends, women do so to a lesser extent. In fact “[w]omen of all ranks [...] on the whole employ the you-singular more frequently than men” (Johnson 1966: 268). I compare several of these findings with mine in Chapter 7.

53

54


4.3.2 Trials To my knowledge there has not been much research carried out on the use of thou and you in Trials. Kryk-Kastovsky’s (1998) study of prithee in two Trial texts (discussed in Chapter 8) does not focus on the rivalry between thou and you. Finkenstaedt (1963), however, makes several important observations regarding pronoun usage in Trials. Finkenstaedt (1963: 129–136) argues that you was the normal pronoun in Trials from the sixteenth century onwards, but thou for affect was used (to imply a friendly, ‘fatherly’ authority, or to express anger and contempt) by those presiding in religious trials8 in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Moreover, contemptuous thou is also used by the judge in criminal law trials – as well as being cited in court with reference to an earlier speech event. Finkenstaedt (1963: 137) further notes that an ironic you may also be used to show contempt. In the second half of the seventeenth century thou is rare in Trials, except in the speech of Judge Jeffreys, who uses it to show contempt, or annoyance, but also for emphasis when forced to repeat a question: Finkenstaedt (1963: 137–138) argues that Jeffreys switches to thou at the slightest provocation, and so frequently that it ceases to have the desired effect.9 He also notes that thou in Trials is not limited to expressing contempt or authority, but is also used in phrases belonging to the opening and closing formulae, such as hold up thy hand, thou standest indicted, thou hast been found guilty, regardless of the defendant’s rank,10 as well as being used in the written indictment itself (Finkenstaedt 1963: 139–143). This formulaic usage was the norm until the mideighteenth century, although the sentence was often given using the plural form (Finkenstaedt 1963: 143). Thou is also found in address to low-born witnesses, especially in the sixteenth century (Finkenstaedt 1963: 140).

8. However, as several of these trial records were produced by the defendants themselves after the event, the reliability of these reports can be called into question: first it would be difficult to reproduce the exact words from memory, but also there is always the possibility that the accused may consciously falsify the account, such as e.g. suggesting the judges’ lack of self-control by reporting an excessive use of thou on their part. 9. However, in the several trials I have consulted in which Jeffreys was involved for which there are extant contemporaneous records, thou is not used to any remarkable degree (see Chapter 8: Note 13). Similarly, Finkenstaedt (1963: 147–149) describes the use of contemptuous thou in The Trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, but the earliest extant record of the version of the trial proceedings that he uses is the 1730 edition of State-Trials. Contemporaneous versions are largely recorded as a third person narrative. 10. However, you is used in this context when the accused is King Charles I (National Archives, London. MS State Papers 16/517 [Bradshaw’s Journal], f. 21v).


4.3.3 Depositions One of the most cited studies with regard to pronoun usage in ‘authentic’ speech of Early Modern English is Hope’s (1993) article, in which he examines pronoun usage in Depositions from the late sixteenth century, as found in James Raine’s (1845) edition Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham. This edition is, however, problematic for the study of pronoun usage; for example, there are several instances of thou in the manuscript which are transcribed by Raine as you (see below, Chapter 6, and Kytö & Walker 2003). Hope (1993: 86–87) considering the evidence from Depositions using Brown and Gilman’s theory of power and solidarity semantics as the starting-point, finds support for the power semantic at work, exemplifying the use of thou to inferiors, on the basis of rank, role, age, and family relationship, and also the use of you to a superior. As well as these examples of socially-conditioned usage, examples are offered that illustrate the expression of emotional attitudes, such as affection and anger, which (as also pointed out by Brown & Gilman 1960, 1989; see 4.2.1) allows pronoun switches in address to the same individual (Hope 1993: 87–90). However, Hope (1993: 93) argues that Brown and Gilman’s theory is insufficient, for example, as his quantitative investigation shows that men do not tend to use thou to address women as the power semantic predicts. Neither do women tend to use you to address men (although he suggests that this is due to the predominance of thou used to express anger in the records). Further, with regard to rank, Hope (1993: 92, 94) argues that the predicted “mutual lower class thou of solidarity” is not found in the data, as when thou occurs it appears to imply emotion. This finding is in contrast to Bock’s (1938) study of late sixteenth-century Drama Comedy (described in 4.3.1), in which unemotional you among the lower ranks does not seem to be noted until the end of the sixteenth century. On the other hand, Hope does not seem to consider that you might be motivated by the formality surrounding, for instance, will-making, rather than being the ‘default’ pronoun. Moreover, Hope (1993: 91–92) argues that the fact that you occurs “in situations where the power and solidarity model would predict thou forms” (between siblings, husband and wife, to a prospective son-in-law, and in anger) indicates that you is taking over from thou in these contexts. However, the cases he cites as evidence do not lend convincing support to his argument, as you is in fact likely to be motivated by the formal context, irony, the speaker’s inferior rank etc. (see also Chapter 6). Hope (1993: 91) finds that “thou is almost always motivated in some obvious way, you not necessarily so”. He claims that there is also quantitative evidence that thou is clearly the marked form in the records, while you is the neutral, default pronoun. His argument is that despite the fact that thou should occur

55

56


more than you in these records, because they report “arguments, insults and accusations”, thou accounts for “less than 50%” (49%) of occurrences, and thus its marked status is strongly indicated (Hope 1993: 96). However, one could argue there are many cases relating to the making of formal contracts, which might encourage you. Moreover, there are four examples from the 1845 edition quoted in Hope’s article where you is given, for which the manuscript reading is actually thou (see Chapter 6; Kytö & Walker 2003). Hence his conclusion does not really hold: it is quite possible that thou is in fact the majority form. He also argues that the markedness of thou in this Deposition collection, while thou is not clearly marked in Shakespeare, implies that the playwright’s usage “if it bears any relation to ‘real’ early Modern usage at all, preserves modes of usage which have long disappeared from everyday speech” (Hope 1993: 97). With this comment he apparently comes close to equating the direct speech found in Depositions with “everyday speech”, overlooking the difference between authentic speech and the written record of someone’s testimony in which this speech is purported to be quoted verbatim. However, his point that researchers should carefully distinguish between literary and non-literary pronoun usage is clearly an apt one. Apart from highlighting the existence of a valuable source of Early Modern English through his article, Hope (1993: 95) intends to show that (as mentioned in 4.2.3) socially pragmatic usage or “the ‘pure’ you or thou dictated by the power and solidarity semantics” is found at the start of an exchange, but that non-socially pragmatic uses which involve pronoun shifting occur once the context has been established. And that this is where subtle manipulation of the forms can occur, which he feels is what needs studying in detail. Hope (1993: 87–90) argues that thou is marked for emotion, but a switch back to the ‘neutral’ you can nevertheless carry its own meaning (e.g. ‘I am showing self-control and am therefore better than you’). In my opinion, you in such cases can hardly be interpreted as neutral; moreover, we often do not have access to enough information to discern what the ‘normal’ pronoun exchanged between two individuals might be (see Chapter 6). With regard to manipulation, Hope (1993: 90–91) also suggests that certain witnesses might consciously report thou when you was actually used, to make the speaker appear to have lost control. Hope’s example in support of this last point is unfortunate, as the manuscript, unlike the edition, shows that all deponents in fact report thou. His point is no less valid, however, as possible evidence for such misreporting by deponents can be found in Depositions in my corpus (see Chapter 6).


4.3.4 Other genres: Letters, Handbooks, and Fiction Lass (1999) and Nevala (2004) have studied thou and you in Letters. Lass (1999), looking briefly at Letters from the fifteenth to the seventeenth centuries, such as the correspondence of the Paston family, makes a number of observations. He finds that, in the fifteenth century, you is used, but probably this is due to the formal style and utilitarian content (Lass 1999: 150). In the sixteenth-century letters by Sir Thomas More to his daughter Margaret, you occurs even in personal, emotional contexts, although Lass (1999: 151) gives an example of thou in one “touching passage”. (Lass does not offer an explicit motivation for this usage, but it could be interpreted as a stylistic thou of pathos rather than the more self-revealing emotional thou, given that More is so restrained elsewhere.) Lass (1999: 151– 153) concludes that, in later sixteenth-century personal letters, and increasingly in those from the seventeenth century, “you is the distal (distant from speaker) pronoun, thou the proximal (speaker-oriented)”: writers switch between thou and you depending on the topic. Finkenstaedt (1963: Chapter 5) also considers Letters; the examples given lend support to the points made by Lass (1999). Further, Finkenstaedt (1963: 151–153) notes that the use of thou to family members by Cromwell is influenced by the references to God, as thou was used in religious contexts (in address to God, in religious ceremonies, in the Bible etc.). Nevala (2004: 164–169) presents quantitative evidence from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC), showing that thou occurs most in personal letters of the seventeenth century, although thou is rarely preferred to you by letter writers. It is rare in correspondence between family members in the preceding two centuries. In the eighteenth century, only David Garrick (author of one of the Drama Comedy texts included in my corpus) very occasionally uses thou to family and friends: otherwise, in letters between close friends, thou only occurs in the seventeenth century (Nevala 2004: 164–169). Thou seems to be used to address those of lower or equal status (either based on relative familial standing or relative social rank): the exception is that, in the seventeenth century, wives also address husbands as thou (Nevala 2004: 169, 173). Thou seems to be motivated by positive affect, namely intimacy, in Letters (Nevala 2004: 173). In this genre, positive politeness in terms of first names, nicknames, and terms of endearment increased in the seventeenth century; nevertheless, although thou often collocates with such terms, and not with titles and honorifics, you is also found (Nevala 2004: 174–175). Nevala (2004: 176–177) agrees in part with Lass (see above) that changes from interpersonal to impersonal subject matter, or vice versa, can trigger a pronoun switch, but finds that certain fluctuation in pronoun usage in Letters cannot be explained in such terms, if at all.

57

58


Finkenstaedt (1963: 121–128), with reference mainly to Handbooks, also finds that the use of nicknames, by husband or wife, increased rapidly in the seventeenth century despite being frowned upon by puritans and in the conduct books. He gives special attention to address between husband and wife in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as exemplified or prescribed, primarily, in Handbooks, especially conduct books (Finkenstaedt 1993: 120–128). Contrary to the findings of Byrne (1936) and Bock (1938) for Drama, and also Hope’s (1993) study of Depositions (see 4.3.1 and 4.3.3), Finkenstaedt argues that one can talk of a ‘marriage pronoun’, so frequent is the use of thou by the husband to the wife, who replies using you. This results from the old idea of the wife as subordinate to the husband, a view upheld by the puritans in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Finkenstaedt 1963: 120–121). It is relatively rare for a husband and wife to exchange only you in Finkenstaedt’s material (1963: 124). However, in the seventeenth century thou might be used by the wife when being especially affectionate, and by the husband in the same way, often together with pet names (Finkenstaedt 1963: 121, 122–123). Regarding ‘colloquial language’, Finkenstaedt (1963: 112–114) gives a vast number of short summaries of usage for different speaker/addressee dyads (e.g. master/servant) from sixteenth-century jestbooks. He argues that when there is no emotion involved, thou and you are determined by the social status of speaker and addressee, and notes that exceptions are rare: servants, friars, and children receive thou: again, for the most part, wives receive thou and give you to husbands. Finkenstaedt (1963: 114–120) finds social status and affect also motivates pronoun usage in non-fictional colloquial speech, giving examples from diaries, memoirs, trial records and other accounts of authentic speech from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. On the basis of the examples from jestbooks and nonfiction, he claims that thou, although often cited, was not frequent in relation to you, and that the number of occurrences decreased quickly in the seventeenth century, thou being very rare after 1650 (Finkenstaedt 1963: 120). Using the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts, Taavitsainen (1997: 239–244) has looked briefly at the use of thou in Fiction, Autobiography, History, Biography, Diaries, and Travelogues from 1500–1710. Her quantitative analysis shows that thou was very rare in all these genres except Fiction, and to a lesser extent Autobiography (Taavitsainen 1997: 239). She suggests that Fiction has relatively more occurrences of thou due to the exchanges between low-ranking characters (Taavitsainen 1997: 240). But she also finds evidence in Fiction of the religious thou as used by Quakers (albeit rather a parody), and certain affective uses (Taavitsainen 1997: 241–242). In Autobiography, those whose speech is reported belong to the upper ranks; the use of thou reflects contempt in the earliest text, and address to inferiors in the text from the late sixteenth century (Taavitsainen


1997: 243–244). The frequent use of thou by George Fox in his journal in the late seventeenth century, which Taavitsainen (1997: 243) suggests is motivated by the affective themes, could in fact reflect the tendency of Quakers to use thou to all (see e.g. Finkenstaedt 1963: Chapter 6; and 4.4 below), the usage she finds parodied in the Fiction genre.

4.4

Thou and you in contemporaneous grammars

Early Modern English grammarians tend not to give much information about thou vs. you in the second person singular. They often present the pronouns by case and number, without commenting on the fact that the grammatically plural number forms might be used to address one individual. Thus, in Grammatica Anglicana, Greaves (1594: 14) presents second person pronouns according to their grammatical number, that is, thou and thee as singular (subject and object respectively) and you or ye (which are not distinguished for case) as plural. Almost half a century later, Jonson in The English Grammar gives exactly the same information: he adds, however, that “[t]he second Person plurall is for reverence sake to one singular thing” (Jonson 1640: 61, 73). In a similarly-titled work, Miege (1688: 45, 47–48) has thou as singular and you (but not ye) as plural. However, Bullokar (1586: 20) in his Pamphlet for Grammar gives thou, ye or you as second person singular nominative, and thee or you as accusative, although he offers no comment on the difference between thou and you (or you vs. ye11). Just over a century later, Aickin (1693: 9) states that thou, thee, thy, thine are second person singular pronouns, and ye, your, yours are plural, with no comment on you. However, when discussing verb conjugations he gives thou or you as second person singular nominative in his conjugation tables, and ye in the plural nominative (Aickin 1693: 13–14). Seventeenth-century Quakers deplored the use of second person plural pronouns – in all languages – to address one individual: in 1660, George Fox, John Stubs, and Benjamin Furley published A Battle-Door for Teachers & Professors to Learn Singular & Plural; You to Many, and Thou to One [...] in which they went so far as to blame the Pope for the vain use of plural forms to address one person (Fox et al. 1660: 28). As mentioned in 4.2.1, this attitude seems to have had the opposite to the desired effect with regard to encouraging thou usage. Some contemporaries do make some comment on differences between thou and you when used in the singular. In 1653, Wallis notes in Grammatica Linguae

11. For a discussion of you vs. ye in the singular, see Chapter 8 (8.3.3) of the present study.

59


Anglicanae that you is customarily used to address one person, but thou is used typically when talking down to someone, or when expressing familiarity:

Notandum item apud nos morem obtinuisse [...] dum quis alium alloquitur, singularem licèt, numerum tamen pluralem adhibendi; [...] Singulari verò numero siquis alium compellet, vel dedignantis illud esse solet, vel familiariter blandientis. (Wallis 1653: 87)

Likewise, over half a century later, Greenwood, who was influenced by Wallis, states in An Essay towards a Practical English Grammar (1711):

It is customary among us, (as likewise among the French, and others) tho’ we speak but to one particu lar Person, to use the Plural Number: But then we say You, and not Ye. And if any one speaks to another in the Singular Number, as, Thou Thomas, it is reckon’d a Sign of Contempt or Familiarity. (Greenwood 1711: 103–104)

Greenwood encapsulates the use of thou and you in a summary in dialogue format:

Q. What Words are of the Second Person? A. Thou is of the second Person Singular, and Ye or You of the second Person Plural. Q. But we use You, when we speak only to one Person, how can that be then of the Plural Number. A. Custom has made us do so; the Verb that is put to it, is always of the Plural Number. For, we say, You love, which is the Plural, and not You lovest which is the Singular. And it is counted ungentile and rude to say, Thou dost so and so. (Greenwood 1711: 110)

In A New English Grammar, Duncan (1731: 55) describes the use of thou in a little more detail. He states that although it is “quite out of Date in the polite World”, it is sometimes used “in low Life, among familiar Friends, or when we speak to Inferiors”. The reference to low-life suggests that thou was still exchanged among the ‘ungentle’ classes. Moreover, he adds that “[i]n the sublime Stile, when we address to a Person of the highest Rank, in the Heat of an Harangue, or in Poetry, an


Emphatical Thou graces sometimes the Discourse” and that thou is also used in prayer (Duncan 1731: 56). Lowth (1762: 33), in his prescriptive A Short Introduction to English Grammar, gives thou and thee as nominative and objective singular respectively, and ye or you as nominative plural, and only you12 as objective plural. When discussing verbs, he bemoans, in a footnote, the use of singular verb forms with you and plural verb forms with thou (Lowth 1762: 48–49, footnote 2). In the same footnote, he states “Thou, in the Polite, and even in the Familiar Style, is disused, and the Plural You is employed instead of it [...] On the contrary the Solemn Style admits not of You for a Single Person” (his example of the solemn style is Pope’s Messiah). This is not dissimilar to the entry for thou in Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language of 1755 where it is noted that “[i]t is used only in very familiar or very solemn language. When we speak to equals or superiors we say you”. Conversely, the entry for you informs us that it “is the ceremonial word for the second person singular, and is always used, except in solemn language.”

4.5

The development of address systems in Early Modern European languages

According to previous research, the period 1560–1760, as mentioned in Chapter 1 (and described further in this chapter), saw the second person plural form you become the dominant form also in the singular. Meanwhile the use of the original second person singular pronoun, thou, declined to the extent that by the end of the period it was all but obsolete, being restricted to certain registers and dialects. But how does this compare with the address systems in other European languages of the time? It is of course beyond the scope of the present investigation to investigate in any detail the nuances of pronoun usage and development in the rest of Early Modern Europe; however, a number of similarities and differences in several European languages are worth mentioning. As pointed out above (4.1), the use of the second person plural pronoun to show respect to an individual originated in Latin. This then spread to other European languages, so that prior to the period under study, the second person plural form was also used as the polite singular in, for example, Dutch, English, French, German, Spanish, and Swedish. By the middle of the sixteenth century, however, there is some divergence from this pattern. In Dutch the second person singular form du disappeared around this time, having been replaced by ghi, the second person plural 12. Lowth complains “Some Writers have used Ye as the Objective Case Plural [...] very improperly and ungrammatically” (Lowth 1762: 33, footnote 1).

61

62


form, which after a phonological change became gij (Aalberse forthc.). However, unlike later in English, the loss of the T/V distinction was soon more than compensated for in Dutch with the introduction of new polite forms in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: jij, the northern variant of gij, became the informal variant, while gij was used as the more polite form, as was also the polite nominal abstraction Uwe edelheid (‘your nobility’) (Aalberse forthc.). In other European languages, a widening use of the second person plural pronoun as the polite singular naturally led to a loss of its polite connotations, as also in English; however, in other European languages this resulted in the adoption of new polite(r) forms. Thus in Spain, as early as the fifteenth century, vos had been challenged by a range of polite nominals, and in the sixteenth century was overcome by one of these, the respectful title vuestra merced (‘your grace’); this nominal developed into the formal second person singular pronoun form usted (Bentivoglio 2003: 178–179). Also in German, polite nominals were used, in the late sixteenth century, in cases where ihr was not considered sufficiently polite (Simon 2003: 95). The use of third person singular pronouns to avoid cumbersome repetition of these nominals led to these pronouns, er and sie, being used independently to address an individual in the seventeenth century (Simon 2003: 95–96). The final stage of development, with regard to the period 1560–1760, saw the form Sie being added to the existing polite pronominal forms of address by the beginning of the eighteenth century (Simon 2003: 98). Hence in this period in German, there was no simple binary T/ V system, but a range of options: “each of them more polite than the previous one, but none of them ousting the ones already there” (Simon 2003: 87). Swedish also developed a complicated system of address; the second person plural pronoun I was the polite singular, but due to the influence of German, nominals and third person pronouns were used in the same manner; moreover, ni, a variant form of I developed, which in the eighteenth century could be found in place of I when the conversation was more informal (Widmark 1994: 215–217). However, the peasant class continued to use du or, to their superiors, titles (Paulston 2005: 200). Titles were used to excess in Swedish society to replace pronouns, as ridiculed in an eighteenth-century drama comedy (Widmark 1994: 218). French stands apart from the above-mentioned languages in that the tu/vous distinction was maintained unchallenged throughout the period. It was French that directly influenced the adoption of the second person plural form vy as the polite singular in Russian, as late as the early eighteenth century (Friedrich 1986: 273). Regarding pronoun usage, it has been argued that there was greater fluctuation between T and V in English, with more momentary shifts, than in other European languages (Brown and Gilman 1960: 265, 273–276; Wales 1983: 109, 114). There are various patterns that may be inherent to all address systems, for instance the fact that the incoming form is always more polite, that widening


the application of a polite form erodes its polite connotations, and that polite forms are conventionally indirect (see e.g. Braun 1988: 57–61; Taavitsainen and Jucker 2003: 5). Moreover, the influence of dominant languages such as Latin and German led to certain similarities in European address systems. However, as this brief synopsis shows, different languages developed along related but not identical lines.

4.6

Summary

As illustrated in this chapter, research into second person singular pronoun usage has centred on Drama, especially Drama Comedy, but other genres that have received attention include Trials and Depositions, Letters, Handbooks and Fiction. Theories which attempt to account for motivation behind the choice of thou or you have been shown to be insufficient for satisfactorily explaining all examples of pronoun usage. Previous research into a range of genres has shown that relative status and degree of social distance between speaker and addressee are clearly important factors in determining pronoun selection, but that both you and thou can have affective meanings, and that the individual situational context has to be considered in order to more fully understand pronoun usage. A very general picture of pronoun development which can be extrapolated from the studies reported on in this chapter is that thou was the minority form by the end of the sixteenth century, becoming obsolescent in the early eighteenth century. Further, previous research suggests that thou to express superior rank receded over the course of the seventeenth century, but thou to express emotion or attitude continued to be used into the eighteenth century. The subsequent loss of thou from the standard is in contrast to the development of address systems in other European languages.

63

chapter 5

Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760

5.1

Introduction

The distribution and use of second person singular pronouns in my material representing the Trials genre is presented in this chapter. A brief description of this genre is given below, after which my material is listed. A formulaic pronoun usage occurs in this genre, and this is taken into account when discussing the overall distribution and analysing the distribution of the two pronouns in terms of the sex, age, and rank of the speaker and addressee in the macro-analysis. It is clear that the pronoun you is the norm in the context of the Early Modern English courtroom; hence in the micro-analysis of pronoun usage in Trials, the primary focus is on the use of thou. The Trials genre consists of dialogue in the form of questions and answers with minimal scribal intervention (regarding the reliability of the Trial records, see Chapter 2). The dialogue recorded in these texts tends to be formal, as it takes place for the most part in the context of courtroom proceedings. Trials also contain reports of speech which occurs in non-courtroom environments, that is, earlier dialogues which are reported (whether rendered as direct or indirect speech) in the testimony given by speakers during the trial proceedings. The following extract (1) from the The Tryal of John Giles illustrates the minimal scribal intervention (only witness and speaker identification is found in this example) and the different forms of speech presentation in the Trials genre. (1)

Walter Watkins.

Mr. Holt. Mr. Watkins. What did you hear that Giles should say in Glocester-shire about this Business? Mr. Thompson. What said he about this business of Mr. Arnold? Mr. Watkins. My Lord, All I can say is this, I being at the Stating some Accounts between Mr. John Giles and Mr. Richmond: I asked Mr. Giles for some Horse hair to make a Fishing-line. Mr. Giles replyed, That he had left very good Hair for me at a Farriers in Glocester, for he and Mr. Herbet Jones made such haste


5.2

through the Town of Glocester that they did not call for the Horse-hair. I asked Mr. Giles what was the occasi on of his haste? Said he, For fear we shou’d be stopt in our Journey, as suspected to be concerned in Mr. Arnold’s Business. Recorder. What time was that? Mr. Watkins. About the 5th of May. (The Tryal of John Giles, 1681: 21)

The Trials sub-corpus

For each of the five 40-year periods, three of the Trial texts which are sampled in the CED were selected. Selection was made on the basis of the texts having both male and female speakers, although this was not always possible for the first two periods. The size of each Trial text sample in the CED varies. For each period, the three text samples amount to, where possible, approximately 20,000 words in length; longer samples have been taken from some texts in an attempt to compensate for shorter texts in the same 40-year period. The total word-count for the Trials material is thus about 100,000. The Trial texts, and the word-counts,1 are listed in Table 5.1. The texts are dated according to the date of publication: the date of the speech event, that is, the trial itself, is given in parentheses. The texts are all imprints published soon after the trial, with the exception of four texts, of which three are taken from non-contemporaneous editions, but which have been checked against the original manuscripts.2 For the relatively short account of the 1616 trial of Lady Frances, Countess of Somerset, the manuscript record (British Library, London. MS Stowe 401, A rellation of the arraignmt of the [...] Ladie of Somerset [...] 1616) was used in preference to the later edition that is sampled in the CED. (The CED sample excludes one long speech, and also the edition differs from the manuscript with regard to the number of occurrences 1. The word-counts given are for the whole of each CED text file according to Microsoft Word. The counts are rounded off to the nearest ten (i.e. a word-count of 3,528 becomes 3,530). The word-count of the one Trial text that is not in electronic format (British Library, London. MS Stowe 401, A rellation of the arraignmt of the [...] Ladie of Somerset [...] 1616) was estimated on the basis of a manual count. 2. The Trial of Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk and The Trial of Mr. Robert Hickford are taken from State-Trials (1730) edited by Sollom Emlyn. These have been checked against the accounts in MS Sloane 1427 in the British Library. Reports of Cases in the Courts of [...] High Commission (1886) edited by Samuel Rawson Gardiner has been checked against the source manuscript MS Rawlinson A128 in the Bodleian Library.

Period

Publication date (Trial date) 1730 (1571) 1730 (1571) 1585 (1584)

Title

Wordcount 16,060 The Trial of Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk 1 1,800 The Trial of Mr. Robert Hickford 1560– 3,530 A Trve and Plaine Declaration of the Horrible Treasons, Practised by William Parry 1599 21,390 2,270 British Library, London. MS Stowe 401, A rellation of the arraignmt of the [...] Ladie of Somerset [...] 1616 – (1616) 2 7,340 Gardiner ed., Reports of Cases in the Courts of [...] High Commission 1886 (1632) 1600– 3,370 A Breife Relation of [...] the Censure of [...] Dr. Bastvvicke, Mr. Burton, and Mr. Prynne 1638 (1637) 1639 12,980 2,660 The Arraignment, Tryal and Examination of Mary Moders 1663 (1663) 3 A True and Impartial Account of the Arraignment, Tryal, Examination, Confession and Condemnation of Col. 7,840 1663 (1663) 1640– Iames Turner 1679 12,230 The Tryals of Robert Green, Henry Berry, & Lawrence Hill 1679 (1678/9) 22,730 7,240 The Tryal of John Giles 1681 (1680) 4 9,200 The Arraignment, Tryal and Condemnation of Stephen Colledge 1681 (1681) 1680– 11,420 The Tryals of Haagen Swendsen [...] 1703 (1702) 1719 27,860 6,100 The Tryal and Condemnation of Arundel Coke 1722 (1721) 5 4,130 The Genuine and Authentick Trial of Mr. Bartholomew Greenwood 1740 (1740) 1720– 6,930 The Genuine Trial of John Swan and Elizabeth Jeffreys [1752]* (1752) 1760 17,160 102,120 * Date of publication according to ESTC (English Short Title Catalogue) and the British Library Online Catalogue

Table 5.1 The Trials sub-corpus

Chapter 5. Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760 67


and the forms of second person pronouns.) Naturally, as the text I used is a manuscript, no publication date appears in Table 5.1 for this trial.

5.3

The macro-analysis

5.3.1 The overall distribution of thou and you in Early Modern English Trials Given the findings of previous research (see Chapter 4), it is expected that the frequency of thou would decrease over time. Moreover, in the formal environment of trial proceedings, and considering the social distance between the participants, one might predict that thou would be infrequent. However, in the dialogues quoted as part of the evidence during the trial, thou might occur more frequently, as the dialogues thus reported took place outside the formal context of the courtroom. Thou might also occur more than would otherwise be expected in such a context as a result of the formulaic use of this pronoun which is specific to this genre (see Chapter 4). Formulaic thou is used in both the introductory and concluding parts of trials, for example, the pleading, indictment, and sentencing (see 5.3.2 and 5.4 for a further discussion of formulaic thou). The overall frequency of thou and you in Trials for each 40-year period is presented in Table 5.2. A clear decline can be seen in the occurrence of thou across time. Thou does not occur in the Trial text samples from the eighteenth century, neither in the Trial text published in 1703 nor in the texts for the period 1720–1760. The pronoun you is much more frequent than thou even in the late sixteenth century (1560–1599), when it is more than three times as common as Table 5.2 Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760: Raw figures and percentages Period

thou

you

Total

1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total

123 23% 17 8% 16 3% 12 2% –

422 77% 194 92% 451 97% 639 98% 313 100% 2019 92%

545 100% 211 100% 467 100% 651 100% 313 100% 2187 100%

168 8%

Chapter 5. Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760

thou; after period 1 the frequency of thou declines rapidly. In the Trials data, 223 instances of pronouns occur in dialogues that are quoted in a speaker’s testimony, but, perhaps surprisingly, only eight of these are examples of thou (found in periods 1, 3 and 4; see e.g. example (17) in Section 5.4). It is possible that the formality of the court also affects which pronouns are reported when a speaker quotes an earlier speech event; thou may consciously or subconsciously be reported as you (and vice versa). Moreover, it is not clear to what extent the editorial process (scribal errors, editorial emendations) affects the authenticity of the data. As well as the formulaic use of thou in the Trials data, there is also a formulaic use of you, although the former has a more noticeable effect on the quantitative results.

5.3.2 The formulaic use of thou and you The main focus of this sub-section is on the effect of formulaic thou on the overall figures for pronoun distribution in Trials, although formulaic you is also treated. Formulaic uses are by definition not the choice of the speaker, and thus should not be influenced by such parameters as sex, age, and rank of speaker and addressee (but see 5.4 for an exception to the rule; see also Chapter 4, Note 10). Formulaic phrases such as art thou guilty or not guilty and how dost thou plead are found in Trial texts throughout the Early Modern English period (see Finkenstaedt 1963: 139–143; Chapter 4 of this book). However, these parts of a Trial text are frequently not included in the text samples in the CED, and hence not in my sub-corpus either. As a result, formulaic thou only occurs in my data in periods 1, 2 and 3. The use of formulaic thou typical of Trials is illustrated in (2); the pronoun occurs in set phrases, with the name and charge being inserted as appropriate. (2) After the reading of the Indictment, the Clerk of the Crown said to the Duke; How say’st thou, Thomas Duke of Norfolk, art thou guilty of these Treasons whereof thou art indicted, in manner and form as thou art thereof indicted, Yea or No? (The Trial of Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk, 1730 (1571): 86)

Formulaic you or, more specifically, the form your, occurs in styles. A style is “[a] legal, official, or honorific title; the proper name or recognized appellation of a person [...]” (OED s.v. style n.), such as your Lordship. This formulaic use of you is not genre-specific (it is found especially in Drama Comedy, and occurs once in Depositions). For this reason, the formulaic use of you is discussed further in Chapter 8 of the present study.

69


Table 5.3 Formulaic use vs. non-formulaic use of thou and you respectively in Trials 1560–1760: Raw figures and percentages Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total

Formulaic thou 15 12% 13 76% 8

Non-formulaic thou 108 88% 4 24% 8

– –

12 100% –

36 21%

132 79%

Formulaic you 7 2% 8 4% 11 3% 10 2% 4 1% 40 2%

Non-formulaic you 415 98% 186 96% 440 97% 629 98% 309 99% 1979 98%

Table 5.3 shows the ratio of formulaic thou to non-formulaic thou, and the ratio of formulaic you to non-formulaic you, in Trials for each 40-year period.3 One can see from Table 5.3 that the use of formulaic you (i.e. the use of your in styles) clearly has little influence on the figures. This use never accounts for more than 4 per cent of the you forms (in period 2), and overall it accounts for only 2 per cent of you forms in Trials. Although there are actually fewer examples of formulaic thou (36x) than formulaic you (40x), the former does have an impact on the quantification, making up as much as 21 per cent of all thou forms in Trials. The clerk of the court thus addresses the Duke of Norfolk (9x4), and Doctor William Parry (6x), in period 1. In period 2, Lady Frances, Countess of Somerset is so addressed by the clerk (8x) and the judge, Lord Ellesmere (5x). Finally, in period 3, the clerk addresses the defendant Mary Moders, a gentleman’s wife, with formulaic thou (8x). In other words, the majority of examples are of a professional addressing nobility and/or women, which may skew the results with regard to the sex and rank parameters. The influence of formulaic thou on the results for the age parameter may be less noticeable due to the fact that the exact age of those acting as clerk of the court is unknown. So as not to present a misleading 3. Throughout the quantitative analyses in Chapters 5–7 (and in the Appendix), percentages are not given in the tables in cases where there are only single-digit figures in corresponding data cells. 4. Throughout this book, in order to enhance readability, the digit(s) and the abbreviation ‘x’ for ‘example(s)’ are used in parentheses to indicate the number of pronoun examples. The word ‘example(s)’ is used outside parentheses, or when the parentheses include further comment.


Table 5.4 Thou and you (non-formulaic forms only) in Trials 1560–1760: Raw figures and percentages Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760

Non-formulaic thou 108 21% 4 2% 8 2% 12 2% –

Non-formulaic you 415 79% 186 98% 440 98% 629 98% 309 100%

picture of pronoun usage with respect to these extra-linguistic parameters, formulaic thou will be taken into account both when I present the figures and when I discuss the parameters of sex, age, and rank in the following sub-sections. Before moving on to consider the sex parameter, I present (in Table 5.4) the distribution of thou and you in Trials excluding formulaic uses of both pronouns. Based on the data in Tables 5.2 and 5.4 respectively, Figure 5.1 shows the percentage for all instances of thou (in relation to you), as well as the percentage for non-formulaic thou only (in relation to non-formulaic you), for each 40-year period. Figure 5.1 shows that the decline of thou is most marked from period 1 to period 2 whether or not formulaic forms are included: Table 5.4 reveals a decrease from 21 per cent to 2 per cent, compared with from 23 per cent to 8 per cent in Table 5.2. However, Figure 5.1 clearly illustrates that when only non-formulaic

30 25 20

Total THOU

15 Non-formulaic THOU

10 5 0 1

2

3

4

5

Figure 5.1 Percentage for all instances of thou (in relation to you) and percentage for non-formulaic thou only (in relation to non-formulaic you) in Trials in the five 40-year periods (data from Tables 5.2 and 5.4 respectively)

71

72


pronoun forms are considered, there is no longer the gradual decline of thou in the seventeenth century that is suggested when all thou forms are included: the occurrence of non-formulaic thou after 1600 is negligible (2% in periods 2–4: see Table 5.4). As can be discerned from Table 5.3 above, formulaic thou accounts for almost half (21x) of the 45 thou examples from the seventeenth century.

5.3.3 The sex parameter As mentioned in 5.2, the Trials sub-corpus was selected with a view to there being both female and male speakers represented, in order to examine possible differences in pronoun usage on the basis of the sex of the speaker and/or addressee. However, female speakers are not found in the Trial texts for periods 1 and 2; prior to 1640 women act only as addressees in these texts. In all Trial texts in my sub-corpus, both speakers and addressees are predominantly male. If thou is used to inferiors, then women, who in Early Modern England were considered subordinate to men (see Chapter 3), might be more likely than men to be addressed with this pronoun. It is expected that men will use more thou forms than women will in Trials; those with power in the courtroom – lawyers and judges – are exclusively men. Women only act occasionally as defendants (in four of the trials) or witnesses. It would be surprising for women to use thou considering their subordinate position not only in relation to men, but also in their courtroom role. Table 5.5 shows the distribution of thou and you according to sex of speaker for each 40-year period in Trials. Note that in Table 5.5, and henceforth in all relevant tables, raw figures include formulaic thou. However, in order to avoid misrepresenting the data, where applicable, raw figures for formulaic thou alone are also given separately in parentheses. Thus for example in period 1, there are 123 examples of thou by male speakers, of which 15 are formulaic. (Examples of formulaic you, however, are included in the figures without comment, because, as shown above, these have little effect on the quantitative results.) In Table 5.5 it is revealed that, as predicted, female speakers do not use thou in Trials. However, it is also clear that the predominance of male speakers is quite overwhelming, with only 75 of the 2,187 pronoun examples (i.e. 3%) attributed to female speakers. In other words, 97 per cent of all pronoun examples in the Trials sub-corpus are attributed to men. It is important to consider the possible influence of the sex of the addressee as well as that of the speaker. Do men use more thou to women than to men? Table 5.6 shows the distribution of thou and you according to sex of speaker and addressee in Trials.


Table 5.5 Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker: Raw figures and percentages (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic) Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total

thou 123 (15) 23% 17 (13) 8% 16 (8) 4% 12 2% – 168 (36) 8%

Male

you 422 77% 194 92% 435 96% 599 98% 294 100% 1944 92%

thou –

Female

you –

–

–

–

16 100% 40 100% 19 100% 75 100%

– – –

According to Table 5.6, there is a tendency for male speakers to use more thou to women than to men in periods 2–4 (1600–1719). What is more, this is still true if formulaic thou forms are removed (male speakers use 5% non-formulaic thou to women both in period 2 and in period 3). For the figures for periods 2–4 taken together,5 the observed difference between men addressing men and men addressing women is statistically significant (χ2 = 49.474, p < 0.001, df = 1, or, if formulaic thou is excluded, χ2 = 11.508, p < 0.001, df = 1). The rather more common use of thou by men addressing men in period 1 results in the overall figures showing no difference (i.e. 8% thou) between men addressing men and men addressing women. In fact, if the percentages are again recalculated minus formulaic thou, male speakers use more thou to men (7%) than to women (4%). However, as the only woman addressed in period 1 is Queen Elizabeth (in a speech cited rather than taking place in the courtroom), there is simply no comparative data for men addressing women in this period. The motivation for the higher frequency of thou to women by men in periods 2–4 is discussed further in Section 5.4.

5. With regard to periods 2, 3, and 4 treated separately, with or without formulaic thou, the expected values were too low for statistical tests to be valid.

73

74


Table 5.6 Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker and addressee: Raw figures and percentages (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic) Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total

Male to Female thou you – 6 15 (13) 28% 14 (8) 12% 7 3% – 36 (21) 8%

39 72% 104 88% 228 97% 26 100% 403 92%

Male to Male thou you 123 (15) 416 23% 77% 2 155 1% 99% 2 331 1% 99% 5 371 1% 99% – 268 100% 132 (15) 1541 8% 92%

Female to Female Female to Male thou you thou you – – – – –

–

–

–

–

1

–

–

15 100% 3

–

19 100%

–

15 100% 25 100% 16 100% 56 100%

– –

–

5.3.4 The age parameter It is hypothesised that older speakers might use thou to younger addressees rather than vice versa, reflecting the superior power on the basis of seniority (Brown & Gilman 1960: 255). In my data, Trials tend to be overrepresented by the age groups ‘adult’ and ‘old adult’ (the latter labelled ‘Old’ in the tables), or frequently by those classified as ‘adult or old adult’ due to lack of sufficient background information. This is because lawyers predominate as speakers in the Trials genre, and lawyers were likely to be ‘adults’ by the time they completed their legal training. Law students were usually admitted to an inn of court in their late teens, and would not be called to the bar earlier than seven or eight years after admission (Prest 1972: 9, 54–55). (For precise definitions of each age group see Chapter 3.) Table 5.7 presents the data for the whole period (1560–1760) regarding pronoun distribution according to age of speaker and addressee.6 Note that, for the tables concerning the age parameter, throughout the present study, the data is highlighted in bold for the most precise age groups (i.e. ‘child’, ‘youth’, ‘adult’ and ‘old adult’), unless the data in the corresponding cells is limited to single-digit figures (e.g. 1 thou vs. 7 you). This is in order to draw attention to the data for the

6. In this book, the term ‘hearer’ is used in place of ‘addressee’ in tables for reasons of space: elsewhere the term ‘hearer’ is avoided, because in cases of aside and apostrophe in Drama Comedy the addressee is out of hearing.

thou – –

Youth/Adult thou you – – – 7

thou – –

Adult you – 6

Adult/Old Old thou you thou you – 2 – – – 13 – 4 100% Youth/Adult – 12 – 12 – – – 13 – – 100% 100% 100% Adult 9 (8) 76 – 6 – 27 72 220 3 82 11% 89% 100% 25% 75% 4% 96% 245 6 (6) 221 – 67 105 – 32 9 (9) Adult/Old 12 (8) 4% 96% 3% 97% 100% 10% 90% 100% Old 9 (5) 168 – 10 2 165 42 289 2 92 5% 95% 100% 1% 99% 11% 89% 2% 98% 443 120 (6) 758 5 245 361 – 67 11 (9) Total 30 (21) 2% 98% 14% 86% 2% 98% 8% 92% 100% * Examples of thou (2x) and you (145x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable age are omitted from this table

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Child/Youth Youth

Youth you – –

84 (8) 17% 27 (23) 4% 55 (5) 7% 166 (36 8%

–

thou – –

Total you 2 30 100% 37 100% 411 83% 670 96% 724 93% 1874 92%

Table 5.7 Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760 according to age of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic)*

Chapter 5. Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760 75

76


age groups that receive the most focus in the discussion. However, the less precise age groups, that is, ‘child or youth’, ‘youth or adult’, and ‘adult or old adult’, are considered where relevant to the discussion (these groups are labelled ‘Child/Youth’, ‘Youth/Adult’, and ‘Adult/Old’ respectively in the tables). The data for speakers and/or addressees of indeterminable age is omitted from the tables; the number of examples this concerns is given in notes. Table 5.7 shows that, as hypothesised above, youths only use you to their elders, albeit there are only 23 examples. Moreover, at first sight, it seems that youths are addressed with more thou than either adults or old adults are. However, if the figures are recalculated with formulaic thou removed, youths receive only 1, 4, and 2 per cent thou from adults, the group ‘adult or old adult’, and old adults respectively. (Note that examples of formulaic you are still included in these calculations.) The corresponding figures for address to old adults are 4, 0, and 2 per cent, while adults receive the least thou (only 1%, from old adults). Thus adults give as much thou to old adults, as youths receive from the group ‘adult or old adult’. The group ‘adult or old adult’ receives by far the most thou, but none from younger speakers. The findings based on figures excluding formulaic thou seem to suggest that age is not the motivation for thou usage. However, further information may be gleaned by examining the pronoun distribution, excluding formulaic thou, according to age in each of the five 40-year periods (see Tables 5.9–5.13 in the Appendix for periods 1–5 respectively). For period 1 (1560–1599), all examples of non-formulaic thou are used by adults and old adults in address to those classified as ‘adult or old adult’. In fact, of the 120 thou examples in address to the group ‘adult or old adult’ which were shown in Table 5.7, as many as 114 are from period 1. All but two of these thou examples are used to the same addressee (see 5.4). Of course, no conclusions about the influence of the age parameter can be drawn in this regard, as there is no way of telling whether the addressee is older or younger than the speaker. In accordance with the hypothesis regarding address to one’s elders, in periods 1–3, there are no examples of thou in address by adults to old adults, but there are rather few examples of you also. In periods 3–5, youths address their elders with you, but there are very few examples for periods 3 and 5; a ‘Child/Youth’ uses you in period 4, but again there is little data. Evidence contrary to the hypothesis is found in period 4, where thou is very occasionally used by adults to address old adults (3 examples, or 5%). This use of thou to an older addressee is the result of the usage of one particular speaker (see 5.4). With regard to older speakers addressing younger speakers there is little support for the hypothesis in that there is no thou used by old adults to adults in period 1, and only one such thou in period 2. However, in period 3 there are more thou examples used by old adults to youths (4x) than to any other single


age group, although the highest percentage of thou by old adults is actually in address to adults (7%). In period 4, youths receive more thou (5 examples, or 4%) than do any other age group. In period 5, there are no examples of thou: old adults, and the group ‘adult or old adult’, address youths with you. There is therefore some support for the hypothesis, and little evidence to contradict it, but unfortunately the unclear age of many of the lawyers, classified as ‘adult or old adult’, means that much of the data cannot be analysed with regard to this parameter. Throughout the period 1560–1760, as shown in Table 5.7 (see also Tables 5.9–5.13 in the Appendix), you is clearly the pronoun preferred in address by all age groups to all age groups.

5.3.5 The rank parameter Previous research has demonstrated that thou was used by those of superior social status in relation to the addressee, who would give you in return (see Chapter 4). Finkenstaedt (1963: 129–143) has shown that those presiding in court might use thou to defendants/witnesses (who tend to be of relatively lower rank) to indicate authority or, often, to show contempt, but consistent or frequent use of thou was uncommon in the formal environment of trial proceedings, other than formulaic usage. It might be expected that the lower ranks would not use thou in the context of such formal proceedings, unless quoting from an earlier speech event in their evidence. It would have been considered shocking for members of the lower ranks to thus address their social superiors: the reaction to the low-born Quaker George Fox’s insistence on using thou to address his judges is evidence of this (see e.g. Finkenstaedt 1963: 191; Bauman 1983: 114). Table 5.8 provides an overview of the data with regard to speaker and addressee rank, showing the distribution of thou and you in the Trials genre for the period 1560–1760. The data for each of the five 40-year periods is given in the Appendix (Tables 5.14–5.18). As mentioned in Chapter 3, for this genre the data for upper and lower commoners has been combined under the heading of ‘Commoners’.7 Furthermore, for some examples, it was known that a speaker or addressee was a commoner, but not whether an ‘upper commoner’ or ‘lower commoner’. Having already combined the two groups of commoners in the tables, I also include, under the heading ‘Commoners’, those examples where exact type of commoner is not known. In period 2, and to an even greater extent in periods 3 and 4 (and even period 5), information was not sufficient to classify all speak7. In Table 5.8 ‘Commoners’ and ‘Professionals’ are abbreviated ‘Comms’ and ‘Profs’ respectively in the first column.

77

thou 5 (5) 19% –

Nobles you 22 81% 13 100% –

thou –

Sirs you 2

thou 2 5% –

Gentry Professionals Commoners you thou you thou you 41 41 83 4 52 95% 33% 67% 7% 93% Sirs – 31 82 65 168 9 329 100% 100% 28% 72% 3% 97% Gentry – – 6 – 11 – – – 59 100% 100% 80 8 (6) 38 – 153 258 – 24 8 (8) Profs. 17 (17) 9% 91% 17% 83% 100% 6% 94% 100% Comms. – – – 16 – 11 – 14 – 30 100% 100% 100% 100% 225 114 (6) 303 13 623 293 – 79 10 (8) Total 22 (22) 4% 96% 27% 73% 2% 98% 7% 93% 100% * Examples of thou (9x) and you (496x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable rank are omitted from this table

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Nobles

Total you 200 79% 623 89% 76 100% 33 (31) 553 6% 94% – 71 100% 159 (36) 1523 9% 91% thou 52 (5) 21% 74 11% –

Table 5.8 Thou and you in Trials 1560–1760 according to rank of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic)*



ers and addressees into precise categories with regard to rank. The examples involving those of indeterminable rank have been omitted from the tables (and the number of examples thus omitted is given in notes). Naturally these examples are not excluded from the micro-analysis (5.4). What is clear from Table 5.8 is that no rank addresses a higher rank with thou (other than formulaic thou). Looking at the totals row, if one removes formulaic thou from the calculations, nobles, and sirs, receive 0 per cent thou, gentry 1 per cent, professionals 26 per cent, and commoners 2 per cent overall. (Note that examples of formulaic you are still included in these calculations.) The distribution is statistically significant for the latter three ranks, where there is data for both thou and you (χ2 = 181.842, p < 0.001, df = 2, or, if formulaic thou is excluded, χ2 = 192.464, p < 0.001, df = 2). Furthermore, regarding the totals column, it can be seen that, overall, nobles use most thou (21%, or 19% if formulaic thou is removed), sirs use less thou (11%), professionals use even less (6%, or 0% if formulaic thou is removed), while commoners use none at all. This pronoun distribution (for nobles, sirs, and professionals) is statistically significant (χ2 = 42.813, p < 0.001, df = 2, or, if formulaic thou is excluded, χ2 = 89.142, p < 0.001, df = 2). By and large then, it seems that the lower the rank, the more thou is received, and the higher the rank, the more thou is given, which would seem to support the hypothesis. (Note that here, and for the remainder of the discussion in this sub-section, formulaic thou is not treated.) The only divergence from this pattern regards address to professionals, who receive far more thou than the lower rank, commoners, do. However, an examination of the data in each 40-year period clarifies the picture (see Tables 5.14–5.18 in the Appendix for periods 1–5 respectively). This examination reveals that there is not actually a tendency by those of higher rank to address professionals more frequently than commoners with thou. Commoners are not represented in period 1, and it is only in this period that professionals are addressed with thou (and more frequently than they are addressed with you), by members of the two highest ranks. This thou usage is still somewhat surprising, given that Finkenstaedt (1963: 129) states that you was favoured in Trials from the sixteenth century onwards: this is investigated further in the microanalysis of the data in 5.4. It is also in period 1 that those of higher rank address gentry with thou, twice. After this period, thou is only used, very occasionally, by the highest rank represented (which is sirs after period 2) in address to commoners: there are four thou examples in period 2 and in period 3, and five thou examples in period 4 (or 7%, 3% and 3% respectively), but none in period 5. Further support for the hypothesis that superior rank on the part of the speaker is a key factor in the selection of thou in Trials is the fact that in all periods, members of the same rank do not address each other with thou, but only with

79


you. The exception is in period 3, in which there are two occurrences of thou between professionals (see example (12) in 5.4), but as will be shown in the micro-analysis, there is a difference in status on a basis other than rank in this case. In sum, in my Trials sub-corpus, the quantitative analysis points to the rank parameter playing an important role in pronoun selection. Essentially, thou can be used to address those of lower rank than the speaker, but not to address someone of the same or higher rank.

5.3.6 Summary of the macro-analysis As we have seen, the decrease in the use of thou is rather abrupt after 1600, and in the seventeenth century thou is extremely uncommon, apparently becoming obsolete by the eighteenth century in the Trials samples investigated. There is some statistically significant evidence that the sex of the addressee influences the choice of pronoun, with women receiving more thou forms than men do. There is no evidence of thou being used by female speakers, but there is relatively little data regarding pronoun usage by women in Trials. Age may influence the choice of pronoun: young speakers do not use thou, and youths receive slightly more thou than any other age group does in period 4. However, the picture may be blurred by the large number of speakers and addressees classified as ‘adult or old adult’, and there are no representatives of the youngest age group in the Trials genre. Rank, as noted above, seems to play the clearest role in pronoun usage. The findings in general support the principle that thou may be used by those with superior power to others, at least on the basis of sex and rank, if not also age. The role played in the courtroom must also be of great importance in deciding which pronoun may be used: the lawyers and, especially, the judges have superior power to witnesses and, especially, to defendants in the courtroom. The extent to which this plays a part will be revealed by the micro-analysis.

5.4

The micro-analysis: Pronoun usage in the Trials sub-corpus

In what follows, I illustrate the use of thou with examples from the Trials subcorpus, and discuss the possible motivation behind each example, while noting which of the sex, age, and rank parameters are at work in each case. However, the use of you will also be commented on where relevant. You was the normal form of address in the courtroom from the sixteenth century, according to Finkenstaedt (1963: 129). The formality and social distance typical of the courtroom would tend to act as a constraint on the use of thou. With few exceptions, the occurrences of


thou are isolated examples or pairs of examples in a sea of you examples. Thus, as I will show, where thou is found it tends to be used to make a particular point or to achieve a specific purpose, after which the speaker will switch back to you. Judge George Jeffreys, who appears in three of the Trials,8 is reputed to have had an especial tendency to employ thou (see e.g. Finkenstaedt 1963: 137). Jeffreys does account for eight of the 12 examples of thou in the Trials samples for period 4. Nevertheless, this could hardly be described as a frequent use of thou. One of the most typical uses of thou in Trials, its use in formulaic legal phrases, has already been discussed (5.3.2). It occurs 36 times in my sub-corpus. However, there is one occasion in the sub-corpus when there is an unexpected switch to you, during the sentencing, where formulaic thou would be expected, shown in the last three lines of (3). Finkenstaedt (1963: 142) also mentions this passage (quoting the 1730 edition of State-Trials) and suggests that this pronoun switch is due to the fact that the condemned is of high birth. He argues that it is in this part of a trial, the sentence, that formulaic thou was often replaced by you (Finkenstaedt 1963: 143). It is likely that you is encouraged in this particular example because there is a great deal of sympathy for the beautiful, young – and apparently repentant – Countess. It is as if the judge is attempting to mitigate the force of the death sentence by a switch to the normal pronoun of address to a noblewoman. Note that he has already interrupted the formulaic speech, using you, with an assurance that she will be pardoned. Formulaic thou is not supplanted by you elsewhere in my data.

(3) ffrancis Countese of Somerset wher as thowe

hast bine indicted arraigned and pleaded gulti and Confessed that thowe hast nothing to saie for thie self it is nowe my parte to pronunce Iudgment: onlie thus much before since my Lords u haue heard wth what Humillitie and greefe yo haue Confessed the fact: I doe not doubt but the [= they] will signifie soe much vnto the kinge to mediat u for his grace towards yo : but in the meane tyme according to the Lawe: thie sentence must bee that thow shallt be carried from hence to the Tower of London and from thence to the place of Exsecution wher you are to be hanged by u the neck till yo are dead and Lord haue merci

8. These trials are The Tryals of Robert Green, Henry Berry, & Lawrence Hill, published in 1679, and The Tryal of John Giles and The Arraignment, Tryal and Condemnation of Stephen Colledge, both published in 1681.

81

82


r vppon you soule / (British Library, London. MS Stowe 401, A rellation of the arraignmt of the [...] Ladie of Somerset [...] 1616, f. 53v. Frequent use of otiose dots between words in MS not reproduced here.)

Other than in formulaic phrases, thou is extremely rare in the Trials sub-corpus with the exception of one Trial text from period 1. This is A Trve and Plaine Declaration of the Horrible Treasons, Practised by William Parry, published in 1585. In this text, excluding the six formulaic forms, there are 106 examples of thou. In my sample from the trial, non-formulaic thou is used by two speakers, Hatton and Hunsdon, to address the defendant William Parry, himself a doctor of the law. Both thou and you are used, in separate utterances, by the Vice-Chamberlain, Sir Christopher Hatton, to address Parry. The alternation between the two pronouns is very clearly motivated. In (4a) the use of you in formal address to the accused as the proceedings begin is illustrated. This detached pronoun usage continues until Parry has openly confessed, upon which Hatton switches to thou, addressing Parry contemptuously and using his surname (4b). It seems that you is used when addressing Parry the defendant, and thou when addressing Parry the contemptible person, a traitor. This is supported by the fact that Hatton switches back to you when reporting his formal words to Parry before the trial (4c), but he otherwise maintains a thou of contempt for Parry (4d). (4) a.

b.

Then sayde master Vicechamberlaine, Before we proceede to shewe what he hath confessed, what say you, sayd he to Parry, is that which you haue confessed here true, and did you confesse it freely and willingly of your selfe, or was then any extort meanes vsed to drawe it from you? (A Trve and Plaine Declaration of the Horrible Treasons, Practised by William Parry, 1585: 30)

Then said Master Vicechamberlayne, Parry, then doe thy duetie according to conscience, and vtter all that thou canst say concerning those thy most wicked facts. (A Trve and Plaine Declaration of the Horrible Treasons, Practised by William Parry, 1585: 32) c. But their honours expresly affirmed, that they vsed no such words. But I will tell thee, sayd Master Vicecham berlayne, what we saide. I spake these words, If you will willingly vtter the truth of your selfe, it may do you good, and I wish you to doe so:


(A Trve and Plaine Declaration of the Horrible Treasons, Practised by William Parry, 1585: 34) d. I protest (said his honour) I knowe not what thou meanest: thou doest not well to vse such darke speaches, vn lesse thou wouldest plainely vtter what thou meanest thereby. (A Trve and Plaine Declaration of the Horrible Treasons, Practised by William Parry, 1585: 36)

Old Lord Hunsdon only addresses Parry as thou, in the later parts of the proceedings: as illustrated in (5), Hunsdon’s utterances are clearly marked by contempt for Parry, who has just denied what he has previously confessed. This is the same tone as found in Hatton’s speeches with thou, indicating incredulity over Parry’s denials and insinuations. (5) Then said my Lord Hunsdon, Hast thou acknowledged it so often, and so plainly in writing vnder thy hande, and heere of recorde: and nowe, when thou shouldest haue thy iudgement according to that which thou hast confessed thy selfe guiltie of, doest thou goe backe againe, and deny the effect of all? Howe can wee beleeue that thou nowe sayest? (A Trve and Plaine Declaration of the Horrible Treasons, Practised by William Parry, 1585: 32)

The Lord Chief Justice, old Sir Christopher Wray, addresses Parry at the end of the trial: the tone is formal and distant, as he offers Parry a last chance to speak before judgment, using you. Wray’s speech leading up to the sentencing (not included in my sub-corpus sample) sees a switch to formulaic thou (Finkenstaedt 1963: 140). The use of thou to address Parry in this 1585 Trial text is encouraged by the superior rank and courtroom role of the speakers. The influence of age is unclear as Parry’s precise age is unknown (he is classified as ‘adult or old adult’). However, the main motivation for the use of thou appears to be contempt. This is also suggested by the fact that thou is not used to address the defendant in The Trial of Mr. Robert Hickford (the record of a 1571 trial published in 1730), although Hickford, a gentleman servant, is of lower status than his judges. Hickford, unlike Parry, is very humble and remorseful, and does not therefore incite negative emotion. The only examples of thou in The Trial of Mr. Robert Hickford are given in (6). (6) Hickford. [...] My Lord being at home at his House at Charter-house, I

83

84


told him, I lik’d not this Doing, it would not have good end. Attorney. Why did you then still follow? Why left you him not? Hickford. He answer’d me, thou art a Fool, thou understandest not. Catlin. He told you Truth, that you were a Fool, for you play’d the Fool indeed. (The Trial of Mr. Robert Hickford, 1730 (1571): 120)

In (6), Hickford quotes a dialogue in which the Duke of Norfolk addresses him using thou, after Hickford has pleaded with him to abandon his treasonous plan. The Duke seems to be expressing anger or great irritation towards Hickford, his employee, for opposing the plan. As Hickford is a gentleman, it is unlikely that his master always uses thou to address him, although clearly the superior position of the speaker is relevant here. Elsewhere in the text, only you is used, reflecting the formal, unemotional context of the courtroom. Rank surely plays a role in The Trial of Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk (another 1571 trial published in 1730) in that the Duke is addressed respectfully, receiving ‘My Lord’ and you, even when effectively being called a liar (7). Thou does not occur, and the tone throughout is formal, calm and business-like. (7) Attorney. My Lord, this is but your own saying, and it carrieth no Likelihood: (The Trial of Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk, 1730 (1571): 106)

A similar tone to that of The Trial of Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk, and with the pronoun you, is found in period 2, in A rellation of the arraignmt of the [...] Ladie of Somerset [...] 1616 (British Library, London. MS Stowe 401) and the 1638 text A Breife Relation of [...] the Censure of [...] Dr. Bastvvicke, Mr. Burton, and Mr. Prynne. However, there seems to be an undertone of controlled emotion in the latter text, as the Lord Keeper shows his dislike of the defendants: in (8) he insinuates that Bastwick has lost his temper, as if to bait him.

(8)

L. Keeper Mr. Dr. I thought you would be angrie. Dr. Bast. No my Lord, you are mis-taken, I am not angrie nor passionate, all that I doe presse is, that you would be pleased to peruse my Answer. L. Keeper Well, hold your peace. Mr. Burton, what say you? (A Breife Relation of [...] the Censure of [...] Dr. Bastvvicke, Mr. Burton, and Mr. Prynne, 1638: 13. The source text gives the speaker names in the righthand margin. Lineation of source text not followed here.)


The use of thou here would be inappropriate, as this would reveal a loss of emotional control on the part of the speaker. The tone is interesting given that the text was written and published by those sympathetic to the defendants: thus subtle manipulation of the report might have taken place in order to show the Lord Keeper in a bad light. Moreover, the defendants are presented as calm and reasonable while the Lord Keeper snaps impatiently at them (9). (9) L. Keeper Mr. Burton, I pray stand not naming Texts of Scripture now, we doe not send for you to preach, but to answer to those things that are objected against you. M. Burt. My Lord, I have drawne up my Answer to my great paines and charges, which Answer was signed with my Counsels hands, and received into the Court, according to the rule and Order thereof. And I did not thinke to have beene called this day to a Censure, but have had a legall proceeding by way of Bill and Answer. L. Keeper Your Answer was impertinent. M. Burt. My Answer (after it was entred into the Court) was referred to the Judges, but by what meanes I doe not know, vvhither it be im pertinent, and what cause your Lordships had to cast it out, I knovv not. But after it vvas approoved of, and received, it vvas cast out as an impertinent Ansvver. (A Breife Relation of [...] the Censure of [...] Dr. Bastvvicke, Mr. Burton, and Mr. Prynne, 1638: 13. The source text gives the speaker names in the righthand margin.)

In the seventeenth century, as mentioned above (5.3.2), the use of thou is negligible, if we exclude formulaic forms. In period 2 (1600–1639), there are only four examples of non-formulaic thou. These are all from trials which took place in 1632, published in Gardiner’s (1886) edition, Reports of Cases in the Courts of [...] High Commission. In (10) you is first used to address the female defendant, a commoner, in a formal, even stern, tone. (10)

Archbishop of Canterbury. “What say you, woman?” S. Jones. “I dare not worship God in vaine,” but saith The Bishop of London, “will you not sweare and take an oath when you are called to it by the Magistrate?” S. Jones. “Yes, I will answere upon my oath to end a controversy before a lawful magistrate.” Earle of Dorsett. “What, doest thou thinke woman of these grave Fathers of the church, that these heere be not lawfull Magistrates?” (Gardiner ed., Reports of Cases in the Courts of [...] High Commission, 1886 (1632): 285)

85


The use of the address term ‘woman’ suggests both distance and condescension on the part of the Archbishop. The use of thou by the Earl is undoubtedly to express negative emotion, anger and outrage, against a religious dissident who not only refuses to take the oath of allegiance, but refuses to recognise her superiors as such. In a similar manner, the old Archbishop uses you and then himself switches to an angry thou when addressing another such obstinate woman. As an adult commoner, the woman is ‘inferior’ not only in terms of courtroom role, but also with regard to her age, rank, and of course, her sex. The pronoun you is usually used by the commissioners, high-ranking clergymen and nobility, to the conventiclers (i.e. those who attend religious meetings not sanctioned by the established Church). Interestingly, it is only female conventiclers who are addressed as thou in anger; perhaps female defiance was especially unacceptable to the commissioners. By contrast, in (11), a male conventicler, a commoner, is addressed as thou, by the old Bishop, in a tone of friendly, fatherly authority (although the age of Bye is unclear).

(11)

[...] Robert Bye comminge into the Court, The Bishop of London spake kindly to him, saying, “Come, thou lookest like a good fellow, that wilt take thy oath.” (Gardiner ed., Reports of Cases in the Courts of [...] High Commission, 1886 (1632): 309)

This usage is also noted by Finkensteadt with regard to religious trials (1963: 130, note 47). The speaker uses thou in order to gently persuade, rather than to put the defendant in his place (as when the commissioners use thou to address female conventiclers). In period 3 (1640–1679), you is the pronoun of the formal courtroom business, and as in period 2, thou forms are rare. Unlike in period 2, there are no examples of thou to express anger. Of the eight non-formulaic thou examples, five consist of prithee (discussed in detail in section 8.3.4). In these five instances in period 3 Trials, prithee is used by speakers to express condescension and/or impatience with the addressee (see also 8.3.4, and Note 14 in that section). In all cases, the addressee has less power than the speaker: a witness of relatively lower rank is addressed by the old Attorney-General, Sir William Jones, and a minor official reports old Colonel Turner thus addressing him. Women are so addressed by men: a young female servant reports being addressed with prithee by her master, and another is likewise addressed by the afore-mentioned Attorney-General. Further, in (12), Colonel Turner addresses (and interrupts) his old wife and codefendant using both prithee and thee:


(12) Mrs. Turner. I did not, it’s false, what did ----- Turner. Prethee be patient dear Mal, come sit thee down. (A True and Impartial Account of the Arraignment, Tryal, Examination, Confession and Condemnation of Col. Iames Turner, 1663: 40)

The tone in (12) seems condescending and dismissive rather than affectionate or intimate.9 Moreover, the latter use would be especially out of place in the courtroom. It is possible that by talking down to her in this way he intends to undermine her inconvenient reaction or answers to questioning. Thus clearly the sex parameter is relevant here. The remaining two examples of thou in period 3, are shown in (13). (13)

Mr. Just. Wild. Have a care what you say, and mind the Question I ask you, Were you there on the Sunday in that Room where they say Sr. Edmondbury Godfrey’s Body was laid? Lee. I cannot say that I was in that Room, but I called in at the Door every Day, and I was the last up every Night. Mr. Just. Wild. Ile say that for thee, thou hast spoke with more care then any of them all. (The Tryals of Robert Green, Henry Berry, & Lawrence Hill, 1679: 58)

The superior power of the speaker in relation to the addressee is overwhelming here: the speaker is old, male, a knight, one of the leading lawyers, and a Protestant, while the addressee is young, female, a servant, a witness, and a ‘Papist’ in the midst of the Popish Plot. Nevertheless, in the formal courtroom context, you is used throughout to address this witness, until the dialogue’s end. Thou appears to be an expression of positive emotion, that is, ‘thank you for your unexpected honesty’ and/or a discourse marker, a way of ending the interview by turning from the business of question and answer to a personal ‘thank you and goodbye’.

9. This interpretation is supported by an excerpt from the text which was not sampled for the sub-corpus: Mistris Turner, Nay look you Husband ––––– Colonel Turner, Pray thee Mall sit down, you see my Lord my Wife will interrupt me with nonsense; Pray thee set thee down quickly, and do not put me out, I cannot hold Womens Tongues, [...] (A True and Impartial Account of the Arraignment, Tryal, Examination, Confession and Condemnation of Col. Iames Turner, 1663: 61)

87

88


Of the 12 examples of thou found in period 4, there are eight examples used in address in the actual courtroom. All of these eight examples are uttered by the infamous Judge Jeffreys, as exemplified in (14). (14) Mr. S. Jeff. How didst thou set out the 3 of August from that place, and yet come to London the 27th of July? Mr. Mow. I will refer my self to Mr. Smith, as to the time we came up, & here is my Almanack. Mr. S. Jeff. I will believe thy Almanack to speak truth, though it have never so many Errors about the Changes of the Weather, sooner than I will believe thee. (The Arraignment, Tryal and Condemnation of Stephen Colledge, 1681: 61. Lineation of source text not followed here.)

Judge Jeffreys was renowned for his sharp wit and the bullying of witnesses, although certain reports are clearly exaggerated (Keeton 1965: 314–315 and Chapter 18). This bullying tone is evident in (14): negative emotion is expressed by Jeffreys’ use of thou, which follows the main part of the examination in which he used you. He is clearly contemptuous of the witness, and by this pronoun switch he effectively dismisses the evidence given by Mr. Mowbray. In a further example, Jeffreys tells a male witness, an upper commoner, in no uncertain terms to shut up: ‘Be quiet; art thou got into Dialogues with the Maid now?’ (The Arraignment, Tryal and Condemnation of Stephen Colledge, 1681: 75). The point being made is clearly that a mere witness has no right to interrupt the proceedings, or speak until spoken to. Courtroom role is clearly the parameter at work here, possibly supported by Jeffrey’s higher rank. While in The Arraignment, Tryal and Condemnation of Stephen Colledge, Jeffreys uses thou in a bullying fashion, in the The Tryal of John Giles, he may be expressing friendly authority, on the basis of superior role, age, and rank, to a young male servant: ‘Who is thy Master?’ (The Tryal of John Giles, 1681: 36). However, Jeffreys does not address this witness further; as a result, it is difficult to be sure of the tone and thus the possible motivation for thou. When addressing an older, female witness, a commoner, Jeffreys (the Recorder) initially addresses her as thou, as shown in (15). (Note that she is first addressed by a lawyer, Mr Milbourn, who uses you.) By again adopting what seems to be a paternal tone, Jeffreys’ motivation would appear to be to put the witness at her ease. (15)

Ann Beron.

Mr. Mil. Tell what time of the Night Giles came in, where you were in his company; what time of Night it was?


Record. Speak as loud as thou would’st do if thou wer’t at home: When was this? (The Tryal of John Giles, 1681: 36)

The questioning by Jeffreys then proceeds with you and ‘good woman’. However, a further switch, to thou, occurs, in which the infamous bullying tone seems to be creeping in, as Jeffreys attempts to undermine her evidence. In (16), he addresses her rather more harshly, using ‘woman’ and you, but then switches to a condescending thou. (16)

Record. Woman you must be mistaken, he came to Town at Twelve or One, and might be in thy company, but it is plain he went to a Brokers in Long-lane, [...] (The Tryal of John Giles, 1681: 37)

Other than the eight examples of thou used by Judge Jeffreys, there are only four examples of thou in period 4, in which a witness quotes a dialogue which took place outside the courtroom context, as shown in (17). Here a young maidservant reports a dialogue with a Mr Dugdale, who is of unclear rank, but clearly of superior rank to the maid. (17) El. Hunt. I did tell him, Mr. Dugdale, if you can’t let me have my Masters money, if you please to tell me what you have made Oath against my Master. Said he, I can’t let thee have it now; but thou shalt have what I have to say against him: I will draw it up in Writing and thou shalt have it to morrow-morning. The next morning I came to him again, and said I, I am come again, what must I do? Said he, I have no money, such an one hath not hoped me to it. Sir, then, said I, I hope you will be as good as your word, to let me know what you have made Oath against my Master. Said he, I was about it yesterday, but could not do it: But, Sweetheart, said he, (and took me by the hand) I will give you a Copy of it to day at ten of the clock; and if I do not, I will tell it thee by word of mouth. So I came to the house at ten, and staid till eleven, but did not see him. (The Arraignment, Tryal and Condemnation of Stephen Colledge, 1681: 76. Lineation of source text not followed here.)

In (17), Mr. Dugdale addresses the young female servant as thou (with one exception10), and receives you. Outside the formality of the court, the use of thou

10. The motivation for the isolated example of you to address the maid is not clear: however, quite possibly it is a slip on the part of the maid, as she moves from reporting her speech using you to reporting his speech.

89


to a servant is not very remarkable, even towards the end of the seventeenth century. Dugdale’s tone is condescending but not unfriendly (e.g. he uses the appellation ‘sweetheart’). Similar dialogues to female servants are found in Drama Comedy (see Chapter 7). However, the fact that she is on an errand that he is not particularly eager to help her with might encourage the use of a condescending thou to stress the inconvenience of her bothering him. In period 5 Trials, in which thou is not found at all, you is used in the matter-of-fact, unemotional, business-like discourse in the courtroom, a usage which occurs throughout the Trials sub-corpus, illustrated in (18). (18)

Lord C. J. Your Intention is Matter of Fact, and must be try’d by the Jury, whether your Intent was to maim and disfigure; this doth not seem to me to be a Point of Law; if there be any Point of Law that shall arise, you shall have Counsel to speak to it; but whether you slit Mr. Crispe’s Nose, with an Intention to disfigure him, is a Matter of Fact. Coke. My Intent was to kill Mr. Crispe, and not to maim or disfigure him. Lord C. J. But that is the Question the Jury are to try, Whether you did not of Malice slit his Nose, with an Intent to disfigure him. If the Jury do not find that you so did, you must be acquitted on this Indictment. Supposing your Design was to kill, yet your Design might be likewise to maim; and this the Jury must try; this is Matter of Fact for their Consideration. Coke. This is a very penal Statute, and I am unable to plead my own Cause; I beg your Lordship to assign me Counsel. (The Tryal and Condemnation of Arundel Coke, 1722: 19)

In period 5, speakers in the courtroom not infrequently quote dialogues from earlier speech events which took place outside the courtroom context: 104 of the total 223 pronoun examples occurring in such reported dialogues are found in period 5. Thus, for example, a gentleman scornfully addresses the man who is robbing him (19a), and another addresses a poor blacksmith when trying to persuade him to kill a man (19b); even a lower commoner threatening another in anger does not use thou (19c). It is possible that the formality of the court influences the report, but more likely it is an indication of the increasing obsolescence of thou in the eighteenth century, especially in the southern parts of the country represented by the Trial texts, that is, East Anglia and London (see Chapter 6 for a discussion on regional differences in pronoun usage). (19) a. Wheatley. No, my Lord, I found myself very much bruised, and said to him, you Rascall, you Villian You, are not you a Rascal to abuse a Gen-


c.

b.

tleman, when he tells you what Money he has, and offers to give it You? why did you strick then? (The Genuine and Authentick Trial of Mr. Bartholomew Greenwood, 1740: 12–13) Carter. [...] Upon that he said, By God, how do you go on, Boy? I hear you have lost most of your Business, you have got no Iron nor Coals, and you are afraid of a Goal; I have a thing now in agitation that will make a Man of you as long as you live. [...] You are pretty much in Debt, and if you will serve me in this, I can make a Man of you as long as you live: do you think you could cut five or six Mens Heads off without Scruple of Conscience? [...] Said I, Mr. Coke, I believe you speak only in joke, by way of merriment. Said he, What, do you think I sent for you by way of joke? (The Tryal and Condemnation of Arundel Coke, 1722: 14–15) Matthews. To shoot Misses Uncle, and Swan said, G—d D—n your Blood, I have a great Mind to shoot you, and to blow your Brains out, because you will not perform according to your Promise, (The Genuine Trial of John Swan and Elizabeth Jeffreys, 1752: 10)

In Trials, 10 per cent of all pronoun examples attested in the sub-corpus for this genre derive from such reported dialogues. Records of this type of dialogue, in which a witness reports dialogues from earlier speech events as part of their testimony, are more typical of Depositions, the genre examined in the next chapter, than of Trials.

5.4.1 Summary of the micro-analysis The micro-analysis has shown that, in the courtroom, you is the pronoun dictated by the formality associated with legal proceedings, although certain legal formulae are used in which thou is the customary form. Thou occurs rarely in all but one Trial text, in period 1: in this text the switch from formal business using you to expressing personal dislike using thou is evident, and consistent. Thou is reported in a dialogue outside the courtroom in two Trial texts, but otherwise you predominates in such dialogues in the Trials sub-corpus. In the courtroom, thou is inserted into the dialogue to make a particular point, and the rare occurrence of

91

92


this pronoun in this context serves to heighten its effect. As pointed out by Finkenstaedt (1963: 129–138), and illustrated by my data, thou is used by the judges or other legal bigwigs to express either negative emotion (impatience or anger), or more positive feeling (a fatherly, patient condescension). By and large, the use of thou is intended to help the speaker achieve his goals in the courtroom: to encourage a conventicler to swear the oath, or depict a witness as worthless, for example. Not surprisingly the judges are never themselves addressed as thou; there is only one example of a defendant using thou in the courtroom, to his wife. The superior power of the speaker is clearly that which allows the use of thou to address another. The judges tend to be of higher social status compared with the witnesses and defendants (only the Duke of Norfolk, and the Countess of Somerset are of equal or higher rank than their judges), but their superior power is strengthened by, or even due to, their role in the courtroom. The judges also tend to be older, or at least as old, as the witnesses and defendants. As regards the sex parameter, thou to express condescension, impatience, and anger is used in address to both men and women. The tendency found in 5.3.3 for male speakers to use more thou to women than to men is likely to reflect the fact that young female servants are frequently called on to testify on behalf of their masters or guests of their employer in my data: the use of thou would be encouraged not only by their sex, but also their age, rank, and role as witness for the defence.

5.5

Summary

The macro and micro-analysis of Trials has revealed that thou is rare in this genre (not occurring at all in my data for the eighteenth century), in which the formal context normally calls for the use of you. This was previously shown by Finkenstaedt (1963: 129, 139–143), who also noted the use of formulaic thou typical of Early Modern English Trials. Those who choose to use non-formulaic thou usually do so sporadically, in order to achieve maximum effect, for instance, in their bullying or cajoling of witnesses. Superior social rank seems to be the parameter which allows the use of thou despite the formality of the proceedings (those of higher rank are not addressed as thou). However, this is bound up with, and not always distinguishable from, superior power based on the courtroom role of judges and other high-ranking lawyers.

chapter 6

Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760

6.1

Introduction

This chapter consists of a macro and micro-analysis of second person singular pronoun usage in the genre of Depositions. I first comment briefly on the genre and present the material used. As in Chapter 5 for the Trials genre, in the macroanalysis, I examine the overall distribution of thou and you in the Depositions material and the distribution according to a number of extra-linguistic parameters. In Depositions, the extra-linguistic parameter of region is relevant: this is treated prior to the quantitative analysis regarding the sex, age and rank parameters. In the micro-analysis, pronoun usage in individual dialogues is discussed. In the context of these dialogues, I consider the above-named parameters as well as other possible motivating factors, such as level of emotion, intimacy, and formality. A deposition is the oral testimony of a witness, normally given before the case is heard, as recorded by a scribe (scribal interference in the recording of this report must always be kept in mind: see Chapter 2). The evidence is usually written in the third person, although deponents would normally have spoken in the first person when testifying. Second person pronouns occur within these third person narratives when the witness reports the speech of himself/herself or others during his/her testimony. The exact words of contract, defamation, etc. as quoted by the witness often appear to be recorded verbatim, presumably as these words are central to the proceedings. This is illustrated in (1), a deposition taken from my sub-corpus, in which accusations of crimes are recorded as direct speech (highlighted in bold).1 (1) Comitatus Lancaster ss The informacion of Thomas: Airton of Downham Labourer taken before Iohn: Starkie Esquire one of his Maties Iustices of ye Peace & Quorum for ye sd County ye Eight day of Aprill Anno Domini 1697. 1. Note that the deponent’s name is given in the reference following an example only for those deposition texts for which there is no pagination or foliation.

94 Thou and you in Early Modern English Dialogues

6.2

Who (vpon oath) informeth & Saith That one Ralph: Browne of Downham aforesd found Stephen: Shepheard & Mary: Shuttleworth of ye Same Widdow, fighting, and She said to ye sd Shepheard, Thou knows Rogue yt I know yt yu Murthered another mans Wife, If I murthered anothers mans Wife Said he, Thou knows yt yu and thy Daughter Murthered a man, and conveyed him away. And after yt ye said Mary Shuttleworth desired ye Depty Constable to take him ye sd Shepheard for Shee could doe noe good with Sueing wth him, for he Saith yt he has halfe a dozen Wittnesses to Swear what he pleases, and she answered yt she had Tom of great Besses to Swear for her, and he said, if I See Tom of great Besses att Lancaster I will pull out of my Pockett a new halfe Crown, or a Crown, and Swear yt I Saw ye sd Tom Coyne yt Yesterday, and Soe will charge ye Serjeant with him, and where will thy Wittness be then. and further Saith not his mark X Thomas: Airton (National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1696–1715. MS PL 27/2, deponent Thomas Airton)

The Depositions sub-corpus

As can be seen in Table 6.1, the collections sampled for this study span from 1560 to 1760. Four collections of Depositions from each of the five 40-year periods were selected for the sub-corpus. The Deposition collections were taken from A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (CED) or from manuscript material stored at the National Archives, London, or local record offices in England. Unlike for Trials and Drama Comedy, where three texts were selected for each 40-year period, it was deemed necessary to include four Deposition collections per 40-year period. As mentioned above, much of the testimony is recorded in the third person, which naturally results in fewer second person pronouns per total number of words than in the other two genres investigated. The collections are in the form of original manuscripts, imprints, or later editions which have been checked against the source manuscripts. Table 6.1 gives the date the Depositions were taken down, and where applicable, the date of publication (in parentheses). Throughout this study, dates given in references to particular Deposition collections reflect the year of publication for printed material, and the year(s) the collection was recorded for unpublished material.

1600–1602 1612 (1613) 1627–1637 (1858) 1631–1632

1645–1656 1646–1664 1647–1675 1654 (1654)

1680–1699 1682 (1682) 1696–1715 1716 (1716)

1724–1758 1725 (1730) 1727–1760 1751

2 1600–1639

3 1640–1679

4 1680–1719

5 1720–1760

National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions The Tryal of the Memorable Jonathan Wilde* National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions National Archives, London. Henley upon Thames, Oxon Sessions Examinations: Rex v Mary Blandy

National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against Three Witches* National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions The Several Depositions Concerning the Late Riot in Oxford*

Essex Record Office, Chelmsford. Essex Quarter Sessions Depositions National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions Essex Record Office, Colchester. Borough of Colchester Informations A True Account of the Late Bloody and Inhumane Conspiracy against His Highness the Lord Protector*

Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions The Wonderfvll Discoverie of Witches in the Covntie of Lancaster* Longstaffe ed., The Acts of the High Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham* Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions

Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham* Furnivall ed., Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester* Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex*

* Material taken from the CED; ** Figure is based on a manual word-count.

1560–1588 (1845) 1561–1566 (1897) 1566–1573 1582 (1582)

Date of deposition Title (Publication date)

1 1560–1599

Period

Table 6.1 The Depositions sub-corpus

157,305

31,635

10,760 2,890 4,070 13,915**

17,430

8,140** 1,940 4,010 3,340

26,925

5,590** 9,655** 3,500 8,180

33,945

11,235** 10,640 7,720 4,350**

47,370

10,280 13,560 12,600** 10,930

Wordcount

Chapter 6. Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760 95


The Deposition collections differ in length. As with the Trials sub-corpus texts, it was not always possible to obtain 10,000 words from each collection.2 This was especially true with regard to periods 3 and 4. The total word-count for the Depositions sub-corpus is approximately 150,000. The Deposition collections originate from a variety of regions of England (see 6.3.2). Some Depositions relate to one criminal case at national or local level, others are collections of cases from church court proceedings, local assizes and quarter sessions. The cases range from murder and assault to defamation and breaking of marriage contracts. Accusations of witchcraft are also represented. Speakers of both sexes, from all age groups and ranks, are represented in the Depositions material, although the youngest age group and the two highest ranks have rather few representatives. Unlike the other two genres, Trials and Drama Comedy, commoners are well represented in the Deposition collections.

6.3

The macro-analysis

6.3.1 The overall distribution of thou and you in Early Modern English Depositions There is, to my knowledge, no previous research investigating changes in the use of thou and you over time in the genre of Depositions. However, on the basis of previous research into a range of other genres (see Chapter 4), a decline in thou usage across the period 1560–1760 might be predicted. Nevertheless, the contexts from which second person singular pronouns are quoted in the Depositions are often informal, emotional, and involve those who are neighbours or intimates, therefore the frequency of thou might be expected to be higher than in, for example, Trials (in which the direct speech tends to be uttered in the formal courtroom environment rather than quoted from an earlier speech event). Moreover, as the dialects of some of the regions represented in the Depositions sub-corpus retain the use of thou up to the present day (Upton & Widdowson 1996: 66–67), any decrease in the use of thou over time might be less marked than in other genres (see 6.3.2). The overall distribution of thou and you, and in each of the five 40-year periods, in the Depositions sub-corpus is shown in Table 6.2 and Figure 6.1.

2. The word-counts marked with two asterisks in Table 6.1 indicate that it is based on a manual count of the manuscripts; otherwise the word-counts are for the whole of each text file according to Microsoft Word.

Chapter 6. Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760

Table 6.2 Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760: Raw figures and percentages Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total

thou 251 49% 144 62% 51 33% 55 45% 54 21% 555 44%

you 259 51% 87 38% 102 67% 67 55% 204 79% 719 56%

Total 510 100% 231 100% 153 100% 122 100% 258 100% 1274 100%

100% 80% 60%

YOU

40%

THOU

20% 0% 1

2

3

4

5

Figure 6.1 Ratio of thou and you in Depositions in the five 40-year periods (data from Table 6.2)

Table 6.2 (and Figure 6.1) shows an overall if unsteady decline in the occurrence of thou across time (from 49% in period 1 to 21% in period 5). The frequency of thou in Depositions is indeed much higher than in the corresponding Trials data (in which thou is never more than 23%, the figure for period 1 Trials: see Chapter 5), although only in period 2 Depositions is thou (62%) actually more frequent than you. The overall frequency of thou (44%) in the Depositions is not a great deal lower than that of you, especially when compared to the corresponding figure for Trials (8%). Thus the hypothesis that thou would be more common in Depositions than in Trials, and exhibit a less marked decline across time, seems to be borne out by the results shown above. An investigation of the different regions represented in each 40-year period might help account for the unsteady decline across the pe-

97


riod 1560–1760. Regional influence might also account in part for the relatively high frequency of thou (21%) in Depositions in the final period (compared with that of Trials and Drama Comedy: see Chapters 5 and 7 respectively).

6.3.2 Region As suggested above, the survival of thou in certain regional dialects might be reflected in the Depositions from those regions, in that the decline in thou usage might not be so marked as in regions where it eventually disappeared completely from the dialect (or, conversely, you might be more prevalent in these latter regions). The Deposition collections represent areas in the following regions of England: the North-east, North-west, South, and South-east, with one imprint from the South-west. Each region may be represented by more than one Deposition collection. Table 6.11 in the Appendix gives the region from which each Deposition collection derives, and denotes whether the collection represents an ecclesiatical or a civil administration area. Map 6.1 illustrates the ecclesiastical administrative areas, the dioceses, that are represented in the Depositions sub-corpus, which are Durham (North-east), Chester (North-west) and Winchester (South). Map 6.2 shows the political administrative areas, the counties (and towns) represented in the Depositions sub-corpus. These counties are: Yorkshire and, to a lesser extent, Northumberland (North-east), which account for almost all depositions from the Northern Assizes;3 Lancashire (North-west), with one collection relating specifically to the Pendle area; Oxfordshire (South), represented by the towns of Oxford and Henley upon Thames; Devon (South-west), represented by a collection from the town of Bideford; Essex (South-east), including Deposition collections relating to the towns of Colchester and St Osyths. The South-east is also represented by two Deposition collections from London. Map 6.3 highlights the areas of England where thou (thou or thee) is said to still occur as subject4 pronoun today, namely the North, West, and South-west (suggesting that the spread of you disseminated outward from London, although there are pockets of you usage in the North-east, West and South-west, which are all areas distant from London). The Deposition collections from Durham, Chester and Winchester dioceses, those from the northern counties (York, Northum3. The jurisdiction of the Northern Assizes also included the counties of Cumberland and Westmorland in the North-west, but there are a minimal number of depositions (7 in all) from these two counties from which I have drawn data. 4. See Chapter 8 for a brief discussion of thee as subject pronoun. Note that, as mentioned in Chapter 1, all forms of thou and you are included in my data, not just subject forms.

Chapter 6. Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760

Map 6.1 Dioceses represented in the Depositions sub-corpus

Map 6.2 Counties and towns represented in the Depositions sub-corpus

99


Map 6.3 Areas where thou (thou or thee) and you (ye or you) occur as subject pronoun in Present-day English dialects. Adapted version of map 33 (p. 66) from An Atlas of English Dialects by Upton, Clive & Widdowson, J. D. A. (1996). By kind permission of Oxford University Press

berland, Cumberland, Westmorland, and Lancashire), and the collection from the county of Devon thus roughly represent present-day ‘thou-regions’. It should be noted here that part of the Winchester diocese falls within a present-day ‘youregion’ (see below), as does a small part of the North-east (i.e. Tyneside, where ye occurs as subject pronoun today). Nevertheless, the division of my Deposition collections into ‘thou-regions’ versus ‘you-regions’ is deemed applicable for the current discussion, given that below I only suggest a rough trend in the data with regard to the hypothesis that thou might occur more in regions in which thou still occurs today. Table 6.3 shows the percentage of thou (in relation to you) in my Depositions sub-corpus grouped according to region, in the five 40-year periods. As can be seen from the table, there is regional variety (although not all regions are represented in all periods). In both the North-east and the North-west, where thou still occurs today, there is no marked decrease across the 200-year period, except in the last period in the North-west. There is in fact an increase in thou in the North-east (period 3) and the North-west (period 4), when thou is actually more frequent than you (59% in both cases). The apparent trend is different for the South-east


Table 6.3 Number of occurrences of thou, and percentage of thou (in relation to you) in Depositions by region and period (cells highlighted in bold type indicate ‘thou-regions’) 2 1600–1639 41 45% 4 50% 99 76% –

South-west

1 1560–1599 66 44% 38 41% 111 58% 36 47% –

–

2 3% –

Total

251

144

51

North-east North-west South South-east

3 1640–1679 49 59% – –

4 1680–1719 21 36% 22 59% 0 0% – 12 86% 55

5 1720–1760 30 39% 8 16% 16 13% 0 0% – 54

(i.e. London and Essex), where thou is not found today – an area to which the use of the ‘cultivated’ you form might have spread relatively early. It is more in line with the pattern of decline found in the Trial texts (texts for the most part from London: see Chapter 5), with a negligible amount of thou in the seventeenth century, and none in the eighteenth century. Using other Depositions material, Kytö, Walker and Grund (2007) show that a collection from the South-east (Norwich) dated 1700–1754 attests only you (55x): the study is part of a project to produce an electronic edition of Depositions from various regions of England. Another Deposition collection sampled for the edition is from London (London Metropolitan Archives, London. Consistory Court of London Depositions Book, 1714–1715. MS DL/C/255). This also contains no examples of thou (outside an excerpt from the Book of Common Prayer, which is not part of the sample). Returning to my Depositions sub-corpus, it is interesting to note that in period 1 there is a fairly similar frequency of thou in the South-east (47%) to the frequencies in the Northeast (44%) and North-west (41%). This appears to support the claims made by previous researchers that a marked decline in thou usage began around the end of the sixteenth century (e.g. Barber 1997: 152, 155; Bock 1938: 78, Appendix; see also Chapter 4 of the present study). As the South-west is only represented by one Deposition collection, nothing can be said about this region, other than that the percentage of thou is very high (though the raw figure is low), and that thou still occurs in the region today. The South is the only region where the pattern of thou usage appears erratic. However, in the first two periods the South is represented by the Winchester Depositions, and thou is much more common than you (58% and 76% respectively). This is a region which straddles the dividing line between


Table 6.4 Thou and you in ‘thou-regions and ‘you-regions’ in Depositions 1560–1760: Raw figures and percentages Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total

‘thou-regions’ thou you 215 219 50% 50% 144 87 62% 32% 49 34 59% 41% 55 54 50% 50% 38 88 30% 70% 501 482 51% 49%

‘you-regions’ thou you 36 40 47% 53% – – 2 3% – 16 12% 54 19%

68 97% 13 100% 116 88% 237 81%

thou and you usage in Present-day English (with the city of Winchester itself within the ‘thou-region’). In the last two periods, the South is represented by Oxfordshire towns which lie outside the present-day ‘thou-region’, and thou (0% and 13% respectively) is not more frequent than you. Only the Deposition collections from the South in periods 4 and 5 (from Oxford and Henley respectively) and the five Deposition collections from the South-east (in periods 1, 3, and 5) are clearly from ‘you-regions’ (the Winchester Depositions fall, mostly, within a present-day ‘thou-region’5). Not only are there fewer Deposition collections from ‘you-regions’, but also these collections tend to be shorter. There are 48,345 words (31% of text) from ‘you-regions’, and 108,960 words (69%) from ‘thou-regions’. Moreover, the incidence for pronouns in the Deposition collections representing ‘thou-regions’ is 9 per 1000 words, while the figure is only 6 per 1000 words in the collections representing ‘you-regions’. This over-representation of ‘thou-regions’ notwithstanding, Table 6.4 shows clearly that there is a tendency for thou to be used more than you in the Deposition collections from these areas. Whereas in ‘you-regions’ there is never a predominance of thou in any period, even before 1600, in ‘thou-regions’ there is never more you than thou until the final period 1720–1760. Region appears to play a role in thou usage in the Depositions, but without equal representation of all regions in all periods, and a stricter definition of ‘thou-

5. Most deponents are from areas within or on the border of the present-day ‘thou-region’; however, a number of deponents are from the Isle of Wight, a ‘you-region’.


regions’ and ‘you-regions’, the findings must remain tentative. Moreover, other parameters must also be considered to account more fully for the patterns found.

6.3.3 The sex parameter Findings from a previous study of mine (Walker 2000: 382–383) show that in two Deposition collections from the late sixteenth century (also used in the present study: see below), women were reported as using less thou than men were. The explanation offered for this was that women were possibly more sensitive to the social/emotional implications of thou and thus avoided using this pronoun. A further study (Walker 2003: 327–328) showed that in sixteenth-century Depositions (based on data from 6 collections, of which 3 collections are included in the present study6), men were reported as using more thou than you, while women used more you than thou. As the present study is a development of these earlier studies, it might be expected that men more than women will be reported as using thou. Moreover, as women were considered subordinate to men (see Chapter 3), their inferior position might be expressed by women using you when addressing men, and conversely, men using thou when addressing women. Table 6.5 (and Figure 6.2) shows that women use more thou than you in periods 1 and 2, and exhibit no clear preference for you until period 5; moreover, women use more thou than men do in all but the last period. Men use more you than thou in all but the second period. The totals in Table 6.5 show that neither women nor men use more thou than you overall (48% and 41% thou respectively); however, the difference in distribution is statistically significant (χ2 = 6.062, p = 0.014, df = 1). With the exception of the results for period 5, the findings are in direct contrast to those of my previous studies of Depositions, not only for the particular periods studied previously (period 1 and period 4), but also for periods 2 and 3. Previous results were of course based on different sub-corpora: the only collections used in all three studies are the depositions from the late sixteenth century edited by Raine (1845) and Furnivall (1897). Moreover, after checking the manuscripts behind the editions used for previous studies, it was found that several examples of you in Raine’s edition, Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, were actually thou in the manuscript (see also 4.3.3 and 6.4.2), and one example of your was transcribed as ‘other’ in Furnivall’s edition, Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester. Therefore the figures have

6. The three collections are Raine ed., Furnivall ed., and A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex (see Table 6.1).


Table 6.5 Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker: Raw figures and percentages Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total

thou 125 44% 92 54% 30 27% 40 43% 45 29% 332 41%

Male

you 161 56% 78 46% 80 73% 52 57% 108 71% 479 59%

thou 125 56% 52 85% 21 49% 15 50% 9 9% 222 48%

Female

you 98 44% 9 15% 22 51% 15 50% 96 91% 240 52%

100 80 60

Male

40

Female

20 0 1

2

3

4

5

Figure 6.2 Percentage of thou (in relation to you) according to sex of speaker in Depositions in the five 40-year periods (data from Table 6.5)

been adjusted. Furthermore, in some cases, damage to the manuscripts meant that sections of text were no longer extant, and therefore some pronouns were excluded from the figures in the present study as unverifiable (see Chapter 2 for a discussion regarding the question of the reliability of source material). Do women give you but receive thou from men? Table 6.67 (and Figure 6.3) presents the data according to the sex of the speaker and addressee (illustrating a 7. As in Chapters 5 and 7, in tables in the macro-analysis where there are only single-digit figures in corresponding data cells for thou and you, percentages are not given.


Table 6.6 Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker and addressee: Raw figures and percentages* Period

Male to Female Male to Male Female to Female Female to Male thou you thou you thou you thou you 1 75 73 50 88 60 36 65 62 1560–1599 51% 49% 36% 64% 63% 38% 51% 49% 2 17 23 75 55 20 8 32 1 1600–1639 42% 58% 58% 42% 71% 29% 97% 3% 3 10 11 20 69 16 13 5 9 1640–1679 48% 52% 22% 78% 55% 45% 4 12 6 28 46 9 9 6 6 1680–1719 67% 33% 38% 62% 5 23 52 22 56 7 50 2 46 1720–1760 31% 69% 28% 72% 12% 88% 4% 96% Total 137 165 195 314 112 116 110 124 45% 55% 38% 62% 49% 51% 47% 53% * An example of thou involving an addressee whose sex is unknown is excluded from the table.

100 80 Male to Female

60

Male to Male

40

Female to Female Female to Male

20 0 1

2

3

4

5

Figure 6.3 Percentage of thou (in relation to you) according to sex of speaker and addressee in Depositions in the five 40-year periods (data from Table 6.6)

decrease in the use of thou between period 1 and period 5 regardless of the sex of the speaker and addressee). For the five periods taken together, Table 6.6 shows that both sexes use more thou to women than they do to men: the distribution in this regard is statistically significant (χ2 = 4.536, p = 0.034, df = 1); consequently, both sexes use more you to men than they do to women, which is also statistically significant (χ2 = 12.950, p < 0.001, df = 1). The same patterns are revealed for four of the the 40-year periods (for periods 3 and 4 these patterns are statistically significant: χ2 = 9.079, p = 0.003, df = 1, and χ2 = 4.160, p = 0.042, df = 1 respectively). However, in period 2 both sexes use more thou (or less you) to men than


to women (the distribution with regard to thou in period 2 is also statistically significant: χ2 = 6.949, p = 0.009, df = 1). Excepting period 2, these patterns support the hypothesis in that thou is used more to women than to men, and you is used more to men than to women, but we need to look at the sex of the speaker more closely. This reveals that women use more thou than you to men in periods 1 and 2 (there is too little data for periods 3 and 4), while men use more you than thou to women in periods 2, 3 and 5. This evidence is not only contrary to the hypothesis, but the distribution is statistically significant with regard to period 2 (χ2 = 24.311, p < 0.001, df = 1). Only in period 4 is there a clear preference for thou in address to women by men, and only in period 5 is there a clear preference for you in address to men by women. In sum, there is more evidence against than in support of the hypothesis that men would receive you from women but give thou. Nor is there support for the hypothesis that women rather than men will generally prefer the socially ‘safer’ pronoun, you, until period 5.

6.3.4 The age parameter In Chapter 5, I tested the hypothesis that power based on seniority might be expressed by the use of thou to those younger than oneself, and the use of you to one’s seniors, but the findings were inconclusive. For the Depositions genre, due to the lack of background information available, age proved the most difficult parameter to code for: this resulted in many examples being classified as ‘youth or adult’ (labelled ‘Youth/Adult’ in the tables) or ‘adult or old adult’ (labelled as ‘Adult/Old’) and so on (see Chapter 3 for precise definitions of each age group). As much of the data falls into these less informative groupings, such as ‘adult or old adult’, it was found useful to combine the data from periods 2 and 3 into one longer period (1600–1679), and the data from periods 4 and 5 into another (1680–1760). This was in order to obtain larger raw figures for the more precise age groups ‘youth’, ‘adult’, and ‘old adult’ (labelled ‘Old’ in the tables), as mentioned in Chapter 3. I first present the distribution of thou and you according to the age of the speaker and addressee for the whole 200-year period, 1560–1760. Table 6.7 shows certain patterns with regard to the three precise age groups (‘youth’, ‘adult’, and ‘old adult’).8 The older the addressee, the lower the percentage of thou they receive from each of these three age groups. This is with one exception, as adults receive slightly more thou (67%) than do youths (62%) from old adults. Youths use a 8. As in Chapters 5 and 7, the highlighted cells are those for the more precise age groupings, in cases where the figures are not merely incidental.


great deal of thou (45%) to each other, in contrast to address to their elders. And, conversely, old adults use a great deal of thou to those younger than themselves, but not much (28%) to each other. The totals row for the three age groups shows that youths receive as much as 43 per cent thou in relation to you, while adults receive less (35%), and old adults receive the least (21%). Moreover, the difference in distribution is statistically significant: (χ2 = 18.501, p < 0.001, df = 2). Old adults also give more thou than you overall (42%) than do either adults (16%) or youths (36%): the distribution here is also statistically significant (χ2 = 33.492, p < 0.001, df = 2). There is very little data for address to a child by older speakers, but as predicted, thou (10x) is preferred to you (2x). It seems that the hypothesis regarding the use of thou to express the speaker’s seniority, and conversely the use of you by younger to older, is supported by the evidence. The patterns are not quite as clear when we consider the distribution of thou and you according to the age of the speaker and addressee in the time periods 1560–1599, 1600–1679, and 1680–1760 (see the Appendix, Tables 6.12–6.14 respectively). To obtain figures high enough to justify comment, I also consider the figures for the less precise age groups in the following discussion. Regarding address to one’s elders the data in period 2–3 (1600–1679) does not support the hypothesis: in period 1, although ‘child or youth’ and ‘youth’ rarely address their elders, they only use you (8x), but in period 2–3, youths use both pronouns to those older than themselves (7x thou, 7x you). In period 4–5 (1680–1760) they again only use you to both adults and old adults (12x and 18x respectively). After pooling the period 1 data regarding address to youths by older age groups, the figures give support for the hypothesis, with youths receiving thou (22x) much more than you (4x). Similarly, children (‘Child’) are addressed mostly with thou (8x thou, 2x you) by those older than themselves. Even in period 2–3, old adults show a slight preference for thou (11x thou, 7x you) when addressing youths. However, in period 4–5, there is a clear preference for you in address to youths (100% by adults, and 74% by the group ‘adult or old adult’). Yet old adults use a great deal of thou (71% and 65% respectively) when addressing adults in period 2–3 and period 4–5. Overall there appears to be more evidence in support of than against the hypothesis that older speakers would address the younger as thou (see also the discussion below relating to Figure 6.4), but receive you, as a reflection of their superior status on the basis of age. Figure 6.4 illustrates changes in the distribution of thou (in relation to you) over time with regard to the age parameter. There was only enough data in each of the three time periods to examine changes over time with reference to elders addressing children or youths, address among the adult age group, and among the ‘adult or older adult’ age group (the data was not considered where there were only single-digit figures in corresponding data cells, to lessen the influence of incidental

thou – 3

Child you – –

thou – 49 45% 5

Youth you – 61 55% 5

Youth/Adult thou you – – – –

thou – 4 24% 2

Adult you 2 13 76% 1

Adult/Old thou you – – – 5

thou – 3 10% –

Old you – 27 90% –

Total thou you – 2 59 106 36% 64% Youth/Adult – – 11 6 11 12 29 24 65% 35% 48% 52% 55% 45% Adult 4 2 7 32 – – 14 75 1 16 3 30 29 155 18% 82% 16% 84% 6% 94% 9% 91% 16% 84% Adult/Old 1 – 21 20 19 9 13 29 61 73 14 28 129 159 51% 49% 68% 32% 31% 69% 46% 54% 33% 67% 45% 55% Old 2 – 16 10 3 3 42 21 12 57 9 23 84 114 62% 38% 67% 33% 17% 83% 28% 72% 42% 58% Total 10 2 98 128 33 18 75 141 85 163 29 108 330 560 83% 17% 43% 57% 65% 35% 35% 65% 34% 66% 21% 79% 37% 63% * Examples of thou (3x) and you (3x) to a ‘Child/Youth’ by ‘Adult/Old’, and examples of thou (222x) and you (156x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable age, are omitted from this table.


Table 6.7 Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760 according to age of speaker and addressee*



100 80

Elders to youths and children Adults to each other

60 40

"Adults or old adults" to each other

20 0 1

2 and 3

4 and 5

Figure 6.4 Percentage of thou (in relation to you) by older age groups to youths and children, and between the age groups ‘adult’ and ‘adult or old adult’ respectively, in Depositions in periods 1, 2–3, and 4–5 (data from Tables 6.12–6.14 in the Appendix)

examples). The decline in thou usage across time is most marked in address to children or youths by their elders (from 83% to 15%). Among adults of a similar age, thou is not found at all after 1600: indeed, the findings of Labov (1972), for example, would suggest that it is the middle aged (i.e. adults) rather than the old who would use the most you, but there is no comparative data for old adults except in period 1, in which old adults actually exchange more you than adults do. (It is youths who most often exchange thou (46%) in this period, but this is unlikely to reflect the use of the old vernacular form as an in-group marker, while the older age groups follow the linguistic norms of the community at large (see e.g. Chambers 1995: 169–185), as the micro-analysis will show.) The grouping ‘adult or old adult’ is likely to include some old adults addressing adults, which might partially account for the percentage of thou being higher than it is amongst ‘adults’ (and by elders addressing youths in period 4–5). The data illustrated in Figure 6.4 also suggests support for the hypothesis that thou is more likely to be used by older to younger, reflecting the superiority of the speaker, in that the percentage of thou is consistently higher than that for adults addressing adults and, before 1680, that for the group ‘adult or old adult’, despite the decline in usage across time.

6.3.5 The rank parameter Table 6.8 presents the distribution of thou and you according to rank for the five 40-year periods taken together, 1560–1760.9 The data for the two highest ranks 9. As in Chapters 5 and 7, the abbreviations ‘Comms’ and ‘Profs’, for ‘Commoners’ and ‘Professionals’ respectively, are used in tables due to space restrictions. Also, in the tables relating to rank in this chapter, examples grouped under ‘Non-gentry’ are cases where it was known that


has been omitted from Table 6.8, as there are very few examples. This table reveals that the hypothesis that the upper ranks would prefer to exchange you with members of the same rank is borne out by the data for gentry (78% you) and professionals (83% you). The hypothesis that lower ranks would exchange thou also receives clear support in that lower commoners (and the less precise group ‘non-gentry’) prefer thou (60%) to you. The upper commoners however, show a slight preference for you (54%). These patterns are confirmed in that the difference in distribution is statistically significant (χ2 = 15.212, p < 0.001, df = 3). For the hypothesis that higher ranks would tend to give thou but receive you from lower ranks, there is also clear evidence. The gentry group shows a preference for thou (72%) to lower commoners (and 81% thou to the ‘non-gentry’ group), who in return use only you to gentry. Furthermore, professionals receive far more you than thou from the lower ranks; however, professionals use the same or a greater percentage of you to lower ranks than they do amongst themselves. It is interesting to see if these patterns, and apparent deviations by professionals and upper commoners, are repeated when the data is sub-divided into shorter periods. Tables 6.15–6.17 in the Appendix show the distribution of thou and you according to speaker and addressee rank in the periods 1560–1599, 1600–1679, and 1680–1760 respectively. The data for each period appears to support the general hypothesis that the upper ranks would exchange you rather than thou, in that gentry prefer you (70%) when addressing each other, and professionals only exchange you (20x) in period 1. In period 2–3 (1600–1679), there is very little data for the gentry (4x you), but professionals (23x you, or 74%) prefer you when addressing members of the same rank, and in period 4–5 (1680–1760), both gentry and professionals address members of the same rank with more you than thou. Again the figures for the gentry are low (7x you and 1x thou), but professionals exchange as many as 63 examples of you (83%). When addressing a member of the same rank in period 1, lower commoners clearly prefer thou (70%) over you. However, the upper commoners exchange you (62%) more than thou. This might be evidence that the lower commoners use thou as the reciprocal pronoun, while the upper commoners perhaps emulate the you usage of the upper ranks. However, in period 2–3, upper commoners prefer thou (66%) to you, whereas lower commoners use more you than thou (10x you, or 62%), but the raw figures with regard to lower commoners are low. In period 4–5, the upper commoners prefer you (23x, or 68%) in address to each other, while lower commoners show no clear preference (8x thou, 7x you). a speaker or addressee was a commoner, but not whether an ‘upper commoner’ or ‘lower commoner’.

Gentry thou you 7 25 22% 78% – 6

Professionals thou you – 7

Upper Commoners Lower Commoners ‘Non-Gentry’ Total thou you thou you thou you thou you 6 2 13 5 13 3 39 42 72% 28% 81% 19% 48% 52% Profs. 21 106 2 23 8 40 1 19 32 194 17% 83% 8% 92% 17% 83% 5% 95% 14% 86% 2 4 12 16 108 128 13 16 11 12 146 176 Upper Comms. 43% 57% 46% 54% 45% 55% 48% 52% 45% 55% – 20 3 32 7 30 49 32 14 5 73 119 Lower Comms. 100% 9% 91% 19% 81% 60% 40% 74% 26% 38% 62% ‘Non-Gentry’ – 10 15 4 36 29 38 14 80 28 169 85 100% 79% 21% 55% 45% 73% 27% 74% 26% 67% 33% Total 9 65 51 165 159 212 121 107 119 67 459 616 12% 88% 24% 76% 43% 57% 53% 47% 64% 36% 43% 57% * Examples of thou (96x) and you (81x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable rank, and examples of you (22x) involving the two highest ranks, i.e. nobles, and sirs, are omitted from this table.

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Gentry

Table 6.8 Thou and you in Depositions 1560–1760 according to rank of speaker and addressee*



In accordance with the hypothesis, the gentry group prefers thou (14x thou, 3x you) when addressing commoners (i.e. upper commoners, lower commoners, and ‘non-gentry’) in period 1, while commoners prefer to address gentry as you (2x thou, 11x you): the distribution is statistically significant (χ2 = 13.274, p < 0.001, df = 1). In period 2–3, the data for gentry addressing both upper and lower commoners shows thou (10x) is used slightly more than you (7x). Gentry address commoners (i.e. lower commoners and ‘non-gentry’) in period 4–5 using only thou (8x), whereas commoners address the gentry with you (100%). By contrast, professionals addressing those of lower rank tend to prefer you, but receive thou quite frequently from the lower ranks. In fact, in period 1, commoners (i.e. upper commoners, lower commoners, and ‘non-gentry’) use more thou than you (19x thou, 9x you) to professionals, who use mostly you in return (19x you, 7x thou). The difference in distribution is statistically significant (χ2 = 9.048, p = 0.003, df = 1). This is possibly because many of the representatives of the professionals group are clergymen: it might be inappropriate for priests to talk down to their parishioners, while their social role might lead to a degree of relatively intimate involvement with the lower ranks which allows the use of thou by the latter (see 6.4 for a more detailed discussion). In period 2–3, the professionals show an even greater preference for you to those of lower rank (10x you, 1x thou), but also receive slightly more you (15x) than thou (11x) from ranks lower than themselves. Again, in period 4–5, professionals rarely use thou (3x) to those of lower rank, and only to the lowest rank: commoners, represented largely by the lower commoners in this respect, now only use you to professionals. Interestingly, a difference in rank between upper and lower commoners is suggested in period 1: upper commoners are addressed with more you than thou (17x you, 3x thou) by the lower commoners, but the latter receive slightly more thou (8x) than you (7x) in return. Figure 6.5 illustrates changes over time with regard to the rank parameter: there was only sufficient data in each of the three periods with regard to professionals and upper commoners addressing members of the same rank (as in 6.3.4, where there were only single-digit figures in corresponding data cells, the data was not considered). For comparison, the data for lower commoners, which was sufficiently high for period 1 and period 2–3, has also been included. Figure 6.5 shows a considerable decrease in thou after 1600 among the lower commoners. This is perhaps understandable as the decline of thou amongst this group is said to have begun around 1600, at least in Drama Comedy (see Chapter 4). The corresponding increase in thou usage after 1600 among professionals is less easily interpreted; nevertheless, you is clearly the preferred pronoun throughout the 200-year period (1560–1760); thou usage is never higher than 26 per cent. The upper commoners’ changing use of thou over time, with a preference for thou


100 80

Professionals

60 40

Upper commoners

20

Lower commoners

0 1

2 and 3

4 and 5

Figure 6.5 Percentage of thou (in relation to you) exchanged by lower commoners in periods 1, and 2–3, and that exchanged by professionals, and by upper commoners, in periods 1, 2–3, and 4–5 in Depositions (data from Tables 6.15–6.17 in the Appendix)

only in period 2–3 (1600–1679), has already been noted above. Thou is used least in period 4–5 (1680–1760), but is still fairly high (32%), perhaps a result of thou surviving in some regional dialects. It could be argued that it is the great increase in thou usage amongst upper commoners in period 2–3 which needs explaining, as if this were more consistent with findings for the other two periods, the pronoun usage of upper commoners would neatly pattern between that of the professionals and lower commoners. One could then suggest the pattern reflected the intermediate social position of upper commoners; on the one hand perhaps emulating the linguistic behaviour of the upper ranks, while on the other hand still belonging to, and having more language contact with, the lower ranks. Overall, the evidence does tend to support the hypotheses regarding rank presented above. However, there are exceptions, particularly the professionals’ consistent use of you to the lower ranks, and in period 1, and to a lesser extent in period 2–3, the use of thou by lower ranks to professionals. As already mentioned, these exceptions might be connected with the professionals group consisting largely of clergymen: clergymen are well represented in the data for those periods when professionals receive thou from lower ranks. Another important exception is the varying pronoun of preference when upper commoners address each other in the different periods as discussed above (and illustrated in Figure 6.5). These will be treated further in the micro-analysis.


6.3.6 Summary of the macro-analysis The results for the five 40-year periods show an unsteady decline of thou from 1560–1760. From a peak in period 2 of 62 per cent, thou accounted for 21 per cent of the pronoun examples in period 5. However, of the 1,274 examples of thou and you in the Depositions material as a whole, as many as 555 (44%) were thou forms. The frequency of thou forms was, as predicted, higher than in Trial texts, due possibly to the informal, emotional and intimate contexts in which the second person singular pronouns were reported (this will be further explored in the micro-analysis in 6.4). The relatively high thou usage in the Depositions was also suggested to be partly due to the regions from which the Depositions originated: in several areas represented in the material (such as the North-east and North-west), thou is still found in the dialect in Present-day English, which might explain the less marked decline of thou usage overall in Depositions. The results regarding the sex of the speaker showed that women used more thou than men did except in the last period, 1720–1760. Men in fact tended to prefer you (in four of the five periods), while women only demonstrated a clear preference for you in period 5. The results appear to contradict the hypothesis that women would prefer to use you, avoiding thou, which carried connotations of emotion, intimacy, or the speaker’s social superiority. Moreover, contrary to the hypothesis that women, being conceived of as subordinate, would receive thou from men but give you in return, the tendency is for women to use more thou to both men and women than men do. Regarding the age parameter, there is some evidence for the hypothesis that older speakers would use thou to younger speakers but receive you, particularly when the data for the 200-year period as a whole is considered. Unfortunately, much of the data could not be analysed due to the relative age of speaker and addressee being unknown. The results for rank offered some support for the hypotheses that the higher ranks would give thou but receive you from the lower ranks, and that reciprocal thou would be found amongst the lowest ranks, while you would be the reciprocal pronoun of the upper ranks. The figures for professionals, however, tended to contradict the hypotheses regarding their pronoun exchange with the lower ranks. A micro-analysis is needed in order to understand the difference in pronoun usage exhibited by male and female speakers, and in order to show if the findings concerning age and rank suggested by the macro-analysis hold true when specific examples are studied. Not yet considered in detail are certain additional factors that might influence pronoun usage, which have not been quantified: the social role of speaker and addressee (e.g. master/servant, priest/parishioner), the degree of intimacy between speaker and addressee (whether e.g. family, friends, neighbours, or strangers), and the situational context of the dialogue (i.e. the purpose


and forum of the dialogue). Such factors will now be taken into account in the micro-analysis.

6.4

The micro-analysis: Pronoun usage in the Depositions sub-corpus

6.4.1 The approach to the micro-analysis The remainder of this chapter is devoted to an in-depth analysis of second person singular pronoun usage in the Depositions, investigating pronoun selection in a socio-historical context. I discuss how, and in what contexts, thou and you are used in the Depositions material, in an attempt to explain the patterns found in the macro-analysis. The relatively small total of 1,274 pronouns for the period 1560–1760, compared with the totals for Trials and Drama Comedy, permits an in-depth investigation into how both thou and you are used. An attention to detail is also motivated by the absence of any previous research into this genre, other than Hope (1993), an introductory exploration of one late sixteenth-century Deposition collection (see Chapter 4, and 6.4.2). For each of the five 40-year periods, I group the dialogues under three subsections according to the sex of the speaker and addressee (i.e. dialogues between women, dialogues between men, and dialogues between women and men) and discuss the possible motivation behind the pronoun usage in these dialogues (see Table 6.9). Within each sub-section I structure the discussion around speaker and Table 6.9 The distribution of the dialogues in Depositions 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker and addressee* Period

All-female All-male Male and female Total dialogues dialogues dialogues 1 29 37 68 134 1560–1599 22% 28% 51% 100% 2 10 28 22 60 1600–1639 17% 47% 37% 100% 3 12 44 18 74 1640–1679 16% 58% 24% 100% 4 6 25 9 40 1680–1719 15% 62% 22% 100% 5 18 16 24 58 1720–1760 31% 28% 41% 100% Total 75 150 141 366 20% 41% 39% 100% * One dialogue from period 1 in which a woman addresses a child of unknown sex is omitted from this table.


addressee rank. To help the reader navigate through the detailed analysis, a summary of findings concludes the discussion of each period (the overall findings for the period 1560–1760 are summarised in 6.4.7). For a dialogue to be included in the analysis, one or more second person singular pronouns must be recorded as being used by at least one of the two people involved to address the other. Such dialogues attested in the Depositions material are almost exclusively those speech events (or alleged speech events) which are reported after the event by a deponent. One such dialogue, or speech event, may be reported by several deponents. For example, the following dialogue is reported by two deponents, in which one Anthony Jones addresses one Susannah Edwards: “Thou Devil, thou art now tormenting some person or other”. She then replies: “Well enough, I will fit thee” (A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against Three Witches, 1682: 32, 33). However, second person singular pronouns occur in four dialogues in the Depositions material which take place in the courtroom, rather than being reported there. These four dialogues are from an imprint from 1582, one of which is illustrated in (2). (2) The Examination and confession of Ioane Pechey widdowe, taken before mee Brian Darcie Esquire, the xxv. of February. [...] This Examinate beeing asked, whether she had any Cat in her house, sayth that shee hath a Kyttyn, and a little Dogge. And beeing asked, what coulour the Kyttyn was of, shee this Exa minate sayed she could not tell, saying yee maye goe and see. (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: C5v–C6r)

The dialogues in the Depositions sub-corpus can be divided into three main types: ‘you dialogues’, in which only the pronoun you is used, ‘thou dialogues’, in which only thou occurs, and ‘mixed dialogues’, containing occurrences of both thou and you (see Table 6.10: disputed cases are those in which different deponents give conflicting reports about which pronoun was used in an earlier speech event). The relative proportions of these three types of dialogue (disputed cases are omitted) are illustrated in Figure 6.6. This shows a steady decline in ‘thou dialogues’ across the five 40-year periods. It also shows that there are relatively few ‘mixed dialogues’ in the Depositions data. Note that although a dialogue may be reported in more than one deposition text in the Depositions material, as illustrated above, it is included once only in Tables 6.9–6.10, and Figure 6.6.


Table 6.10 The distribution of the dialogue types in Depositions 1560–1760 Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total

thou dialogues 53 39% 21 35% 24 32% 11 28% 5 9% 114 31%

Mixed dialogues 16 12% 8 13% 1 1% 4 10% 6 10% 35 10%

you dialogues 62 46% 28 47% 49 66% 24 60% 46 79% 209 57%

Disputed cases 4 3% 3 5% – 1 2% 1 2% 9 2%

Total 135 100% 60 100% 74 100% 40 100% 58 100% 367 100%

100% 80% YOU

60%

THOU/YOU

40%

THOU

20% 0% 1

2

3

4

5

Figure 6.6 Ratio of thou dialogues, you dialogues, and mixed dialogues in Depositions in the five 40-year periods (data from Table 6.10)

6.4.2 Pronoun usage in the period 1560–1599 In period 1, there are 510 examples of second person singular pronouns, used in a total of 135 dialogues. A large part of the micro-analysis is devoted to the period 1560–1599, as this period accounts for almost half the examples of thou and you found in the Depositions material as a whole. In this period, the Depositions originate from the North-east, North-west, South, and the South-east: only in this last region is thou not found today in the dialect (according to Upton & Widdowson 1996: 66).


6.4.2.1 Dialogues between women There are 97 pronoun examples in which women address other women. Of these, 61 examples (or 63%) are thou forms. There are 29 dialogues: 16 thou dialogues, 11 you dialogues, and one mixed dialogue, that is, with both thou and you (and a dialogue in which different deponents report different pronouns). A further dialogue, in which a child of unknown sex (but most likely female) is addressed as thou, is also mentioned below. Four dialogues include ‘pronoun exchange’ (i.e. when both participants address the other using second person singular pronouns: such dialogues are more informative, as they reveal whether a pronoun is used reciprocally or not). There are 11 dialogues between lower commoners. In (3), you is exchanged: (3) […] then shee saide shee must goe borrowe it, and so went and fetched it, saying, there is your money, whereunto shee this exa minat answered, and said, now I owe you a pint of milke, come for it when you will & you shall haue it: (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: E8r)

This dialogue is between two neighbours, one of whom has been asked to repay a small loan, and does so. You is also used in an earlier dialogue between them, when the repayment is requested. The motivation for you may be the subject matter of the dialogue, as such a business transaction might demand a certain level of formality. As the speakers are both from the lowest social group, one might have predicted an exchange of thou here. Indeed, in eight dialogues between female lower commoners, thou is the pronoun attested. The use of thou to address a sister perhaps represents the pronoun normally exchanged between these people. This dialogue takes place in the courtroom, and the scribe notes how one woman’s testimony is interrupted by her sister’s vehement objection to this testimony: “I defie thee, though thou art my sister” (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: C4v). One servant addresses another servant as thou. A mother addressing her daughter, and a woman addressing a child might reflect the superior power of the speaker (based on family relationship and age respectively). The superior/inferior dichotomy is again shown in a dialogue where a daughter addresses her mother as you. There is some expression of negative feeling by lower commoners in the dialogues, although it is unclear whether thou is motivated by emotion in these cases. Emotion might be the motivation for thou in the following dialogue, in (4), in which two adults fall out over the nursing of a child.


(4) […] the saide Celles his wife chid and rayled at her, and saide, thou shalt loose more by the hauing of it, then thou shalt haue for the keeping of it. (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: D8v)

Examples (5a) and (5b) illustrate two dialogues involving the same two lower commoners, adults of similar age: thou is used by each to address the other (on different occasions). (5) a.

[...] And thereupon she the saide Vrsley replied, and saide, I warrant thee I, thy Childe shall doe well enough: (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: A1v) b. [...] Take heed (said Grace) Vrsley, thou hast a naughtie name. And to that Vrsley made answere, though shee coulde vnwitche shee coulde not witche, (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: A2r)

The use of thou seems more likely to be the pronoun normally exchanged by these two women: the speech in (5a), in which Ursley assures Grace that her sick child will recover, is friendly in tone. In (5b), although Grace is saying Ursley is reputed to be a witch, the tone is guarded rather than accusing or angry. Moreover, on a third occasion, similar to (5a), thou is again used. Upper commoners are represented only by three old women, and as there are no examples of pronoun exchange, little can be concluded regarding usage. One upper commoner uses you in an unemotional or friendly tone when addressing a neighbour on her deathbed. The dying woman herself addresses another upper commoner (who was once her servant) as thou, but whether this is a mark of intimacy, or reflects the old power imbalance10 is unclear.

10. There is also a power imbalance due to a difference in rank which is hidden by the grouping into ‘upper commoners’: the speaker is coded D in the database, but the addressee, now a craftsman’s wife, is coded E. This is not the case with the other examples in the period.


Non-commoners11 are only represented by the professionals group, in two dialogues, one of which includes an exchange of pronouns (6). (6) [...] “Mrs. Whittingham, you have reported that I have had a child before I was maried. I trust you will bringe forth the father for yt.” The said Mrs. Whitting ham maid aunswer, “I doe not saie that you hadd anie child before you were maried; but I saie that I have herd that you had a child before you wer maried, but I will not saie that it is trew. Doe your worst, I will not flie the countrie.” Whereupon the said Margaret Key said, “I defie you, and all that can so saie.” (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 316)

This example (also discussed in Walker 2003: 331–332) is interesting, as it shows women exchanging you even in a serious argument. Thus while the low-ranking woman in (4) uses thou in an angry speech, these two women of the upper ranks use you. This could be evidence that the pronoun used is not motivated by emotion in either case, but rather represents the usual pronoun of exchange. The other dialogue between women of the professionals group is a married woman comforting her unmarried sister-in-law, who is accused of having had a bastard child. You is used, although the tone is intimate. Dialogues between women of different rank are limited to five, and there is no exchange of pronouns. The rank of the speaker may be at work in combination with negative emotion in the two dialogues where the higher rank addresses the lowest rank using thou, as in the following example, where a mistress addresses her servant, who has slandered a neighbour (7). In this example, the youth of the servant might also encourage the use of thou. (7) [...] And at last the said Isabell came in, to whome hir dame Clibborn’s wyfe said, “Thou hast brought thyself in troble with this good wife’s suster,” pointing to this examinat then present, and said, “Thy Mr will not be in troble therwith.” (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 90)

In another dialogue, a servant addresses her young mistress in a neutral tone using you, which suggests that the pronoun is motivated solely by the superior rank 11. I adopt here the term used in Tables 3.2 and 3.7 in Chapter 3 for an umbrella group which includes the ‘pseudo-gentry’, i.e. the professionals group, and the ranks above this group.


of the latter, as they are of the same age. An upper commoner addresses a lower commoner as you, despite there being some conflict between the two adults (8); this could be intended as ironic, but there is insufficient context to be certain: (8) […] she doth not remember yt Rosse his wife did at any tyme hunt her catell being in her ground, or yt shee v sed any hard speeches to his wife therevpon, or yt shee fel out for yt she could not haue any mault at her price: but she saith at one time she met Rosse his wife, & that there was some talke betweene them; the which shee doeth not remember more then that the saide Rosses wife saide, I shall see at your ende what you are. (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: D3v)

In the remaining dialogue between those of unequal rank, a woman from the professionals group addresses another’s servant as you, although she has a grievance against the servant: this possibly implies ‘coldness’. Ten dialogues are between women of unclear relative status, of which two include pronoun exchange. One of these is (9): the speakers are both commoners, but whether ‘upper’ or ‘lower’, and whether of the same rank or not, is unknown. Both address the other as thou, and call the other “whore”. The exchange is clearly heated, encouraging thou. (The words “thou arte” in the margin may have been added later: see Chapter 2). (9) and this depot comminge ouer the bridge harde Smithes wiff cale Ellene wattes thou arte whore witche / And Elene wattes replied & said / Ame I a whore witch<e> yea said Agnes smith smith / then art thou ane arrant whore qd Elene wattes then qd Agnes Smith / thou can not prove me a whore / yeas qd Elene wattes rather than thou shalt prove me a whore wytche for I am none (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/4: 99)

The second example of pronoun exchange is (10a), in which there is also pronoun shifting.


(10)

a.

[…] she hard bullman wyffe cauld styllinge nowghtie pak / who aunswerd what nowtynes know y u by me / I am neyther u goossteler nor stek stege steiler I wold yo n knew ytt / and y bullman wyff said what noughty hoor caull thou me nowghtie goose steiler / nay mayry I know the for no such saith stillinge wyffe / but u I thank yo for your good reporte whilles yu & I talk further / (University Library, Durham. Book of Depositions 1565–1573. MS DDR/EJ/CCD/1/2, f. 79v)

The case involves two women, Margaret Bullman and Janet Styllinge. Styllinge is suing Bullman for defamation for calling her a whore. The deponent is Agnes Wheitly, a neighbour of Bullman. Styllinge answers Bullman’s insult using thou (‘yu’) and you (‘you’), Bullman answers using thou, and Styllinge ends the exchange using thee (‘the’), you (‘you’), your (‘your’), and finally thou (‘yu’). In Raine’s (1845) edition Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, he transcribed the two instances of ‘yu’ as you, which might make it easier to explain the pronoun usage, but after studying the scribal hand in this, and importantly, in other depositions in this collection, I believe that his transcription is incorrect, and therefore amended my data according to the manuscript reading as given in (10a).12 Hope (1993: 88–89) offers an interesting interpretation based on Raine’s transcription (and his personal checking of the MS; see note 5 in his article), arguing that you is the neutral pronoun, and the use of thou by Bullman expresses anger. Hope claims that Styllinge uses thou (once only, in Raine’s transcription) also in anger, but her switching back to you is a reflection of her emotional restraint. He argues that in doing this, she scores points at Bullman’s expense by not sinking to her level. My transcription does not support this explanation; moreover, accounting for the pronoun usage is hindered by a shortage of background information: the dialogue is between two commoners, but the precise status, and relative status and age, of the speakers is unknown. My initial interpretation, however, is similar to that of Hope in that Styllinge’s pronoun usage seems motivated by her desire to express her own moral superiority, and that by saying “I am neyther goossteler [...]” she implies that Bullman is. But my transcription suggests that it is the use of you that needs to be explained here, rather than the use of thou. Possibly thou is the pronoun these women 12. Cusack (1998) offers a transcription which gives the same forms as in my transcription (i.e. T, Y, T, T, Y, Y, T), although she disagrees as regards the spelling in two cases.


might normally exchange, and the switch to you in the second part of Styllinge’s first utterance is to create distance between them, with the subtext ‘you are a thief and I don’t want to be associated with you’. Styllinge does not want to go further than insinuation, and therefore in her second utterance she denies saying Bullman is a thief, carefully reverting to thou. However, having established her innocence in this regard, Styllinge reclaims her superiority – and can again use the distancing you – by reminding Bullman that ‘it was you who insulted me’, the switch to you stressing the ironic tone. The phrase I thank you for your X has been found in a rather similar context, when being ironic, in a later period (see (37), in 6.4.3.2). The point being made, Styllinge is reported as shifting back to thou. In this deponent’s account, not only the pronoun shifting, but the whole organisation of Styllinge’s verbal contest with Bullman appears to be incredibly skilful, which reminds the modern reader of Shakespeare’s manipulation of pronouns, and language in general, for dramatic effect. Styllinge has apparently managed to insult Bullman without danger of legal action, while she herself can then go on to sue Bullman for defamation, resulting in this deposition record. But the apparent brilliance of Styllinge’s language use may owe more to the deponent who reported the dialogue, and the scribe who recorded it. Either consciously or inadvertently, the deponent may colour the report, either as a result of his/her feelings towards the defendant/plaintiff, or due to the official context of making a legal statement. The manuscript records include two further reports of the dialogue, and although these have not been included in my quantitative data (as I used Raine’s edition as sampled for the CED as the basis for the quantitative analysis), it is interesting to consider these when attempting to interpret the pronoun usage in this case. The other two witnesses differ in their report from the witness quoted in (10a) above, although all three accounts are given on behalf of Styllinge, the plaintiff.13 The two reports are shorter than the first, and perhaps partly as a result of this, the pronoun switching appears less subtle: as shown in (10b) and (10c). (10)

b.

[...] {stelling} wyff said she had longe bein an honest manes wyffe / & was neuer tayntyd for goose nor u stege / and bullman wyff said ^{what errand hoor} caull yo me goose steiler / & she said I nay mayry doo I not I thank u th yo anothe u yo for your kyndnes / I will take w tyme for this /

13. Witnesses on behalf of the accused note that the husband of the second witness (Margaret Langhorn) is no friend to Bulman’s husband, while the sister of the third witness (Alison Bottle) lives with Styllinge (thus giving both of them a motive for supporting Styllinge), and that they are both poor women of little credit.


c.

(University Library, Durham. Book of Depositions 1565–1573. MS DDR/EJ/CCD/1/2, f. 80r) [...] & stillyng wyff said thou knowe me neither for goosse steiler & stege and bulman wyff said againe to hir what hoer caulst u caul yo me goose steiler / nay mary do I nott u said stillinge wyff I tat thanke yo hartly cauld u ye none / & I thanke yo for your goodness to I u reken wth yo / (University Library, Durham. Book of Depositions 1565–1573. MS DDR/EJ/CCD/1/2, f. 80r)

Both Langhorn and Bottle testify that Stylling and Bullman exchange you, with the exception, according to Langhorn, of one initial thou by Styllinge. Given that all three deponents are pro-Styllinge, it seems unlikely that they would intentionally put words into the mouth of the plaintiff that might reflect badly on her. Hence if you were their normal pronoun of exchange, it would perhaps be odd that Styllinge is reported as using thou more than Bullman, as thou would then be overfamiliar at best, and insulting at worst. The further evidence offered by the testimony of Langhorn and Bottle seems to suggest that thou is, as argued above, the familiar pronoun between these two speakers, and you is used to show distance. In this way, it might be argued that Styllinge although indignant at the rude behaviour of Bullman, is, at least at first, conciliatory and uses the familiar pronoun. Bullman’s use of you would serve to heighten the insult, by its implied rejection of Styllinge. Not to be beaten, Styllinge then continues in an ironic, icy tone while, finally, suggesting Bullman has not heard the last of this. It is, however, interesting that the two ‘poor women’ (see Note 13) report you while Bullman’s next-door-neighbour reports more thou than you: it may be that they are more influenced by the formal context of giving evidence, and hence use the pronoun they associate with such contexts. The record of Bottle’s testimony includes the cancellation of the second person singular present tense verb form “caulst”, which might be due to the deponent changing her mind about which pronoun was used. On the other hand, scribal error and possible intervention in the record also has to be considered. Another case in which deponents report different pronoun usage is where three deponents (two men and one woman) report a Mrs Dingly using thou in a virulent tirade (11a), while Dingly’s sister reports a different response, and the use of you (11b). A Mistress Singleton has asked Mistress Dingly what she meant by a previous slander, who answers:


(11)

a. b.

art thow come hither to scould gett the hence thow witche and clere thy selfe thou knowest what it is well inowghe for I will never take the for other then a witche till thow hast clered thy selfe […] Gett the hence from my stall thow roge and scould Or else I will make my servant beatt the owt of my shopp. (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/5: 215) seing yow will soe fayne knowe loke to the oth of goodwife Graunte & go to her (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/5: 215)

The rank of the speaker and addressee is unclear, and their relative age is also unknown. What might be suggested by the sister’s quoting you is to make Mrs Dingly appear in a better light, and not given to emotional outbursts as suggested by the other deponents, who quote thou. In five further dialogues between those of unclear rank, the speaker and addressee are commoners: thou is used in one dialogue between friends, and two angry speeches, while you is used in a less heated dialogue. In another dialogue, a commoner addresses her grandchild (of unspecified sex) as thou: the context suggests the child is probably a baby girl, and the grandmother seems to be using affectionate ‘baby-talk’ when she says “a mother pugs art thou comming to Church?” (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: D3r). Thou is also used in an angry dialogue, where the addressee may not be a commoner. There is only one dialogue, shown in (12), where the status of the speaker is known: a merchant’s wife (i.e. a member of the professionals group) addresses a woman of the same age group (adult), and of similar or slightly lower status (i.e. Mistress Dingly, the speaker in (11)). You might be predicted, especially as there is only a slight element of negative emotion in the context. (12)

[…] No qd mistres Iamveryn did not yow say that the moth had eaten such a hole in her best gowne that all the shermen in the Towne could not reare the woll againe / (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/5: 215)


Regarding region, the majority of thou dialogues were found in the Depositions from the South-east (11 dialogues), while the majority of you dialogues were from present-day ‘thou-regions’ (7 dialogues), especially the North-east (which contributed 5 of these 7 dialogues). This is perhaps contrary to what one might expect. However, this appears to be due to there being more dialogues between women of the lowest ranks in the Depositions from the South-east, rather than any clear regional difference in pronoun usage.

6.4.2.2 Dialogues between men There are 138 pronouns used in 37 dialogues between men. Of these, 88 examples (or 64%) are you forms, which is in direct contrast to the pronoun preferred by women addressing women. However, 19 of the dialogues include members of the upper ranks, which also contrasts with women addressing women (where only 4 dialogues can be said with certainty to include members of the upper ranks). Also, whereas there were 11 dialogues between female members of the lowest rank, there are no such dialogues between men at all, which might help explain the predominance of you dialogues between men in the period 1560–1599. There are 22 you dialogues compared to 10 thou dialogues, plus four mixed dialogues. In a further dialogue, one deponent reports thou, while another reports you. There are four dialogues between upper commoners, one of which includes pronoun exchange (see (13)); all are you dialogues. (13)

[...] / Then said this depot why who then shall r r ffavor have yo goodes / mary saide he / why m u I tell yo ffor he is my verie ffrende / (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/5: 88)

It might be argued that the use of you here, and in the other dialogues between upper commoners, is motivated by the context of the dialogues: three of the dialogues are at someone’s deathbed, while another involves a legal wrangle, and hence the formal ‘business’ pronoun might be appropriate. However, in one of the deathbed scenes, a man uses you to welcome a man he mistakes for his brother, which suggests that you in this case functions as the ‘familiar’ pronoun. Non-commoners also only use you to each other. Again the three dialogues have to do with legal affairs, namely, making a will, or suing over a broken contract, which would encourage the use of you. In one of these dialogues, pronouns are exchanged (14). (14) [...] his preiste Sir Thomas Keye, syttinge by upon a fourme, did ryse and cam to the forsaid Sr Roberte his mr and said, “Sr, you bid me speak to


mastres Brandlinge to take one of the wenches called Jayn;” and Sr Robert said, “Did you speke to hyr?” (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 122)

Here an elderly knight is settling his affairs with a priest, and as already mentioned, you might be predicted in such a context. However, the knight is also addressed as you by his brother. This could be construed as deferential, as the brother is a mere gentleman (of similar age to the knight), but the knight and his sister-in-law also exchange you (see 6.4.2.3) which suggests that you may be the usual pronoun of exchange for these family members. Whereas there were only five dialogues between women of unequal rank, there are as many as 22 such dialogues between men, including several pronoun exchanges. In three of the six dialogues with pronoun exchange, higher ranks use thou to address lower ranks, but receive you (including one dialogue between an upper and a lower commoner). This is as predicted by previous research, and exemplified in (15). (15)

JOHN ROSSE, of Shotton, laborer, aged about 24 years. He saith that, upon Neweyers day in the morning last past, when Mathew Ogle and Thomas Topping, this deponent’s stepfather, were talkinge together in the queir of Stanington, and agreid not upon the delyvery upon certain goods arreisted, this examinate said to the said Thomas, his stepfather, “Come away, for ther words and brawling ys known well enough;” to whome Raiff Ogle aunswered, “What, slave, what is that thou saith?” And this examinate said, “What, man, by your self?” and ther upon the said Rawf plukett out his dager, and had yt above his head to have smytten at this examinate. And then, dyvers staundinge bye the vicar and the clarke, one Stephen Murton, put the said Raiffe out of the queir doore. (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 260)

In (15) the labourer, after being addressed as thou by the gentleman (who is of similar young age as the labourer), answers using you despite the angry tone used by both speakers. In this particular case, it might be speculated of course that the pronoun you was used to address the young gentleman in a mocking tone, especially if one considers the presumably intentional ‘echo’ of “What, man” in reply to “What, slave”. This dialogue is quoted by four deponents: in the 1845 edition, the pronoun used by the gentleman is given twice as thou and twice as you. Hope (1993: 90–91) suggests that two deponents quote thou to make the gentleman


appear as a rude hot-head. The manuscript, however, consistently has thou (see Kytö & Walker 2003: 235), and I have interpreted the dialogue accordingly. Note, however, that there is another deposition case in which one deponent reports the use of thou in anger while another deponent reports a more controlled you. The speaker is either a gentleman or an upper commoner, and is addressing a labourer. This would certainly suggest the deponents may be displaying bias towards or against the speaker. As seen in (15), and as also found in a similar confrontational exchange, between one Mr Anthony Ratcliff and the commoner Roger Donn (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 63), the gentry give thou to the lower ranks and receive you. In a further dialogue, Mr Ratcliff addresses another commoner with thou. This is in line with the hypothesis that those of superior rank would give thou but receive you. By contrast, in three exchanges involving members of the clergy (professionals) and the lower ranks, pronoun usage does not follow this hypothesis. You is used in two of these exchanges, relating to professional matters (marriage contracts). In the third exchange thou is used by a labourer to a clergyman, which is discussed further below (16). Neither is the hypothesis much supported in dialogues involving the clergy in which there is only one-way pronoun address: in only one dialogue is thou used by a priest to a commoner (17), and in another dialogue, you is used by a commoner to a priest. This can be contrasted with two dialogues where a clergyman is addressed as thou by two commoners in an angry scuffle, while priests use you to address both upper and lower commoners in four dialogues related to formal business (such as the making of wills and marriage contracts). It seems there is a tendency for clergy to exchange you with all ranks, at least in their professional role, while it is possible to use thou in anger to address a clergyman, but not a gentleman. This perhaps tells us something about the status of local clergymen; the profession might involve a certain status, including the honorary title of ‘Sir’, but the person holding that position might not be deemed worthy of respect by his parishioners, either on the basis of character or lack of means. The following extracts from a dialogue (16) with both an exchange of pronouns and pronoun shifting give an indication of this. A labourer (James) uses the expected you form to address a priest, but getting angry at the self-righteous tone of the priest (Sir Richerd), considering his past behaviour, James switches to thou. Sir Richerd continues to use you as he answers in a conciliatory tone (16a). (16)

a.

[…] the said James said, “What maks you so hye, Sr Richerd?” Who aunswerd that he had bein about a grement, and declared again the matter as he had said immediatly byfore to this examinate. Then said


the said James, “What have ye adoo with that?” “Yeis, I have to do therwith, bycause they ar my parishioners” […] “yf the partie greved sought to me, I wold have to doo therein by the auctorite I have under my Lord of Durham, to bringe them to good order and quietness.” “Wawd (would)A thou,” saith the said James, “thou droucken horemonger preist?” to whom the said Sir Richerd answerd and said, “James, I have bein punished for my hordom, and the part I dyd; saing yee ar my neighbours, a good fellow and nowe an honest man, I pray yow to leave such talke.” (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 291–292. AEditorial comment by Raine)

However, Sir Richerd fails to calm the situation, and when James threatens physical violence, Sir Richerd also switches to thou to express his anger (16b). (16)

b.

[...] feight with me yf thou darr.” “Nay,” quoth the said Sir Richerd, “I am a man of peace; but I will come to the, perchance, when thou art in a better mynd.” And the said Sr Richerd, comming towerd the said Wawton, he the said James drewe his dagger. [...] at the sight of Waton dagger, the said Sir Richerd began to drawe also his dagger, and had the same half out; and this examinate toke hold of his Sir Richerd arme, and badd hym be contente and go to his servic. At whose mocion the said Sir Richerd was staid [...] (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 292)

The clergy only use thou in one other dialogue to a commoner (as mentioned above), again in anger after being insulted (see (17)). (17)

[...] Iames mascall called the said mr Coke knave prest: what thow blinkyng knave quod mr Coke vnto whom spekest thou (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/4: 447)

The dialogues between men of unequal rank, which do not involve the gentry or clergy, reveal you used deferentially by a lower commoner to an upper commoner, his father-in-law, and by a commoner to a professional, a mayor (relating to business). Moreover, thou is used by an upper commoner to a lower commoner, and to a young apprentice by an old man who is either a gentleman,


or more likely, an upper commoner, perhaps an unwilling father-in-law: “Thou shalte not have her then thoughe thow hast x witnesses” (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/4: 704). These four dialogues support the hypothesis regarding unequal rank, but an element of negative emotion found in the latter two dialogues also encourages thou. Other than dialogues involving the clergy, only two dialogues contradict the hypothesis that inferiors would be addressed as thou. A master uses you to address his servant, and an upper commoner disdainfully tells a young labourer to mind his own business, using you. Finally, there are eight dialogues between men of unknown relative rank, four of which are thou dialogues, including one with pronoun exchange (see (18)). (18)

[…] the said mr holden said to the said George Simons, thow arte a stincking knave. wherunto the said George Simons aunswerid saienge to the said mr Houlden Thow art a verie villian shaking a prong at mr Holden wch the said Simons had in his hand. Then said the said mr Holden to the said George Simons thow art a barrator knave. wheruppon the said george simons said to the said mr holden thow arte a whoremounger knave. then said mr holden wth home am I so? to the wch the said George Simons aunswered all the countrie doth know it (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/4: 503. Frequent use of otiose tilde over word final ‘n’ in MS not reproduced here.)

The fact that one is described as “mr Holden” while the other is plain “George Simons” seems to imply some inequality of status, but there is insufficient information to be sure. It is safe to say that they are speaking in anger. Furthermore, in another dialogue a commoner addresses Simons as you, with little evidence of deference (as he is mildly rebuking Simons), so it could be that these people would normally exchange you, and that emotion is the sole motivation for the use of thou in (18). But without further information on status, this must remain purely speculative. The remaining three thou dialogues between those of unknown relative status are also arguments. The four you dialogues are not so


emotional in tone: a young commoner uses you to an old commoner whom he asks to help with a contractual problem, Simons is addressed by a commoner as described above, a gentleman addresses a young suitor of his ward, and one commoner addresses another in what might be a mocking tone. However, without knowing relative status, there is little to be concluded from these dialogues. It is worth noting that all dialogues between men are from present-day ‘thouregions’, with six thou dialogues from the North-east and four from the South.

6.4.2.3 Dialogues between women and men There are 275 pronoun examples in 68 dialogues between men and women. Thou and you are fairly evenly distributed with 140 (51%) thou and 135 (49%) you. However, there are slightly more you than thou dialogues (29 and 26 dialogues respectively), and 11 mixed dialogues. In two dialogues it is unclear which pronoun was used, due to conflicting reports. There are as many as 26 dialogues in which women and men exchange pronouns, which should give some insights into pronoun usage in the Depositions for the period 1560–1599. Of the nine dialogues between lower commoners, there are three dialogues in which men and women exchange pronouns: all three are thou dialogues. One dialogue involves troth-plighting (discussed further below) between a young couple, and attests the thou form traditionally used in the exchanging of these vows, and still found today. The second dialogue is between a husband and wife at home, and although there may be hint of negative emotion, it nevertheless appears insufficient to be the sole motivation for the use of thou; instead this may be the pronoun normally exchanged (19): (19)

[…] when the saide Ales doeth giue her husbande any meate to eate, then presently he the saide William saith to his wife, doest thou not see? doest thou see: wherevnto this examinate sayth, that he hath hearde the saide Ales to say, if thou seest any thing giue it some of thy meat. (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: A6v)

In the third dialogue between lower commoners, the speakers are hurling abuse at each other, and it is difficult to know whether thou is their usual reciprocal form, or whether it is purely motivated by anger (20): (20) […] and the said Margaret answerid & said, “dost thou denay hit? then thou art a false thief!” and apon that, Fazakerley answerid & said, “thou art as like a hoore, as I a thief.” and therapon she said, “thou


art a thief; and I am able to prove the for a thief; & thou art a thief!” (Furnivall ed., Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester, 1897: 204)

The other dialogues between lower commoners show thou being used by a woman to a boy, and a mother to her young son, reflecting the age difference and/or, in the latter case, parental authority. Four dialogues are reported by two young boys relating to their mother, who is accused of witchcraft (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: D1r–D2v). The six-year-old claims his father said to his mother “ye stinking whore what meane yee? can yee not keepe your imps from my children?” (D2r) whereas the nine-year-old reports “why thou whore cannot you keepe your impes from my childre~?” (D1r). A further, similar, dialogue with you used by the father to the mother is reported by the eldest son: “yee are a trim foole” (D1v). The use of you may reflect the pronoun with which the father would address the mother, but the only other dialogue between a husband and wife of the lower ranks in this period (see (19)) does not support this, and indeed it is hard to believe the events reported – about an attack by an imp – actually took place. It is possible that the boys are influenced by the fact that they themselves would use you to address their mother. The formality of the legal context may also be influencing the children’s usage, especially as the collocation of a serious insult like “stinking whore” with you seems odd (and the eldest son reports “thou whore”). The mother is also reported as telling the eldest son “thou lyest, thou lyest whoresonne” (D1v), but when asking the son not to tell, you is reported. Judging by the other dialogues of women addressing children of the same rank, one might expect thou in both cases. The 18 dialogues between upper commoners also include three dialogues between family members. Siblings (both adults) exchange you when discussing family business, so whether this might be the neutral pronoun of exchange or reflects the formal nature of the dialogue is not clear. In the other two dialogues women address their husbands as thou, one of which is clearly affectionate, as attested by the term of endearment “bully” (21): (21)

[...] “Bullie, thow hast geven thy silver whistle and chaine unto Leonard Harle, but I trust thou shalt lyve to weare yt thy self;” (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 316–317)

The same speaker when addressing her husband’s friend gives and receives you (22), which may reflect the formality of the occasion (related to the settling of a man’s affairs):


(22)

[...] the said Agnes Ripley said to Leonard Harle, “You ar welcom.” “I thank you,” said Leonard, “and shall see that by your gyfts.” “Whie,” said she, “my husband hath geven you somewhat.” “What,” said Leonard Harle, “hath he given me?” Then she said he hath given you his whissell and his chaine. (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 317)

In two dialogues a young boy and a 14-year-old girl are addressed as thou, which seems to be the usual pronoun used by adults of both sexes to address children and youths. There are a number of dialogues involving upper commoners which relate to troth-plighting and the discussion of marriage. As mentioned earlier, in trothplighting thou was traditionally used, the phrases being formulaic in nature (e.g. I take thee). One long dialogue with pronoun exchange illustrates this (23): (23)

[…] Alexander said vnto Eleine, “I heresay you must be maried.” she answerid, “I am readie to be maried to no man livinge, except it be to you.” Then said he, “I think you can marry non but me; seinge we are sworne to be true, one to an other.” she answerid, “I will neuer go against my othe, if you be the same man” / Then said Alexander: “ar you content to be contractid, and make all thinges sure?” and she answerid, “yea.” then the said Alexander callid George Holland, Elizabeth Winstanley, and this deponent, to here & see what they saied and did; and takinge the said Eleine bie the hand, said: “I, Alexander, take the, Eleine, to my weddid wief, to have and to hold, for better for worse, till death vs departe; and therto I plight you my trouth.” and the said Eleine said: “I, Eleine, take the, Alexander, to my weddid husband, to have and to hold, for better for worse, till death vs departe; and therto I plight the my trouth.” after which wordes spoken, the said Alexander toke her in his armes, and kissid her, and said, “I will take thee for my wief from this daie forward”; (Furnivall ed., Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester, 1897: 199)

The young couple exchange you when discussing the business of confirming their engagement, possibly this is the normal reciprocal form, but then both switch pronouns, as the vows are made using thou. However, whereas the woman says “I plight the”, the man uses you in this phrase (this is reported by both deponents who quote this exchange). This complicates the picture, suggesting that variation


in the pronoun used in troth-plighting was possible. This is further evidenced in the case of a young woman who gets engaged to two different young men (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/4: 260, 270): in one dialogue a man is reported u [...] I plight yo u ”, while in the other dialogue the deas saying “I Richard take yo ponent quotes another man as saying “I Iohn take the [...] I plight the”. In another dialogue between a young man and woman discussing marriage, pronouns are exchanged which may reflect superior status based on sex: the man addresses the woman as thou, while the woman replies using you. However, this could instead be the man’s attempt to show affection and persuade the woman to accept him (24a). In a further dialogue (with no exchange of pronouns) the man again uses thou to the woman when discussing marriage. However, in a third dialogue, the man also uses you, either due to the business-like tone of the dialogue, or because you is the usual pronoun exchanged by these upper commoners (24b): (24)

a. b.

[...] why then quod he what saiest thow to me Nann / I comm after w all / mary quod she I like very well of yo / why canst thow fynde in thy harte to tak<e> me to thy husband above all men by thy faith & troth / (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/5: 234) why quod he to her / how if I can never gett yo r frendes good will / Then quod she / why u whether yo can or cannott yet I will tak<e> u u yo to my husband & therevpon I give yo my faith & troth / (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/5: 235)

Thus it seems possible that the pronouns used in troth-plighting were not as predictable as might be expected, despite the fact that the marriage vows – including phrases such as I take thee to my wedded wife – have survived to the present day. We basically cannot know whether the use of you in troth-plighting is due to misquoting by deponents because of forgetfulness, whether people were simply not aware of the exact formulations to use, or whether other influences such as the formality of the troth-plighting or unequal status are at work. There are six other dialogues between upper commoners, one of which includes pronoun exchange. A young man insults a young woman using thou, who responds using you (25). As this is hardly to show deference to the man, you might instead be the pronoun normally exchanged, and she means to display a


calm dignity in the face of his insult. On the other hand, the woman’s retort may be spoken in a haughty manner, with you implying distance. (25)

[…] Isabell annswered, “Our good is to well wonne to comme emongest thers.” Which wordes the said Raiff hard and said, “Thou giglott, thou knowest best whither your goods be well woon or noo.” And the said Isabell annswerde and said, “Aither you or some of yours so reports.” (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 109)

Two dialogues are related: in one a man giving some requested advice to a woman uses you, and in the other the woman uses thou to the man after the advice proves to be good (26). This goes against the hypothesis that a woman would give deference to a man; it seems in this case that thou is used in a confidential intimate tone, in contrast to the business-like you of the man. (26)

[…] Williamsons wief askid this deponent, beinge her neibour, whether she might kepe a woman of John Jackson; ‘for,’ said she, ‘he hath bene here about that purpose.’ this deponent answerid, ‘yonder old man hath no woman; and if he have, it is not best for you to kepe her.’ within a weke after, the said Jackson and Joan Ashley came to the said house; and this deponent found them there; and after they were gone, the wief said: “younder is the woman that John Jackson wold have had me to have kept; but through thie Counsell, I have turned them awaie.” (Furnivall ed., Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester, 1897: 125)

In the remaining dialogues a neighbour uses thou when telling off a young woman for slandering another, motivated perhaps by anger and/or the addressee’s age. You is used in two dialogues by old men addressing old women. The tone of one is formal, relating to a will, while the other is more friendly, with the intention of comforting a dying woman. Non-commoners addressing each other are represented by only six dialogues in the period 1560–1599. However, it seems probable that you is the normal pronoun of exchange. A priest and his wife exchange you in quite intimate contexts (three dialogues involve this couple), as do two elderly people, a dying man (a knight) and his sister-in-law (mentioned in 6.4.2.2 above), as illustrated in (27). (27) […] And at that tyme the forsaid Sr Robert declared to this examinat of the unkinde doings of William Brandlinge, who was sodenly upon a dis-


pleasor departed into Flanders. And at thes wordes cam in Mres Brandlinge aforsaid, this examinate’s wyfe, who required Sir Roberte to take good order byttwyxt hir husband, this examinate, and the forsaid William, “for he that woll not geive his unkle a good daye (you beinge a lyve) woll moche lesse esteme hym when you ar deade.” And he took hir by the hand, sainge, “I shall make hym, I warrand you, fayn to seke your husband all the daye on his lyfe.” (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 123)

In a dialogue between a gentleman and a female relative, the woman addresses her ‘cousin’ as you: this might be the formal you of business, as she wants him to act as a witness; alternatively this might be the pronoun they usually exchange. In the final dialogue between non-commoners, two male deponents report an exchange of you, while both the female deponent and the female respondent (“as nere as this Respondent cold remember the same”) report an exchange of thou (Furnivall ed., Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester, 1897: 187–193). The fact that the dialogue is a verbal contract of marriage would encourage the conclusion that thou was the pronoun used in the original speech event, if it were not for the findings regarding troth-plighting given above. As a result, it is impossible to determine which pronoun is likely to have been exchanged at the original speech event. Regarding dialogues between those of unequal rank, there are 18 such dialogues, but only four with an exchange of pronouns, of which two involve trothplighting. A youth from the gentry exchanges vows with a young woman from the upper commoners: both use the phrases “I [...] take the” and “I plite/plight the (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/4: 85). This use of thou is also found in a troth-plighting case between a young man from the lower commoners and a young woman from the upper commoners. The couple exchange you until the man makes his vow. Interestingly, the vows are actually dictated by another, and thus the ‘correct’ formula seems to have been used, which includes the use of thou. Whereas you possibly reflects the formal language of contract making, when they simply repeat the traditional vows using thou, the speakers have no influence over the pronoun used. The other two exchanges between those of unequal rank are confrontational. A priest exchanges you with a poor lower commoner rumoured to have bewitched his wife. However, he switches to thou as he grows angry, switching back to you at the end of his speech, after which the woman beats a hasty retreat without replying. This dialogue, like earlier examples, seems to suggest that cler-


gymen tend to address their parishioners using you, unless angered. The other dialogue with pronoun exchange is between the wife of a gentleman or an upper commoner and a man from the lower end of the upper commoners group, who is some kind of minor official (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/4: 620–621). The difference in rank may thus only be slight. Initially you is exchanged, perhaps as the man is on official business; however, when an argument develops, the woman insults the man, who responds still using you (“yf yo u call me Villaine thefe, I u whore”). When the woman switches to thou (“I say to the, thou art will call yo a villaine thefe”), he also switches (“I say to the Thow arte a whore”). In this way the dialogue illustrates interaction deteriorating from a formal exchange into a slanging match, highlighted by the pronouns used. It seems unlikely that these people would normally exchange thou, as not until the direct insult is given is thou resorted to. In six dialogues, where there is no pronoun exchange, lower commoners use you to address all ranks higher than themselves, and the tone of the dialogues seems neutral, as in the following instance (28): (28)

[...] he talked with Vrsley Kemp alias Gray, who then tolde him after some demaunds which hee vsed vnto her, that Ales Hunt and her mother (the widow Barnes) had bewitched his daughter, whereof she dyed, saying, that because they were denied of a peece of Porke at suche time as they came for it, therefore they were offended with you: (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: D5r)

In all but one of the cases, the speaker is a woman; the parameter of sex combined with rank may be significant in pronoun choice here. In two of these latter cases, the dialogues take place in a courtroom (as illustrated in (2) above), further encouraging you. In one of these cases a male child is addressed, suggesting age is outweighed in determining the pronoun usage here. A young man who is of lower rank than the young woman he is courting uses you, which might be deferential or might pertain to the formal context, in that he is asking when she will tell her father about their engagement. Unfortunately, the exact difference in rank is unknown, which clouds the issue further. In another dialogue, an upper commoner insults a priest using thou, which is not uncommon, as already noted above.


There are three thou dialogues in which higher ranks address the lower ranks, of which two also involve negative emotion (by both a man and a woman), though not quite anger, suggesting that rank encourages the use of thou here. A justice addresses a commoner as you, encouraged by the courtroom context, but he switches to a more personal, patronising thou when he tries to persuade her: “Elizabeth as thou wilt haue fauour confesse the truth” (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: B6r–v). There are two dialogues where speakers address a person of lower rank, but only use you: in one this is encouraged by the context, which involves yet another discussion of a marriage contract. The final dialogue between people of different rank seems to be ironic in tone as an old upper commoner addresses a young lower commoner; both the rank and age parameters would lead us to predict thou here. The remaining 17 dialogues between men and women are less telling, as the relative rank is unknown. There are seven thou dialogues, four of which, between commoners, have pronoun exchange: three are angry arguments, and another involves troth-plighting. In these cases thou might be predicted regardless of relative status. Another thou dialogue is a long tirade by a woman who is possibly of higher status than the man she addresses, whom she accuses of ‘occupying’ her father’s maid (see example (4) in Chapter 2); the motivation is probably to emphasise her contempt, if not to stress a difference in status. Two further thou dialogues involve young men contracting marriage with young women. There are three exchanges which seem to suggest inequality based on the sex of the speaker and addressee, but it is impossible to be sure as relative rank is unclear: in the first, a man says “I will marry the” (which he repeats in one of the thou dialogues just mentioned), while the woman says “I will marry you” (Furnivall ed., Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester, 1897: 71). In the second, a man from the upper commoners addresses a woman of the same or possibly slightly higher rank, “thow arte an vnonest woman”, to u by me” (Hampshire Record Office, which she replies, “what dishonesty know yo Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/ C3/4: 581). In this example, the woman’s tone might be formal, or even haughty, as a means to show her indignation at being falsely accused. Thirdly, a woman claims “I am your lawfull wief ” to which the man answers “sticke to that, and I will neuer Leave the” (Furnivall ed., Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester, 1897: 60). In this last case, there is a related dialogue where the man addresses the woman using both thou and you; it could be that he would normally use thou to address her, and switches to you as he broaches the subject of legal procedure: “yf thou will not release me [...] it is best for you


to get out a Citacion” (Furnivall ed., Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester, 1897: 59). The six you dialogues between those of unclear relative rank include three pronoun exchanges. One of these is a fairly neutral dialogue between commoners (the man is known to be a lower commoner). The other two are confrontational: the first between a priest and a woman of equal rank, or an upper commoner; the second between a female upper commoner and a man who is either an upper or lower commoner (29): (29)

[...] she said vnto the said William: “ar you one of them that bringe word from the Counsell that I have two husbandes?” he said “yea, mary, that I am.” “then,” quod she, “will you stand to it?” “yea, mary,” said [William Ball], “that, I will stand it, that I hard it.” “then,” quod she, “you may better bringe them furth that spake.” “nay,” quod William Ball, “I will not bring them furth: bring you them furth, & you will have them.” quod she, “perchaunce I shall make you bring them furth, or els the lawe shall faile me.” (Furnivall ed., Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester, 1897: 208).

In both dialogues there seems to be a tone of formality and distance, which may encourage you. In the three dialogues where pronouns are not exchanged, one is possibly motivated by the business of marriage as a man discusses the woman’s ‘portion’. The remaining two dialogues are less clear, they contain an element of negative emotion, but are not heated. It is impossible to know whether you is motivated by the superior status of the male addressee (the addressee in both cases is an upper commoner, whereas the female speaker may belong to either the upper or lower commoners), whether it is the reciprocal form, or whether it implies distance. Differences according to region are, as with women addressing women, more apparent than real. The South-east, where thou is not found today, has many more you dialogues than thou dialogues, unlike the so-called present-day ‘thou-regions’, which have a relatively even number of thou and you dialogues. However, this has more to do with the ranks represented in the Depositions from the South-east than with any dialectal influence. This region contributes most of the dialogues where the lower commoners address higher ranks, and non-commoners address one another, in which you is more likely to, and does, occur.


6.4.2.4 Summary of pronoun usage in Depositions 1560–1599 All the dialogues illustrated above have their own context, level of formality, social distance between speakers and so on, thus generalisations are difficult to make even after grouping together dialogues where the speaker and addressee are of a certain sex and rank. Overall there is little evidence in period 1 Depositions to suggest differences in pronoun usage due to the sex of the speaker and addressee, but this is partly due to there being, for example, no dialogues between male lower commoners, and only two dialogues between female upper commoners, meaning that comparisons are not always possible. Nevertheless there are certain tendencies suggested by the above discussion with regard to age and rank, summarised below. Concerning the age parameter, in the period 1560–1599, what evidence there is shows that children tend to be addressed as thou by women who are of equal social rank, while one girl addresses her mother with a deferential you, as predicted by previous research. Youths also tend to be addressed by their elders as thou, but whether actually due to age, or whether in combination with rank is difficult to say. In the majority of examples, the youth is of lower rank than the speaker, and/or is being reprimanded to some extent, which would clearly encourage the use of thou. When you is nevertheless used, it has ironic overtones. Male youths twice address their elders (old men) using you, which is likely to express deference. Regarding rank, lower commoners address each other in thou dialogues more than in you dialogues. Female speakers from the lower commoners generally use thou to children, men and women of the same rank, except when discussing business. Although both men and women’s use of thou is occasionally motivated by anger, and in one case by the traditional language of troth-plighting, it seems there may be some support for the hypothesis that the lower commoners use thou reciprocally, and you is reserved for more formal contexts. As previous research predicts, lower commoners of both sexes use you to address higher ranks of both sexes. Only in one case does a male lower commoner switch to thou when addressing another man (a priest) in anger; otherwise you is used by both sexes even when there is an element of negative emotion in the dialogue (perhaps ironically). These dialogues, however, tend to be formal and unemotional, which would encourage the use of you. Upper commoners exchange both thou and you, although in the few dialogues between men, only you is found, mostly in formal contexts. In dialogues between men and women of this group you again seems to be exchanged in formal contexts, relating to business, but when the situation is more emotional or intimate, thou is usually used. More neutral or friendly contexts are not common, but there are a few such dialogues, in which you is used. There are examples of


both male and female upper commoners using thou but receiving you from the opposite sex. When addressing lower commoners, upper commoners use thou more than you, but this is often encouraged by the youth of the addressee, and/ or negative emotion. Upper commoners very rarely address non-commoners, but one example shows a woman using thou in anger to a priest. Priests receive thou in this manner from both an upper and a lower commoner (as well as by two men known only to be commoners of some sort), but no commoners use thou to gentry (except in a troth-plight). All non-commoners address each other exclusively using you. This is emphasised by two dialogues: in the first, women even exchange you in anger, while in the second, two of four deponents report you rather than the traditional thou being used in troth-plighting between the gentry. Moreover, many of the dialogues between the professionals, and the gentry, involve family members (both siblings and spouses), and as such concern intimate as well as formal matters, and yet thou does not occur. Therefore it seems fairly reasonable to suggest that you is the reciprocal pronoun amongst these non-commoners. Non-commoners, almost exclusively men, use both thou and you to address commoners. Both priests and the gentry give you to male and female commoners in formal contexts, but thou in anger. This does not offer conclusive support for the hypothesis that higher ranks would express their social superiority by addressing the lower ranks with thou. Rank clearly plays a role in determining pronoun usage. The hypotheses are that lower ranks would exchange thou, while the upper ranks would exchange you. The dialogues from the Depositions in the period 1560–1599 seem to support this, in that the lower commoners (albeit represented largely by women addressing women) use thou in the majority of dialogues, including more neutral contexts, while non-commoners clearly exchange you in all contexts, with the possible exception of the formulaic thou of troth-plighting. More in line with non-commoners than lower commoners, the upper commoners use you in the occasional dialogue with a friendly but unemotional tone. The influence of the rank parameter regarding dialogues between those of different rank is blurred by the formality or negative emotion in the context of these dialogues. You is used in formal contexts, and thou is used in anger, by speakers to address those of both lower and higher rank: this suggests that the rank parameter may be outweighed by both formal contexts, and strong emotion. In sum, the extra-linguistic parameters of age and, especially, rank help determine pronoun usage in the period, whereas sex and region play no discernible role in my data. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the formality of the context, and the emotion felt by the speaker, has the strongest influence on pronoun usage in these dialogues.


6.4.3 Pronoun usage in the period 1600–1639 In this period there are 231 pronouns in a total of 60 dialogues. All the Depositions in this period are from so-called present-day ‘thou-regions’; from the North-east, the North-west, and the South. This might help explain the fact that there are more examples of thou than you in this period: however, there are actually more you dialogues than thou dialogues (28 you dialogues, 21 thou dialogues, and 8 mixed dialogues). In a further three dialogues, the deponents do not agree on which pronoun was used.

6.4.3.1 Dialogues between women Of the 28 pronouns used between women, 20 (71%) are thou forms. There are 10 dialogues, including six thou dialogues, one of which involves pronoun exchange. Three dialogues are between those of unequal rank. A lower commoner addresses an upper commoner as you, while a gentlewoman addresses an upper commoner as thou, which might reflect the speaker’s inferior rank and superior rank respectively. However, the first dialogue is a woman trying to make a deal with the other, offering money in exchange for giving false evidence, and you might be functioning as the formal ‘business’ pronoun in this context. The second dialogue has a slightly negative tone, and the speaker is an old woman addressing a youth, which would also encourage the use of thou. In a third dialogue you is used to address a beggar-woman, by a woman of slightly higher status.14 Here the speaker is disagreeing with the addressee, and it is possible that you indicates she is purposely putting a degree of distance between herself and the beggar-woman (30): (30)

The said Margaret Lyon vpon her Oath saith, that vpon a time Isabel Robey came into her house and said that Peter Chaddock should neuer mend vntill he had asked her forgiuenesse; and that shee knew hee would neuer doe: whereupon this Examinate said, how doe you know that, for he is a true Christian, and hee would aske all the world forgiuenesse? (The Wonderfvll Discoverie of Witches in the Covntie of Lancaster, 1613, T4r–v)

14. The speaker is coded as belonging to rank E or F, whereas the addressee is coded G (see Chapter 3).


The remaining seven dialogues are all between speakers of unknown relative rank, although with two possible exceptions (see (32a) and (32b) below), all dialogues are between commoners. The dialogues with thou all attest angry speeches, including the one with an exchange of pronouns (31): (31)

[...] thy husband had but xxl with thee & hath spent halfe of it on laice after wch wordes Catherine Hooper said what had thy husband wth the ad a diaper table cloth & a great belly (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1631–1632. MS 21M65/C3/12: 85)

There are two angry dialogues, involving two women who are either upper commoners or even non-commoners. The speaker is reported as using you (32a) and thou (32b) in anger to her next-door-neighbour’s daughter. In the first, the speaker responds to being scolded (she has just slandered the father using thou). In the second, the speaker launches a verbal attack on her neighbour, on a later occasion. (32)

a. b.

u [...] Ah yo u talke soe u scurvy basterd yo paltry basterd doe yo to me (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1600–1602. MS 21M65/C3/11: 412) [...] Thow art a whore basterde & thy mother is a whore & thow wert begotten in a seller (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1600–1602. MS 21M65/C3/11: 415)

As the speaker is not only angry, but also addressing a young girl, thou seems the more likely candidate in both contexts. Possibly there is a note of irony intended in (32a), as if to point out that the daughter has no right to interfere in the quarrel. Finally, you is used in one dialogue in which an old woman rebukes a young woman (“Fie upon yow, Isabell [...]”) who has just been cursing another, adult, woman (“The Devill goe with thie father [...]” Longstaffe ed., The Acts of the High Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham, 1858: 73). The youth of the addressee, and the negative emotion, is apparently not enough to warrant the thou form, which might have been predicted here. Perhaps, as the old woman is reporting her own speech in this deposition, she may be influenced into quoting you by


the formality involved in testifying. Moreover, it is possible that the old woman may actually be of lower rank than the addressee.

6.4.3.2 Dialogues between men In the period 1600–1639, there are 130 pronouns used between men. Although 75 (58%) of these are thou forms, there are only four thou dialogues and four mixed dialogues, compared to 18 you dialogues. Two further dialogues are reported differently by different deponents. As with period 1, there are no dialogues between male lower commoners. Upper commoners use you in all but one dialogue, in which thou is used by an old man to a younger adult in a contemptuous or bullying tone; thus negative emotion, and perhaps even age, influences his pronoun usage. By contrast, the adult addresses the old man, on another occasion, using you. Three further you dialogues relate to the formal language of the making of wills, while another is also connected with business, the selling of a calf. In this last case the speaker is a youth, and of slightly lower rank than the addressee, so the use of you may be said to be triply motivated. Non-commoners use you to each other, in six dialogues, in all types of context ranging from informal (33), to official (34), to confrontational (35).

(33) [...] “Herrie, are yow comen hether to

take phisicke?” with an audible voyce, and in smileing and jeastinge manner (Longstaffe ed., The Acts of the High Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham, 1858: 91).

(34) Gill said to the sheriffe “Here is Doctor Cradocke, the attach ment, and your fee; I require yow to arreast him,” (Longstaffe ed., The Acts of the High Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham, 1858: 5). (35) [...] “Sirra, if yow and I live I will remember yow,” (Longstaffe ed., The Acts of the High Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham, 1858: 183).

One of these six dialogues, between a priest and a merchant, is reported by two deponents as a you exchange (another deponent only quotes the merchant, and reports you). However two other deponents report that the priest used thou, but was answered by the merchant “in a milde and temperate manner” (Longstaffe ed., The Acts of the High Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham, 1858: 163), which might be argued to imply the use of you by the merchant. The


fact that many of the deponents are related to the merchant suggests that the reports may be biased against the priest. In the three dialogues where men of the lower ranks address younger but higher-ranking men, you is used in a neutral context, and twice when men speak “in contemptuous manner” (Longstaffe ed., The Acts of the High Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham, 1858: 12). You is also used by a higher-ranking man, a professional, to an upper commoner: thou might have been predicted as the speaker is rebuking an ‘inferior’. Men of unequal rank exchange pronouns in three dialogues: you is exchanged in a formal context, and thou is exchanged in two arguments. In one of these arguments, the lower-ranking man switches to you when he formally demands that the other ‘justify’ his accusation. In the other, another deponent quotes the man of lower status as saying you, though whether this would then express irony, or suggest that the lower commoner was more emotionally restrained, is unclear. In a dialogue between a father and a son (either gentry or upper commoners), the son gives you to the father, but receives thou (36): (36) [...] Father, I am sure I am bewitched by the Chattox, Anne Chattox, and Anne Redferne her daughter, I pray you cause them to bee layed in Lancaster Castle: Whereunto this Examinates Father answe red, Thou art a foolish Ladde, it is not so, it is thy miscarriage. (The Wonderfvll Discoverie of Witches in the Covntie of Lancaster, 1613, O2r)

This seems to reflect the predicted pronoun exchange between a father and son. Nevertheless, we cannot rule out that as the father is talking down to the son here, thou might not be the pronoun found in a more neutral context. Eight dialogues are between those of unknown relative rank. In all cases thou is used when expressing strong negative emotion, including extremely abusive dialogues, whereas you is used in neutral and formal contexts, but also to express sarcasm (37): (37)

u [...] I thanke yo Kemp for yo r knavery, when I was at London thow didst send a Bum baylyff to my wife / (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1600–1602. MS 21M65/C3/11: 449)

This is almost identical in tone, phrasing, and pronoun shift, to (10a) above (6.4.2.1), suggesting I thank you for your X is a set phrase (see Chapter 8, subsection 8.3.5). In two dialogues, speakers again use formal you when referring to


‘justification’ and ‘bearing witness’, which relates to litigation; in the following example this necessitates a pronoun switch (38): (38)

[...] Art thow an honest man? who hath thow hast reported that thow hast carnally vsed & knowen the body of mistres oglander as her self {commonly as} her husband did […] u I will iustify it that soe yo reported vnto me / (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1600–1602. MS 21M65/C3/11: 400–401)

In this dialogue, the use of thou, expressing contempt, is further encouraged by the youth of the addressee, who is also probably of lower rank than the speaker. Despite all these factors, the reference to legal ‘justification’ apparently still has the power to motivate you.

6.4.3.3 Dialogues between women and men There are 73 pronouns used in 22 dialogues between women and men in the period 1600–1639. Thou accounts for 67 per cent of the pronouns (49x): there are 11 thou dialogues, six you dialogues and four mixed dialogues. There is also one dialogue where the deponents disagree on the pronoun used. There are only three dialogues between men and women of equal rank, of which one involves pronoun exchange. A fairly typical instance of abuse using thou is shown in (39); in this case a female upper commoner insults a male upper commoner: (39)

[...] Thow keepest a whore in thy howse, where is the whore thou keepest in thy howse therevpon the saied Okeshott of her demanded u of her saieng whome doe yo meane, and thereto the saied Phillice answered & saied marrie I meane Grace Strugnell thy whore whome thou keepest in thy howse, and she is thy whore (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1600–1602. MS 21M65/C3/11: 446)

In the circumstances, the man’s use of you in response seems rather restrained, suggesting an indignant but calm refusal to sink to her level; he instead calls a tanner at work nearby to bear witness to the slander. Two dialogues between husband and wife attest you. One relates to business, and you might be predicted as an upper commoner informs his wife about his


will. In the other, a merchant mildly rebukes his wife for consulting a priest rather than himself, on an unspecified topic, after a wedding supper. You is likely to be the pronoun normally exchanged, encouraged by the serious tone of the dialogue, but also the public forum. There are six dialogues in which lower commoners, all young female servants, are addressed by two gentlemen. The younger gentleman uses thou, which seems motivated by rank; the tone is friendly: “How now, Jaine Barcroft, what can thou saie?” (Longstaffe ed., The Acts of the High Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham, 1858: 87). The old gentleman uses you in two dialogues, and thou in two other dialogues (in one further case different pronouns are reported by two deponents). In all cases, which occur during a church service, this man is clearly talking down to the women, in a teasing, but actually rather offensive, manner (see (40a) and (40b)): (40) a. “Yow are a taverene wench, I maie come to be acquainted with yow.” (Longstaffe ed., The Acts of the High Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham, 1858: 89). b. […] Richardsonn stoode by and wished her to speake upp, saieinge, “Thou canst speake at home, I’le warrant the,” (Longstaffe ed., The Acts of the High Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham, 1858: 90).

The use of you seems heavily ironic here given the superior power of the speaker in terms of sex, age, and rank; the use of thou in such a context is not remarkable. Lower ranks address higher ranks in two dialogues: thou is used in anger by women addressing men. A young commoner curses a priest, and an old lower commoner says defiantly “I care not for thee, hang thy selfe” (The Wonderfvll Discoverie of Witches in the Covntie of Lancaster, 1613, B3r) after an upper commoner has threatened her for trespassing. There are 11 dialogues in which relative rank of speaker and addressee is unclear. In five of these dialogues, thou is used, by both sexes, in angry and abusive speeches, including when a young female commoner curses an old male upper commoner. In contrast, a young commoner uses thou, probably to express affection, when addressing his fiancée. Further, while you is used by men in two dialogues when talking of ‘justifying’ a slander, the two women thus addressed use thou, expressing negative emotion. You is also found in two dialogues in an unemotional context: in both cases, it is likely that the addressee is of slightly higher rank, which might also encourage the use of you. Finally, a male com-


moner (William Bates) is abusive to a female commoner (Joane Day), and uses thou. However, he switches to you, when making an extremely offensive comment in answer to the woman’s apparently respectful address to another man, as follows (41): (41)

[...] goodman Marshall coming into the boate she the said Ioane Bates [= Day] said to him goodman Marshall said take heed least you fall! / then the said Bates answered r & said / ffall? whether into yo / Cunt / (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1631–1632. MS 21M65/C3/12: 127)

One would expect Bates to continue to use thou here, but it may be that Bates is mocking Day’s use of you to the other man.

6.4.3.4 Summary of pronoun usage in Depositions 1600–1639 In this period there are certain gaps in the data: there is no information concerning usage in regions other than present-day ‘thou-regions’. Furthermore, owing partly to a predominance of male speakers, there is no clear evidence of differences in pronoun usage due to the sex of the speaker and addressee. Moreover, there are no dialogues involving children, or between lower commoners. With regard to the age parameter, youths give and receive both thou and you; there does not seem to be any clear evidence that age determines pronoun usage. Other factors, such as rank, emotion and formality are present in dialogues involving youths; thus even where youths give their elders you, but receive thou as predicted by the hypothesis, there is always at least one other parameter encouraging this usage. Regarding rank, there are few dialogues in which lower commoners address the ranks above them; however, you is used in the one dialogue with a neutral context, as might be predicted, and also in a formal context, whereas thou in anger occurs twice. Upper commoners are largely represented by men, who use you in formal dialogues relating to business, and in a more neutral dialogue. Both a woman and a man from this group also use thou when expressing strong negative emotion. In the three dialogues in which male upper commoners address male professionals, you is used, even though two of these speeches are rather disrespectful. Non-commoners are also represented almost entirely by male speakers, who use you to other non-commoners (although certain deponents report thou used in one angry speech) to express anger, and in formal and informal, or neutral, contexts. The gentry address female commoners using thou (but also you to


express irony); professionals, on the other hand, only address male commoners as thou in one angry exchange, and use you in two less emotive contexts. In dialogues between those of unknown relative rank, the pronoun usage appears largely dictated by strong negative emotion or formal context, insofar as conclusions can be reached without being certain of relative rank. In sum, as in period 1, rank, emotion, and formality play a role in pronoun usage. In the few dialogues not dominated by strong emotion or spoken in a formal context, there is some evidence to suggest that usage is as previous research would predict. Non-commoners exchange you, the gentry address commoners as thou, and commoners address non-commoners as you. Certain dialogues also indicate that formality might have a stronger influence on pronoun usage than speaker emotion, even when other motivating factors are present to support the influence of the latter. However, this is perhaps not the case if the speaker is very angry.

6.4.4 Pronoun usage in the period 1640–1679 In this period there are 153 second person singular pronouns, in a total of 74 dialogues, of which only three include pronoun exchange. The so-called presentday ‘thou-regions’ are represented by a Deposition collection from the Northeast, with 41 dialogues, while the South-east, where thou is not found today, is represented by three collections, with 33 dialogues. The North-east accounts for 96 per cent of all thou forms attested in this period, seeming to suggest that the predicted decline of thou is reflected in the south-eastern Depositions.

6.4.4.1 Dialogues between women There are 12 dialogues between women: six thou dialogues and six you dialogues. Lower commoners exchange you in one dialogue, which is illustrated in (42): (42)

[...] this Informant saied to the said Susan haue a care or els you will sett the barne on a fire: And the said Susan replyed if I doe what is that to you, goe about {goe} your bussines: (Essex Record Office, Colchester. Borough of Colchester Informations, 1647–1675. MS D/B5/Sb2/9, deponent Katheryne Perry)

Here, an older servant addresses a servant in her twenties in what appears to be a fairly neutral, though slightly bossy, tone. The other then replies sharply, but nevertheless uses you. One might have predicted thou here between fellow servants, especially in the rude response, but you might be meant as cold and distancing. Another dialogue attests a use of you similar to that of the first speaker in (42),


again when a servant addresses another. Both these dialogues are from the Southeast (Essex); all others between women are from the North-east. An old upper commoner uses thou to address her adult niece of the same rank, in four different dialogues, ranging from threats to apologies. The niece addresses her mother using you in a more neutral tone. It seems the pronouns are here motivated by age or family relationship. A lower commoner rather grumpily addresses a young gentlewoman, who refuses to give her bread, using you: rank clearly outweighs age and emotion. An upper commoner addresses her servant as thou, while another, old, upper commoner addresses someone else’s servant as you. The lack of formality or emotion in these cases suggests that thou reflects the speaker’s power or familiarity, and you instead implies distance. Due to a lack of background information on the participants, little can be concluded from two dialogues from the North-east between commoners whose precise status, and relative status, is unknown. Thou is used in what might be a confidential tone, but you is used in an angry exchange between neighbours.

6.4.4.2 Dialogues between men There are 44 dialogues between men, which is more than half the dialogues in Depositions from period 3. The dialogues are divided fairly equally between the north-eastern Depositions and the south-eastern Depositions (20 and 24 dialogues respectively). Just under one quarter of the dialogues (10 dialogues) include thou. As with women addressing women in this period, a servant addresses another servant using you, but this may be due to the topic being work-related rather than personal (he is passing on the housekeeper’s message that the other must go home). By contrast, a servant is addressed as thou by another lower commoner who is joking about a robbery, and thou is again used when one labourer reviles another for his politics. All three dialogues are from the North-east. Upper commoners exchange you in a dialogue relating to business, in which this pronoun might be predicted. You also occurs as a man asks a fellow clothier “will you goe home” after finding him lying hurt at the roadside (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1646–1664. MS ASSI45/2/1, f. 282Ar). Within this same social network, thou is used in both an insult and a reprimand. Other upper commoners employ you twice to reprove others, but use thou in an insult. Only one dialogue between upper commoners is from the South-east, a rare example of intimate address to a man who is not a relative (43):


(43)

[…] takeing this Infor -mant by the hand, ffarewell Tewer Wade, I shall neuer see thee more, this Lewed woman Debora Nayler, will bee my death, as shee was my brother Iohnes, (Essex Record Office, Chelmsford. Essex Quarter Sessions Depositions, 1645–1656. MS Q/SBa2/60, deponent Tewer Wade)

Professionals use only you to those of the same rank, twice when conspiring against Cromwell, and once when strongly reprimanding another for disrespecting the law. A gentleman calls a Justice of the Peace dishonest, but nevertheless addresses him using you. There are no dialogues from the North-east between non-commoners, but two in which non-commoners (priests) are addressed as thou by upper commoners. In one of these dialogues (reported by the addressee), the speaker, a yeoman, switches to you as he graduates from the personal insult to political/religious rant (44): (44)

[…] burst out into these words thou prayest (speaking to this informant) in thy babilon pulpit against vs humble saints doest thou think I will pay the15 tythes to maintaine thy pride thou prayest every sonday for the vpholding the beast […] he is but an Idoll I acknowledge no outward Protector myne is heare, heare, striking him selfe wth his hand vpon his heart thyne is a devill, I acknowledge no outward law this government we are vnder to be ruled by a few covncell men and one man is tyranicall the Iustices you run to are tyrants look how it was betwene king and Parliament so you shall se it againe they fell from words to blowes and to blood and so it wilbe againe (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1646–1664. MS ASSI45/5/1, f. 79r)

By contrast, in three dialogues from the South-east in which lower ranks address higher ranks, you is found, despite the angry and abusive tone: interestingly, none of the addressees are priests. There is a greater difference in rank in one case where a lower commoner addresses a gentleman. It is hard to see any respect for rank, however, when an upper commoner addresses a Justice of the Peace “A turd in your Teeth I care not a fart for your warrant” (Essex Record Office, Chelmsford. 15. This could be interpreted as a variant spelling of thee, rather than the definite article, but I omit those forms which may not be second person singular pronouns.


Essex Quarter Sessions Depositions, 1645–1656. MS Q/SBa2/71, deponent John Fowler). Non-commoners from both regions use you to address upper commoners, in four dialogues, although the speech is negative in tone. A southern upper commoner uses an ironic you and the derogatory term ‘sirrah’ to his servant. Of 19 dialogues between men whose relative rank is unknown, only two are thou dialogues, both from the North-east. One between commoners seems spoken in a confidential manner: a prisoner asks a man “wilt thou keepe my Counsell” (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1646–1664. MS ASSI45/2/1, f. 227r). In the other, a man insults a clergyman. In the remaining dialogues, from the North-east and the South-east, you is used to discuss business, between strangers, but also in confrontations.

6.4.4.3 Dialogues between women and men There are 18 dialogues between women and men, including nine thou dialogues (with 8 of these from the North-east). In a north-eastern deposition, a female lower commoner gruffly addresses a like-ranking man as thou, while in the South-east, a male lower commoner addresses a young female servant (of another) using you when expressing annoyance. The pronoun usage seems unlikely to have anything to do with the sex of the speaker, but is possibly related to region, the latter region being an area where you replaced thou in the dialect. In two dialogues in one deposition involving commoners, illustrated in (45), a youth uses you to his old mother, but later receives thou from her. Although the woman’s tone is sharp, her son’s speech is neither formal nor emotional. This might reflect the predicted pronoun usage between mother and son, with the mother as the superior in the relationship: (45)

[…] and asked him if he would goe home with her, he answered mother wch way Shall I goe yow know I can goe thorrow the stone wall if yow would haue me, and farther said that Either his father or the diuell came to their house, and tooke up the iron tongues and Stroake upon the iron range and said that the thing which soe came to their house range soe all times of the night to which the sd Gennet Benton his mother said Villaine did it euer doe the any hurt it will doe soe at the noone time of the day (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1646–1664. MS ASSI45/5/3, f. 10r)


A gentlewoman addresses a gentleman using you, although she is reprimanding him for supporting bloodshed (46): (46) then she told ^{him} you haue blood in your hearte, & ^{I thinke you} would be one of the first that ^ will {would} haue a ha^{n}d in it: (Essex Record Office, Colchester. Borough of Colchester Informations, 1647–1675. MS D/B5/Sb2/9, deponent Elizabeth Jenison. Lineation of MS not followed here.)

A gentleman from the South-east uses an intimate thou to his servant (whom he has seduced), while a clergyman protests to a female upper commoner using you after she refuses his sexual advances (“fye ffye why will you not” Essex Record Office, Chelmsford. Essex Quarter Sessions Depositions, 1645–1656. MS Q/SBa2/80, deponent Mary Playle). In all three dialogues, the pronoun usage of non-commoners is similar to that noted in earlier periods. In the North-east, a woman uses you to a man (both may be either non-commmoners or upper commoners) in a tone seeming to imply distance. Ten dialogues are between commoners of unknown relative status. In the North-east, a man uses what might be a respectful you to a possibly higherranking female commoner, and a woman uses thou to a neighbour. Both a man and two women use you in anger (with one woman threatening violence) in the South-east, while in the North-east a man twice (also threatening violence), and a woman once, uses thou in anger. The participants in these latter two dialogues are close (ex-lover to pregnant woman, and daughter to father), unlike in the south-eastern dialogues. The ex-lover uses thou again when trying to wheedle his way back into the woman’s affections: his usage possibly expresses negative and (feigned) positive emotion respectively, or is the pronoun they might normally exchange. An old man uses thou when he thanks a young woman: this may be motivated by age, the positive attitude of the speaker, or both. Information about relative rank is needed to more fully account for the pronoun usage in these examples.

6.4.4.4 Summary of pronoun usage in Depositions 1640–1679 Neither the sex parameter nor the age parameter appears to greatly influence pronoun usage in cases where comparisons between the sexes are possible or cases where relative age is known. There are only four dialogues in which thou is used to address a youth, or you used when addressing an older person (in which the pronoun used is also encouraged by other factors). Moreover, there are three dialogues where the reverse is true. Elsewhere, in north-eastern dialogues, family relationship rather than age per se could be a motivating factor: in dialogues involving mother and son, mother and daughter, and aunt and niece, thou is used


by the older, while they receive you. However, thou in these cases might actually be motivated by negative emotion, which is true of a further case in which a daughter scolds her father. Regarding rank, pronoun usage by lower commoners includes thou used twice in the North-east to express negative emotion, and to address a friend. But servants use you to other servants in both the North-east and the South-east. In three dialogues, lower commoners of both sexes, despite their negative feeling, use you to higher ranks. Usage amongst upper commoners from the North-east is exemplified in dialogues between female family members (discussed above), and between men. Male upper commoners use thou when expressing strong emotion (including two men from the South-east), but not in less emotional contexts. When professionals are addressed, in anger, you occurs in the South-east, but thou occurs in the North-east. Both thou and you are used to address servants. Non-commoners, men and one woman, use you amongst each other, when discussing business or expressing negative feeling. Both gentlemen and professional men address lower-ranking men as you despite a negative tone; thou is only used in an affectionate way to a maid, in the South-east. In sum, as in earlier periods, there seem to be differences influenced by rank. There are examples of lower commoners using thou to each other when there is only an element of negative emotion, while upper commoners use thou only when expressing strong emotion. Non-commoners use you to each other, even when seeming angry. In address to higher ranks, you is used a little more than thou despite the speaker’s anger. However, there is not much evidence of higher ranks using thou to the lower. Unlike in previous periods, pronoun usage does seem to be influenced by region; in the present-day ‘you-region’, the South-east, thou occurs in only two dialogues, when expressing intimacy. Thou is found in the North-east, the present-day ‘thou-region’, in quite a few dialogues, and in a range of contexts, where you is used in the South-east.

6.4.5 Pronoun usage in the period 1680–1719 The Depositions of this period attest 122 pronouns, in 40 dialogues. Although 33 dialogues are from present-day ‘thou-regions’ (the North-east, the North-west and the South-west), in all there are 24 you dialogues compared with 11 thou dialogues (plus 4 mixed dialogues, and one dialogue in which different deponents report different pronouns). This may reflect a decline in the use of thou extending to Depositions from those regions where thou may still occur in the regional dialect today.


6.4.5.1 Dialogues between women There are only six dialogues between women in this period, from present-day ‘thou-regions’; three of these involve pronoun exchange. Two lower commoners exchange thou when arguing, as illustrated in (47): (47) And further saith, That she did hear the said Mary Trembles to say unto the said Susanna Edwards; O thou Rogue, I will now confess all: For ’tis thou that hast made me to be a Witch, and thou art one thy self, and my Conscience must swear it. Unto which the said Susanna replied unto the said Mary Trembles, I did not think that thou wouldest have been such a Rogue to discover it. (A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against Three Witches, 1682: 31)

These two old paupers from Bideford, Devon have been in close association with one another; negative emotion, rank, intimacy, and region might all encourage thou. But two other lower commoners, from Lancashire, who live together, are reported as exchanging you (48): (48)

[...] ye sd Child was broyling in ye fire, soe this Informt and some others wth him did aske ye sd Jane Linesey what she had done wth ye sd Child and she replyed she could not ^{tell} what was become of it, Yes says ye Mothr w w e fire, What says y can tell what is become of it for y put it into y w e w Iane Linesey will y hang me, Nay says y Mother I will not hang y , w e e e for y know says y Mother when I came out of y swound I saw y Child burning in ye fire, (National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1696–1715. MS PL27/2, deponent Edmond Calvert)

The presence of the deponent, a male upper commoner, and others, might have influenced the women to exchange the less familiar pronoun: the mother of the dead child deposes thou being used by the other woman when these two women are alone. In both dialogues the tone is antagonistic. As always, it cannot be ruled out that either deponent may be mis-reporting the pronoun used. In another case of infanticide, in the North-east, a midwife, who may be an upper commoner, or a lower commoner like the addressee, switches from you to thou. She first addresses her in a peremptory tone “you have borne a Child, where is the Child” but upon being shown the dead body hidden amongst the straw, she switches to what seems to be the emotionally-loaded thou: “why did thou murder this Child” (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1680–1699. MS ASSI45/17/2, f. 138r).


An upper commoner from the North-east addresses a lower commoner, a neighbour, as you, in a neutral tone, but in a dialogue between a gentlewoman and a pauper in Devon, the great difference in rank seems to dictate the pronoun used (49): (49)

[...] this Informant was going up the High Street of Biddiford, where this Informant met with Temperance Lloyd of Biddiford aforesaid Widow, and she the said Temperance did then and there fall down on her Knees to this Informant, and wept, (saying) Mrs. Grace, I am glad to see you so strong again. Upon which this Informant said, Why dost thou weep for me? Unto which the said Temperance replied, I weep for Joy to see you so well again, as the said Temperance then pretended. (A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against Three Witches, 1682: 7–8)

6.4.5.2 Dialogues between men There are 25 dialogues between men, including six thou dialogues, and two mixed dialogues. Pronoun exchange is found in as many as six dialogues, primarily among the upper ranks. Lower commoners address each other in only one Lancashire deposition. One man uses you to rebuke a man he is travelling with, but uses thou in an affectionate, intimate tone to a friend. Upper commoners are similarly underrepresented when addressing each other. In two dialogues you is used; in a threat, and when discussing politics (in Oxford, within a present-day ‘you-region’, and the North-east respectively). Non-commoners also address each other as you, in seven of eight dialogues. A man addresses a mortally wounded stranger: “Sr whats the Matter with you” (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1680–1699. MS ASSI45/15/3, f. 42v). In two north-western dialogues, one gentleman addresses another as you before a fight, but as thou when he angrily threatens to stab the other gentleman. The remaining dialogues (from the North-east, North-west and Oxford) are angry or confrontational, but only you occurs, as in (50), between an enraged Scottish earl and a gentleman who mocks him: (50)

[…] Egglington rose from his seate & tooke ye box in his hand & said God dam you I will have the moneys I have won & offred to strike him r but did not, wherevpon Maddox laughed, & said yo Lordshipp may


make me do anythinge, (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1680–1699. MS ASSI45/13/1, f. 78r).

The earl continues to address Maddox in the same manner, using you, and finally kills him with his sword. Men of unequal rank address each other as you. As none of the dialogues, from the North-east, are emotional, this is not surprising. A lower commoner addresses an upper commoner when talking politics, while a lower commoner challenges a gentleman to hand over money. A lower commoner lodging with an upper commoner gives and receives you in a calm discussion about the latter’s grievances against the King, and a doctor uses a patronising tone to a commoner. But you is also used in an angry exchange in Oxford between a major and a young ironmonger’s son during a riot (51): (51)

[...] he saw the Major of the Regiment take up a Stone, and brake the Windows with it; upon which this Informant said, Sir, I will take a Note of your Name; whereupon the Major drew his Sword, and ran after this Infor mant, and said, Damn you, will you take Notice of Names? (The Several Depositions Concerning the Late Riot in Oxford, 1716: 6)

Thou would have been the more likely pronoun of address by the major, at least in earlier periods. The motivation for pronoun usage is less clear, or even impossible to determine in eight dialogues between those of unknown relative rank. In the Northeast, thou is used by a gentleman to someone of possibly lower rank in what seems to be a mocking or affectionate tone “here honest Paul here is thy old masters health”, but then he switches to you (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1680–1699. MS ASSI45/16/3, f. 73r). From the same region are two dialogues concerning politics between commoners whose relative rank is unclear (52), one of which involves pronoun exchange: (52)

[...] the said William Robinson said to the said Iohn Howden did you drinke the Kings Health, for you weare an Oliver souldier, Iohn Howden Replied, I served Oliver no longer than he lived, they say in our Towne that the Duke of Monmouth is taken, and they say they’l hang him, but I say by the Lawes of Armes they Cannot hang him […] If thy father


had left the an Estate and thy Unckle should seek to wrong the of it thou would fight for it, wouldst thou not? […] one Richard Parke being by said yes, or else thou would sue for it (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1680–1699. MS ASSI45/14/2, f. 64r).

As the level of emotion is also unclear, any interpretation would be pure speculation. However, in Lancashire, a commoner is addressed as thou by the man he has injured, and by two other commoners. The tone is one of strong negative emotion (e.g. “see thee Rogue see thee Rogue look here thou hast Blinded mee” National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1696–1715. MS PL27/2, deponent Thomas Walmsley). By contrast, in Oxford, you is used in anger by a lower commoner cursing another man. In the Northeast, you is used by an upper commoner to address someone who is possibly of higher rank, when conspiring to influence a jury.

6.4.5.3 Dialogues between women and men There are nine dialogues between men and women: two include pronoun exchange. Thou is used in three dialogues, while pronoun usage in a fourth dialogue is reported differently by two deponents. Upper commoners are represented in three dialogues. In the North-east, a woman uses you indignantly when refusing to inform on her brother. A male rioter swears angrily at a woman, yet uses you: “God damn you for an old Bitch”, and strikes her, after she has entreated him not to smash her windows (The Several Depositions Concerning the Late Riot in Oxford, 1716: 14). In an angry exchange from the North-east, pronoun usage is unclear: one deponent reports thou, while another reports you. Higher ranks address lower ranks as you in two dialogues: perhaps unexpectedly when an army major curses an old female upper commoner, but not when an upper commoner, or possibly a non-commoner, formally advises a female lower commoner. Thou is exchanged between a male upper commoner and an old beggar-woman, in (53): (53)

[…] whereupon this Informant did say unto her, Thou Devil, thou art now tormenting some person or other. Whereupon the said Susanna was displeased with this Informant, and said, Well enough, I will fit thee. (A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against Three Witches, 1682: 33)


In this exchange (also quoted in 6.4.1), the tone is obviously negative, as one accuses and the other threatens, which encourages thou, but the use of thou by a lower commoner to a higher rank is rare in the Depositions as a whole. As the man is also the deponent, it is possible he is consciously mis-reporting; his wife conveniently reports exactly the same words. There are three further dialogues, involving commoners, but in which relative rank is unknown. The tone appears to be fairly neutral as regards formality and emotion. You is used by a woman telling a male neighbour news about another neighbour’s health. There may be a note of condescension intended when a female lower commoner is addressed as ‘Bes’, and thou, by a man of possibly higher rank, and when a young female upper commoner addresses a male child of possibly lower rank as thou.

6.4.5.4 Summary of pronoun usage in Depositions 1680–1719 Differences due to the sex of the speaker and addressee are not discernible: all but one female participant are commoners, especially lower commoners, whereas men are represented by all ranks. Relative age is rarely known, but might play a role when a (male) child is addressed as thou. For the rank parameter, the data on usage among lower commoners is only from the so-called present-day ‘thou-regions’. Both thou and you occur between women, involving negative emotion (dialogues between male lower commoners are only represented in one deposition). Upper commoners use only you to each other in four dialogues (excluding the dialogue where different deponents report different pronouns): you is used in anger in the South, but in more neutral contexts in the North. Male non-commoners show a tendency to use you to each other, often in dialogues involving negative emotion, although thou is found once in such a context. Those of unequal rank give, receive, or exchange you, in both angry and more emotionally neutral contexts, in all but two dialogues from the South-west. In these two cases thou is used to address lower commoners, which would have been predicted in earlier periods, but one of these lower commoners also responds with thou. The few dialogues from the South are all negative and often angry in tone – hardly surprising as the Depositions pertain to a riot – yet thou does not occur. In contrast to the South, the few south-western dialogues attest almost only thou, with usage (with one exception) reflecting that of earlier periods. Most of the dialogues are from the North, where thou still occurs in the dialect today: nevertheless, there seem to be indications of an increase in these Depositions in the use of you – to address the lower ranks, and in anger (even among the lower ranks) – at the expense of thou in this period.


6.4.6 Pronoun usage in the period 1720–1760 In period 5 there are 258 second person singular pronouns, in 58 dialogues, of which 46 are you dialogues. Although thou accounts for 21 per cent of pronouns, there are only five thou dialogues (excluding one dialogue in which deponents disagree on the pronoun used) and six mixed dialogues. Two Deposition collections from present-day ‘thou-regions’ (the North-east and North-west) account for 31 dialogues, which is more than half of the dialogues. There are two collections from places where thou does not occur today (Henley, in Oxfordshire, and London).

6.4.6.1 Dialogues between women Women address women in 18 dialogues, of which 13 come from one Deposition collection relating to a case of poisoning, from Henley. In this collection, only you is used between women. A young chamber-maid addresses an old charwoman “Dame, You had as well Eat this Watergruel wch my Master has left” (National Archives, London. Henley upon Thames, Oxon Sessions Examinations: Rex v Mary Blandy, 1751. MS TS 11/864, deponent Anne Emmett). As their relative rank is the same, a certain respect for the charwoman as a senior might influence pronoun usage here (also suggested by the use of the address term ‘dame’). However, the use of you here might simply reflect the pronoun usually exchanged by servants. Twelve dialogues from the Henley collection attest you as the pronoun of exchange between the young servants and their 32-year-old mistress, a lawyer’s spinster daughter, in this household. The unequal rank seems indicated not by the pronoun but by the use of vocatives: the mistress addresses the servants by their first names (including ‘Betty’ for Elizabeth), but she is addressed as ‘Madam’ or ‘Miss Blandy’. In two dialogues which relate to another poisoning case, an upper commoner addresses another, her neighbour Ann: “Nanny this is certain a very wicked Action if you are sure He (meaning her Husband) did it” (National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1758–1760. MS PL27/3, deponent Ellen Noblet). The use of the nickname seems to imply a certain intimacy, but only when Ann addresses her sister is thou used, in an intimate confidential tone: “O Catherine I have something to tell thee” (National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1758–1760. MS PL27/3, deponent Catherine Hoghton). In three dialogues, lower commoners are addressed by women who are either upper or lower commoners. Thou occurs when expressing strong negative emotion to a youth: “Alice thou wicked Iade thou has hang’d thy Child [...]” (National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1727–1746.


MS PL27/2, deponent Isabell Rossall). As the speaker is older this may also encourage thou. In a dialogue from the North-east, you occurs in a bossy and dismissive tone. Lastly, in (54), both thou and you are used to address a lower commoner, who uses you: (54)

[...] this Examt advised her to sell the said Goods she this Examt believeing that she Ann Carleton had comed honestly by them but the said Ann Carleton refused her advice to sell the said Goods and said no I will not sell them I will give them to you mean :ing this Examinant for tariing all night I shall be Crossing this way meaning I shall be comeing this way whereupon this Examt said to her Ann Carleton I will not have them I will lye them by for thee (meaning Ann Carleton) you may take them when you Cross and when you please (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1724–1758. MS ASSI45/22/1, deponent Isabell Marshall)

Marshall puts the blame for a robbery on the lower commoner Carleton, in answer to Carleton’s accusation that Marshall sent her to steal the goods. Marshall might quote you to imply distance (she denies that she knew Carleton), with thou possibly indicating that she is doing a personal favour for Carleton in offering to store the goods. Marshall’s testimony is obviously biased against Carleton, and thus pronoun usage also may be inaccurately reported.

6.4.6.2 Dialogues between men There are 16 dialogues between men, including three thou dialogues. In another dialogue thou is exchanged, but one deponent quotes you used by one of the speakers. The dialogues are mostly from the North-east (9 dialogues), the region in which the thou dialogues occur, or the North-west (5 dialogues). There are only two dialogues from the South (Henley). The rank of the speaker and addressee is known in eight dialogues. An upper commoner in the North-east uses you when he welcomes home his business partner. Upper commoners twice address the gentry as you: an armed robber demands money in the gentleman’s own house in the North-east, and a man tells an old gentleman “your son Daniel is a sad Dog he has stolen Deer Deer” (National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1727–1746. MS PL27/2, deponent John Harrison). A gentleman addresses his servant impatiently, using thou (55):


(55)

[...] Iohn what does thou doe with my woman; the man Answered not much sr then master pool said goe they ways & Let her and me talk it over (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1724–1758. MS ASSI45/18/2, f. 47r).

Professionals, exchange you, in anger and contempt respectively (56): (56)

Iackson then said By God Major you are a Damned scoundred and that the Major replyed why Iackson I am surprized you should resent it for on my word I meant it in Ioke, but why did you ask me out and then Complain that you had no sword, that was the reason I gave you two or three strokes with my Cane but I take you Iackson to be a Meer puff for you have got a way of Challenging every acquaintance you have – says that Iackson then say’d it was a Damn’d lye (National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1758–1760. MS PL27/3, deponent John Smith).

The major then addresses a gentleman as you in a neutral or possibly formal tone: “say’d to this Deponent you’l give me my sword again and that if said Iackson would take no further notce of it ^{the Dispute} he shod not” (National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1758–1760. MS PL27/3, deponent James Parker). In Henley, an army officer addresses other professionals as you: he tells a doctor that his patient is an alcoholic, and accuses an old lawyer of entering his bedroom at night: “Ah Sir, did you think to frighten me [...] if you did you are Mistaken” (National Archives, London. Henley upon Thames, Oxon Sessions Examinations: Rex v Mary Blandy, 1751. MS TS 11/864, deponent Elizabeth Binfield; further examination). The tone of the dialogues seems off-hand and cold respectively, encouraging the use of you. Commoners whose precise rank is unknown exchange thou in anger in two dialogues, for example, “Dam the then be quiet [...] Dam thy self thou can not Dam me”, although in this case one of the three deponents who cite pronoun usage reports you used by the defendant (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1724–1758. MS ASSI45/26/1, deponent John Hardaker). Thou occurs again when an upper commoner cautions his possibly lower-ranking neighbour who is drunk. Otherwise, you is used between those of unknown relative rank. In the North-west, commoners use you to relative strangers. In the North-east, three dialogues are between people who are friends or neighbours, who may be commoners or non-commoners. In two dialogues the speaker is angry, in the other, concerned: “I hope I have not hurt you ^{Nedd}”


(National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1724–1758. MS ASSI45/26/2, deponent Elizabeth Hall).

6.4.6.3 Dialogues between women and men There are 24 dialogues between men and women in period 5. All dialogues include you, but five dialogues involve pronoun exchange in which you is used by one speaker and thou by the other. Four dialogues are between spouses, and two between father and daughter. Upper commoners address each other in four dialogues. An adult man and an older woman exchange you, when discussing business, in two London dialogues. In a dialogue between spouses (57), the superior power of the husband seems to determine pronoun usage (the wife addresses her husband as you, yet in a dialogue mentioned in 6.4.6.1, she addresses her sister, Catherine, as thou): (57)

that upon her coming again her Husband was supping his own Meat, and there were two Cups with Meat or porridge, that she the deceas’d was for Choosing the lesser of those two and her Husband said; if thou sups those thou will not sup the other of at after, set them down and take the other first, the deceas’d took, she said, the other Cup and upon tasting she Complain’d […] her Husband said she shou’d not, took the Cup from her, put the meat somewhere and washt the Cup in Clean Water, that her Husband left her and she sent for him back again, and said, must I never see my sister again, O Neddy You have put something in my porridge, (National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1758–1760. MS PL27/3, deponent Catherine Hoghton. Lineation of MS not followed here.)

Another wife uses thou when abusing her husband: “Thou Whoremaster Rogue where hast thou been”. The husband uses you: “I haue been about my business what is that to you” (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1724–1758. MS ASSI45/22/1, deponent Elkanah Smith). The wife is clearly angry (she attacks her husband with a knife), while the husband seems more controlled and claims he tried to calm his drunken spouse. However, it may be of some relevance that the deponent reporting the dialogue is a male colleague of the husband. Non-commoners (professionals) addressing one another are mainly represented by family members. A wife uses you when discussing business with her husband in a dialogue from the North-east. Two dialogues between Mr Blandy, a lawyer, and his daughter are reported from Henley. The adult daughter addresses her old father respectfully, using you and ‘Sir’ when offering to nurse him, and he replies using you and ‘my dear’ as he firmly orders her to bed. In (58), a more


emotional dialogue, the father uses thou, but receives a deferential you from the daughter, who is accused of poisoning him, and is pleading for forgiveness. The pronoun usage reflects the superior power of the father, but is also a show of fatherly tenderness. He first uses you, as in the previous dialogue, before switching to the more intimate thou (although there is a single occurrence of you by the father in this latter part of the dialogue). (58)

Miss Blandy came into her Fathers Chamber, she said to him, Pappa, how do you do now? Mr Blandy replyed very ill; whereupon Miss Blandy fell on her Knees, and said to her ffather, Dear Sir, banish me to any remote part of the world, or do whatever you please with me, so that you do but pardon me, and forgive me, And as to Mr Cranstoun, I will never see, speak, or write to him, any more, if that will satisfye you. Upon this Mr Blandy replyed, I freely forgive you, and hope God will forgive you; and then said, My Dear, thee should’st have Considered that I was thine own ffather, Miss Blandy then replyed, as to your illness Sir, I am Innocent, [...] Mr Blandy cryed out, Oh that Villain that hath eat of the best and drank of the best that my House could Afford, to take away my life, and ruin my Daughter; and that then he said to his Daughter, Oh, my Dear, thee must hate that Man, thee must hate the Ground he goes on, and this Dept further saith, that Miss Blandy then said to her ffather, Dear Sir, your kindness to me, is like Swords to my Heart, and much worse, than if you were ever so angry with me; I must down on my Knees, and beg you not to curse me, And that then Mr Blandy replyed, I curse thee, my Dear; why shod you think I shod curse thee, No I bless thee, and hope God will bless thee, and mend thy life; so do my Dear, go out of the Room, and say no more, least thee should’st say any thing, that might hurt thy self; and go to thy Uncle Stevens, and take him for thy ffriend [...] (National Archives, London. Henley upon Thames, Oxon Sessions Examinations: Rex v Mary Blandy, 1751. MS TS 11/864, deponent Susannah Gunnell. Lineation of MS not followed here.)

Miss Blandy and a doctor exchange you, a certain formality or politeness is implied by the respective vocatives used: she pleads innocence regarding the poisoning of her father: “do you think Doctor I cou’d be concerned in any such thing? No Madam, sd this Examt how can you imagine I could harbour any such thought of you [...]” (National Archives, London. Henley upon Thames, Oxon Sessions Examinations: Rex v Mary Blandy, 1751. MS TS 11/864, deponent Ben Norton). Even in this period, higher ranks can be found using thou to their social inferiors, who only give you. However, thou seems only to occur when the tone is emotional or intimate. Although an upper commoner addresses his servant as you in a friendly tone, in an exchange between a gentleman and a commoner,


pronoun usage seems to reflect the gentleman’s negative feeling and his superior rank (59): (59)

[…] then pool said thou shall never goe to sessions nor Assizes more against me and said I told the when I used the in the shop I should meet with the at one time or other, & then tripped up her heels; she then Cryed out & he pulled out of his pockett Either a wallet or a napkin & stopped in her mouth; and then did Enter her body and did Ravish her though she made ye utmost Resistance to hinder him and then gott up and put on his hatt & wigg, this Examinant said where ever you goe I will follow you if you goe to Elland I will goe with you or where Ever you goe I will goe & shew how you abused me, (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1724–1758. MS ASSI45/18/2, deponent Elizabeth Benton).

Not surprisingly, a lawyer addresses commoners as you when discussing business: he advises his old client, and instructs his client’s young daughter, but also uses you when cursing the girl “Damn you for a fool” (National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1724–1758. MS ASSI45/26/2, deponent Mary Jack). The old lawyer, Mr Blandy, replies to his chambermaid using thou after she has warned him against his daughter: “dost thee know where she had the powders?”, which perhaps reflects the confidential, personal nature of the subject matter (National Archives, London. Henley upon Thames, Oxon Sessions Examinations: Rex v Mary Blandy, 1751. MS TS 11/864, deponent Susannah Gunnell). He uses a more neutral you to address the maid in another dialogue. The maid twice addresses him, as expected, with a deferential ‘Sir’ and you. The two maids give you to Mr Blandy’s young live-in clerk (a professional), the chambermaid also using ‘Sir’. Six dialogues involve those of unclear relative rank, and as such are not especially informative: in the North-east, you is used in anger by friends and strangers, and in a neutral tone by husband to wife, and neighbour to neighbour. In the South, in two more formal dialogues, the lawyer’s daughter receives you from some sort of official.

6.4.6.4 Summary of pronoun usage in Depositions 1720–1760 As in earlier periods, whether there are differences due to the sex of the participants is not clear. Both pronouns are used by both husbands and wives. Only in one dialogue does the wife give you but receive thou from the husband. Moreover, there are no dialogues involving either mothers or sons to compare with the father/daughter exchange.


Where relative age is known, and the speakers are the same age, or the age difference is not great, such as when adults and youths address each other, there is no obvious effect on pronoun choice. Where the relative age is greater, this parameter may play a role, but other motivation is usually more likely, for instance, negative emotion encourages thou by an old to a young female commoner. Similarly, the father/daughter exchanges show pronouns determined by family relationship rather than age. Age may be relevant when a young maid addresses an old charwoman. In this period, a lawyer angrily cursing a young female commoner, using you, illustrates how you may be used in dialogues irrespective of the age, sex, or rank of the speaker/addressee, as well as the region, and level of emotion. You occurs in formal contexts, but also in informal or more neutral contexts among lower ranks, and by higher ranks addressing lower ranks, where thou might once have been predicted. Thou is found in dialogues by female commoners to express anger or intimacy, between male commoners to express anger or contempt, and by powerful men (due to rank, or as head of the family) to women (who use you in return), and to a male servant. Apart from two dialogues, thou only occurs in the North-east and Northwest, where the pronoun still occurs today.

6.4.7 Summary of the micro-analysis The micro-analysis has proven rank to be important in helping to determine pronoun usage in the Depositions, as was suggested by the quantitative study.16 The hypothesis that the upper ranks would exchange you is borne out by the quantitative analysis, and the qualitative analysis shows that their use of you extends to contexts, such as angry exchanges, where thou might have been expected. This usage seems established as early as period 1 (1560–1599): in every period, noncommoners use you to address one another (with the exception of two dialogues, in periods 4 and 5).17 In my data, non-commoners are represented mainly by men, women address other women of this group only in period 1.

16. Excluded from this summary regarding the influence of rank are the cases in which the exact and/or relative rank of speaker and addressee is unknown (cases which account for many of the dialogues throughout the period 1560–1760), and the dialogues concerning troth-plighting, in which formulaic thou occurs, found in Depositions 1560–1599, and thus discussed in detail in 6.4.2.3. 17. However, there are two dialogues, in periods 1 and 2, in which certain deponents report thou rather than you.


Upper commoners use thou to address each other in emotional contexts and use you in business and neutral contexts, in period 1. In periods 2 and 3, you is found in neutral contexts, and thou is used primarily when expressing strong emotion such as anger. In periods 4 and 5 there is even less data, but you is used even in anger (although one of two deponents reports thou in an angry exchange), as well as in business or neutral contexts; thou is used only between family members. In other words, the limited evidence available suggests that thou decreases in use from expressing emotion, to expressing strong emotion, until finally you is used when expressing strong emotion, and thou is restricted to use within the family. Thus the evidence would seem to show that upper commoners increasingly prefer to exchange you, in line with the ranks above them. This group includes more men than women in my material. It has been suggested that, unlike the upper ranks, the lower ranks would exchange thou, although Hope (1993: 96) argues that you was the default pronoun in Depositions as early as the late sixteenth century (see Chapter 4). Unfortunately, my data is insufficient to determine the preferred pronoun among lower commoners. In period 1, they exchange much more thou, in neutral and emotional contexts, than you. However, there is little data after this period, and this group is represented mostly by women, in contrast to the data for the higher ranks. In period 3, servants exchange you. Thou is used in two more emotional contexts, and both pronouns are used when expressing mild negative emotion. Period 4 attests lower commoners using thou when intimates express strong emotion, and using you when less emotional or more distant. What little data there is suggests that those who are socially close – family and neighbours – use thou, while you seems to imply a certain degree of formality or an element of coldness or distance. The hypothesis that higher ranks express their superiority by using thou to the lower ranks, but receive you in return found some support in the quantified results in the macro-analysis, but there was not a great deal of data, especially after period 1: this means that little can be said with regard to changes over time. Due to the small number of relevant dialogues after period 1, the evidence from the micro-analysis is hardly conclusive, but there seems to be some difference between professionals and gentry as regards pronoun exchange with social inferiors.18 The gentry give thou occasionally to upper and lower commoners, although this use of thou tends to occur when there is also a degree of emotion involved. The gentry are never addressed as thou by either group of common-

18. Note, however, that address by non-commoners to commoners primarily involves men.


ers.19 This suggests that the social divide between gentry and commoners constrains pronoun usage. Professionals give you to both groups of commoners, and also receive you: this is likely in part to reflect the formal pronoun used when conducting business. However, professionals also tend to use you when negative emotion is expressed, which could be argued to show that professionals, unlike the gentry, were not sufficiently superior in rank to employ thou with impunity. Although you is more commonly employed between clergymen and commoners, thou can be found to express anger. This perhaps suggests that clergy had a more intimate contact with their parishioners than other professions, or that the profession was not always highly regarded. The parameter of age may affect pronoun usage to some extent, at least with regard to dialogues between children and their elders. Children, all commoners, are addressed by non-family members only rarely, and primarily in period 1, and therefore it is not possible to discern patterns over time. In period 1, and once in period 4, thou is used to children of the same rank as the speaker in neutral contexts, or with a kindly tone. When parents and their sons or daughters exchange pronouns, the superior/ inferior dichotomy based on family relationship rather than age appears to be the motivating factor, one which remains constant throughout the period 1560–1760, despite the few examples (and none in period 4). Parents of all ranks represented20 tend to give thou, but receive you from their children, irrespective of sex, in dialogues which are neutral or often involve only a degree of emotion. Youths are largely represented by servants, which is hardly surprising as the majority of people went into service or apprenticeship at this age (c.14–26 years old: see Chapter 3). Often this blurs the results in that in many cases it is difficult to tell if age or rank (or social role) is the deciding factor regarding pronoun usage. In the few examples of master/servant dialogues, there is no change over time: servants give you to a master and a mistress in both periods 1 and 5. In periods 1, 3 and 5, when addressed by their employers, servants receive both you, primarily in neutral contexts, and thou, with overtones of positive or negative emotion. This suggests that status decides the servant’s pronoun usage, but mood determines which pronoun the employer uses, throughout the period 1560–1760. The quantitative study showed that in the Depositions, women use more thou than men do, which goes against the hypotheses that women would tend to prefer you as the socially ‘safer’ pronoun, and that women, considered inferior 19. The exception to this is when an upper commoner plights her troth, using formulaic thou (2x), to a gentleman. 20. The ranks represented in this regard are lower commoners, upper commoners, professionals, and those who are either gentry or upper commoners.


to men, would receive thou but give you to their ‘superiors’. However, the micro-analysis shows that this difference in pronoun usage does not result from the sex of the participants per se, but from their rank: for example, non-commoners tend to exchange you, whether they are male or female, but there are simply more dialogues by male non-commoners than by female non-commoners. To further illustrate this: in period 1, female speakers and addressees account for the great majority of dialogues between lower commoners, who tend to exchange thou. As a result, there is no discernible difference due to the sex of the speaker and addressee: however, differences might have been found if there had been more comparable examples, in which all other parameters were equal. There are a number of dialogues between husband and wife, but too few perhaps to show any clear patterns. There is certainly little evidence of a husband giving thou but receiving you from his wife: in four husband/wife exchanges, the pronouns are only used as predicted in one of two exchanges between upper commoners in period 5. In two other exchanges, in period 1, lower commoners exchange thou, while professionals exchange you, suggesting rank is the motivating factor. In six of seven dialogues with no pronoun exchange, the evidence is contrary to the hypothesis: husbands give you (periods 1, 2 and 5), and wives give thou in period 1, but you in period 5. The macro-analysis showed that the decline in thou in the seventeenth century was less marked in Depositions from regions where thou may still be found in the dialect today. The micro-analysis also pointed to some differences in pronoun usage according to region, and changes across time. In period 1, apparent regional differences (e.g. suggesting that there are more you than thou dialogues between men and women in Depositions from the South-east than in those from present-day ‘thou-regions’) were found to be due to the ranks represented in the material rather than to any regional difference in pronoun usage. However, in period 3, a regional difference was noted: the North-east accounted for the great majority of thou dialogues, while in the South-east, you was used in contexts where thou was used in the North-east. Periods 4 and 5 showed a similar pattern between the present-day ‘thou-regions’ and ‘you-regions’; thou hardly occurred at all in the latter regions. However, from period 4 onwards, you was also found in present-day ‘thou-regions’ in contexts where thou might have been predicted earlier. The types of context in which the dialogues take place remain constant throughout the period 1560–1760: the cases may vary, but the levels of emotion or formality found in the dialogues do not seem to change over time. Exchanges often involve negative emotion, especially strong negative emotion, or relate to business of some kind, but positive emotion and more ‘neutral’ dialogues are also reported. When business is being discussed, you is used, but both pronouns oc-


cur in neutral, emotional, and intimate contexts, although the rank parameter, especially, influences pronoun choice. As mentioned above, you is increasingly found in cases where negative emotion is expressed. In sum, there are a range of variables influencing pronoun usage in the Depositions. Clearly the greater the formality or distance, the more likely it is that you will occur, while a greater degree of emotion encourages the use of thou, especially in the first half of the period investigated. Except in cases of trothplighting, where thou – as formulaic – was frequently if not exclusively used, the precise topic of a dialogue was not found to be influential, but rather the degree of formality, distance, and/or emotion that was present. Region also seems to affect usage from the middle of the seventeenth century onwards, with you increasingly encroaching on thou territory even in the present-day ‘thou-regions’. There are also strong indications that rank influences the choice of pronoun, and also that children, due to their lower age or inferior position in the family hierarchy, may be addressed as thou. Little evidence was found, however, regarding the influence of the sex parameter, due to a lack of comparable examples. Further examples of dialogues are needed to establish the influence of unequal rank, and to further explore the possibility of age and sex as motivating factors in pronoun selection in Depositions. Finally, it should be reiterated that, as with the Trials genre, the intervention of the scribe should not be overlooked; the Depositions material cannot be treated as equivalent to real speech.21

21. The reliability question is discussed in Kytö and Walker (2003) as well as in Chapter 2 of this book.

chapter 7

Thou and you in Drama Comedy 1560–1760

7.1

Introduction

In this chapter, by carrying out a systematic quantitative and qualitative investigation into pronoun usage in Drama Comedy across a 200-year period, I build on the work already done on thou and you in Early Modern English Drama (see Chapter 4). As with the previous chapters, on Trials and Depositions, I examine to what extent the parameters of speaker and addressee sex, age, and rank affect pronoun usage, but also take into account other motivating factors, such as emotion, formality and social distance. The distribution of thou and you in the Drama Comedy sub-corpus, across time, and in terms of the sex, age and rank of the character speaking and the character addressed, is described and commented on in the macro-analysis. A more in-depth account of the data, in which a range of motivating factors behind pronoun usage are considered together, and trends are highlighted and exemplified, is presented in the micro-analysis. Specific to this genre is the use of aside and apostrophe, in which the addressee is out of hearing, and situations in which a character has assumed a false identity in terms of sex, age and/or rank: pronoun usage in such cases is treated separately in the micro-analysis. As described in detail in Chapter 4, there have been a great number of indepth studies of pronoun usage in Drama, focusing on a particular playwright or particular plays (e.g. Barber 1981; Brown & Gilman 1989; Calvo 1992; Busse 2002). Several studies have attempted to account for every occurrence of second person singular pronouns in the plays investigated (e.g. Byrne 1936; Johnson 1959: Chapter 4). Some of the plays sampled in my corpus (see 7.2), particularly Shakespeare’s The Merry Wiues of Windsor and Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre, have already been treated (e.g. Pfeffer 1877; Byrne 1936; Bock 1938; Johnson 1959). Three diachronic quantitative studies of thou and you in Early Modern English Drama have been done prior to this investigation (Bock 1938; Johnson 1959, 1966; Mitchell 1971). The quantitative part of the studies by Bock and Mitchell1 focuses 1. Mitchell’s analysis is relevant to the present study with regard to the use of various pronoun forms (see Chapter 8), but as she quantifies ye under ‘th forms’ (i.e. those forms she regards as


on the distribution of the different pronominal forms (ye, you, thee etc.) and their syntactic function by play and dramatist respectively. Bock’s ground-breaking qualitative analysis of pronoun usage (see Chapter 4) from what he terms the ‘social’ and ‘psychological’ perspective is not directly related to his quantification, but naturally in this chapter I compare both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of his study to mine. Johnson’s (1959) study, summarised in Johnson (1966), focuses for the main part on seventeenth-century Drama Comedy (and Fiction), in which the data is quantified according to the social ‘class’ of the speaker and addressee. Her results are thus of particular relevance with regard to the rank parameter; therefore in the macro-analysis I compare her quantitative results with my findings for this parameter.

7.2

The Drama Comedy sub-corpus

For each of the five periods, three of the five Drama Comedy texts which are sampled in A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (CED) were selected. The size of each Drama Comedy text sample in the CED is approximately 10,000 words, and those fifteen chosen for my sub-corpus consist mainly of prose.2 The texts, dated according to the date of publication rather than the date of first performance or date when first penned, are given in Table 7.1.3 (The word-counts given are for the whole of each CED text file according to Microsoft Word.) obsolete by the end of the eighteenth century, which also includes all thou forms), and also includes plural forms in her quantification, her results are not comparable to mine with regard to thou vs. you distribution. 2. Plays in my corpus which are partially in verse (for the most part blank verse) are The Old Wiues Tale by Peele (1595), The Miseries of Inforst Mariage by Wilkins (1607), and The Covntrie Girle by Brewer (1647), and to a lesser extent, A Mad Couple Well Match’d by Brome (1653). The sole example of thou which may have been motivated by rhyme was excluded. Moreover, although Busse (2002: 75) shows, with regard to the Shakespeare Corpus, that there is a higher incidence of thou forms in verse than in prose, he concludes that the choice of pronoun itself does not depend on whether a speech is in verse or prose. It is rather that verse is often used, for example, when the speech has a great deal of emotional force, which, as will be shown in this chapter, is a factor likely to promote the use of thou. Furthermore, my findings regarding the motivation for thou and you have been found to apply regardless of whether the speech is in prose or verse in the Drama Comedy sub-corpus. 3. The decision to date the texts by publication date is partly due to the fact that the plays were often rewritten and updated; thus the publication date is possibly more accurate. Also, the exact date of first performance, or when first penned, may be either unknown or in dispute (e.g. scholars cannot agree on when The Merry Wiues of Windsor was first written and per-

Chapter 7. Thou and you in Drama Comedy 1560–1760 173

Table 7.1 The Drama Comedy sub-corpus Period

Author

Title

1 1560– 1599

Publication date 1595 1595 1599

George Peele William Warner George Chapman

The Old Wiues Tale Menaecmi An Humerous Dayes Myrth

2 1600– 1639

1607 1623 1631

George Wilkins William Shakespeare Ben Jonson

The Miseries of Inforst Mariage The Merry Wiues of Windsor Bartholmew Fayre

3 1640– 1679

1647 1653 1675

Anthony Brewer Richard Brome William Wycherley

The Covntrie Girle A Mad Couple Well Match’d The Country-Wife

4 1680– 1719

1696 1707 1719

Mary Manley George Farquhar Thomas Killigrew

The Lost Lover The Beaux Stratagem Chit-Chat

5 1720– 1760

1723 1734 1757

Richard Steele James Miller David Garrick

The Conscious Lovers The Mother-in-Law The Male-Coquette

Wordcount 9,060 11,900 10,750 31,710 11,310 11,050 10,390 32,750 10,210 11,480 11,650 33,340 10,580 10,950 10,950 32,480 10,210 11,280 10,860 32,350 162,630

In this chapter I focus on trends in pronoun usage in the play samples for each period, and do not attempt to relate this usage to the play as a whole, or to other works by the playwrights represented in the sub-corpus.4 Naturally, there are differences between the plays sampled for each period regarding pronoun usage, which will be commented on further in the micro-analysis. Figure 7.1 presents the percentage of thou (in relation to you) in each of the Drama Comedy sam-

formed; dates range from 1597 to 1601). However, in most cases, the date of first performance is never more than a few years before the date of publication of my corpus texts. The exceptions to this are Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre, written and acted in 1614, 17 years before publication, Shakespeare’s The Merry Wiues of Windsor, possibly written and acted 26 years before the Folio of 1623, and Brome’s A Mad Couple Well Match’d, written between 14 and 18 years before its publication in 1653 (Spove 1979: xxxi). For The Covntrie Girle by Brewer, published in 1647, no suggested date of writing or first performance could be found. 4. There are three samples in my corpus which consist of the whole play: Peele’s The Old Wiues Tale (1595), Warner’s Menaecmi (1595), excluding the opening soliloquy, and Garrick’s The Male-Coquette (1757).


50 40 30 20

1757

1734

1723

1719

1707

1696

1675

1653

1647

1631

1623

1607

1599

1595

0

1595

10

1768

1726

1705

1704

1703

1700

1697

1696

1693

1677

1676

1675

1664

1633

1633

1614

1610

1598

1599/1600

1598

1591

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

1560

Figure 7.1 Percentage of thou (in relation to you) in the play samples in order of publication date in the Drama Comedy sub-corpus for 1560–1760

Figure 7.2 Percentage of thou (in relation to you) in the plays in Bock’s corpus for the roughly corresponding period i.e. 1560–1768 (data from Bock 1938: Appendix)

ples in my sub-corpus in chronological order, dated according to the publication date of each text (see Table 7.1 for authors/titles of each play). A not dissimilar pattern of unsteady decline in the frequency of thou across time can be seen in the corresponding data from Bock’s corpus (Bock 1938: Appendix), as shown in Figure 7.2 (see 7.3.1 for a more detailed comparison of Bock’s data with that from my sub-corpus).


Table 7.2 Thou and you in Drama Comedy 1560–1760: Raw figures and percentages Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total

thou 292 24% 319 26% 139 10% 102 9% 50 5% 902 15%

you 905 76% 902 74% 1249 90% 1082 91% 1047 95% 5185 85%

Total 1197 100% 1221 100% 1388 100% 1184 100% 1097 100% 6087 100%

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

% THOU

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 7.3 Percentage of thou (in relation to you) in Drama Comedy in the five periods (data from Table 7.2)

7.3

The macro-analysis

7.3.1 The overall distribution of thou and you in Early Modern English Drama Comedy Before I give the results regarding the sex, age, and rank parameters, the overall results regarding pronoun distribution are presented. In the Drama Comedy texts sampled there are 6,087 examples of second person singular pronouns – in which one human character addresses another human character5 – distributed as shown in Table 7.2 (and Figure 7.3). 5. Examples of a character addressing another character in letters, poems, songs, spells, prophesies and the like are omitted from the data, as the intention is to study constructed spo-


Table 7.3 Thou and you in Bock’s corpus 1560–1768: Raw figures and percentages (data from Bock 1938: Appendix) Period

thou

you

Total

1 1560–1599

819 32%

1709 68%

2528 100%

2 1600–1639

786 25%

2378 75%

3164 100%

3 1640–1679

574 14%

3477 86%

4051 100%

4 1680–1719

658 12%

4690 88%

5348 100%

5 1720–1768

71 8%

772 92%

843 100%

Total

2908 18%

13026 82%

15934 100%

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

% THOU

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 7.4 Percentage of thou (in relation to you) in Bock’s corpus in the five periods (data from Table 7.3)

The expected decline in thou usage over the 200-year period is clear, with a marked decline after 1640, and another decline after 1720. My results can be compared with those of Bock (1938) and Johnson (1959, 1966). With regard to the seventeenth century, Johnson’s study of second person singular pronouns (in Drama Comedy only, i.e. excluding the Fiction texts that she also used in her corpus) points to a steady decrease in the frequency of thou when her figures are recalculated to fit my periodisation. The figures (adapted from Johnson ken interaction in Drama Comedy that appears to give the illusion of everyday speech, rather than that which is read out, recited, sung, chanted etc.


1959: 245) are 23 per cent thou in period 2 (1600–1639), 19 per cent thou in period 3 (1640–1679), and 15 per cent thou in period 3 (but only covering the years 1680–1701).6 Thus there is not such a sharp decrease in thou between period 2 and period 3 in her data as is found in mine. The texts in Bock’s corpus are dated from 1497 to 1775/79.7 The frequency of thou in Bock’s material for 1560–1768 (see Table 7.3 and Figure 7.48) is similar to that in my data for 1560–1760. The higher percentage of thou in period 1 (32%) in Bock’s data, compared with the corresponding figure in my data (24%), is likely to be due to the inclusion by Bock of texts dated earlier than 1595 (see also Figure 7.2). Moreover, Bock’s data is based on whole plays, not samples, and his text dating criteria are different from mine. Also, Bock does not include the short form y’, or possessive pronouns and determiners in his data. These caveats notwithstanding, the similarity of Bock’s results to mine suggests that my much smaller corpus (6,087 examples, compared with Bock’s 15,934) is sufficient to reveal trends in the relative frequency of thou and you in Drama Comedy.

7.3.2 The sex parameter9 Overall, as shown in Table 7.4 (and Figure 7.5), there is a drop in thou usage by female characters after period 1 from 16 per cent to 5 per cent, after which the figure only ever increases in period 5 (but only to 8%). There is a steady decrease in thou usage from 1560 to 1760 by male characters, except in period 2, in which the percentage of thou in relation to you increases, from 26 per cent in period 6. Brome’s A Mad Couple Well Match’d, first published in 1653, which is placed in period 3 (1640–1679) in my data, is dated 1636 by Johnson, and is thus included in her figures quoted above for period 2 (1600–1639). Two other plays used by Johnson which are also sampled in my corpus are Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre (period 2) and Wycherley’s The Country-Wife (period 3). 7. Bock, like Johnson, uses unspecified criteria for dating his corpus texts: he dates The Merry Wiues of Windsor, and two other Shakespeare comedies (The Comedy of Errors, and Much Ado about Nothing) as pre-1600. As well as The Merry Wiues of Windsor, Bock’s corpus includes two other plays sampled in my corpus: Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre and Wycherley’s The CountryWife. 8. Bock’s data includes only one play, dated 1726, for the period 1720–1760; therefore a play from 1768 has been added to represent the end of the period under investigation, while a text dated 1599/1600 in Bock’s corpus was omitted from Table 7.3 and Figure 7.4. 9. The tables and figures relating to the sex parameter exclude 269 examples of you involving speakers and/or addressees disguised as members of the opposite sex (118 in period 3, and 151 in period 5).


Table 7.4 Thou and you in Drama Comedy 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker: Raw figures and percentages Period

thou 260 26% 308 30% 123 16% 76 12% 12 2% 779 20%

1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total

Male

you 731 74% 710 70% 632 84% 545 88% 482 98% 3100 80%

thou 32 16% 11 5% 16 3% 26 5% 38 8% 123 6%

Female

you 174 84% 192 95% 499 97% 537 95% 414 92% 1816 94%

100 80 60

Male

40

Female

20 0 1

2

3

4

5

Figure 7.5 Percentage of thou (in relation to you) according to sex of speaker in Drama Comedy in the five 40-year periods (data from Table 7.4)

1, to 30 per cent (see Table 7.4). This increase is accounted for by male characters addressing female characters (see Table 7.510 and Figure 7.6). The data in Table 7.4 shows that male characters tend to use more thou forms than female characters do, except in period 5, when the reverse is true. The difference in distribution is statistically significant (χ2 = 10.591, p = 0.001, df = 1 for period 1; χ2 = 54.094, χ2 = 54.603, χ2 = 21.780, χ2 = 16.849 for periods 2–5 respectively, for which p < 0.001, df = 1).

10. As in Chapters 5 and 6, percentages are not given in tables in the macro-analysis when the data for thou and you in a data cell is limited to single-digit figures.


Table 7.5 Thou and you in Drama Comedy 1560–1760 according to sex of speaker and addressee: Raw figures and percentages Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total

Male to Female thou you 54 215 20% 80% 87 103 46% 54% 82 317 21% 79% 31 269 10% 90% 7 183 4% 96% 261 1087 19% 81%

Male to Male thou you 206 516 29% 71% 221 607 27% 73% 41 315 12% 88% 45 276 14% 86% 5 299 2% 98% 518 2013 20% 80%

Female to Female Female to Male thou you thou you 5 4 27 170 14% 86% 6 13 5 179 32% 68% 3% 97% 6 144 10 355 4% 96% 3% 97% 5 225 21 312 2% 98% 6% 94% 12 171 26 243 7% 93% 10% 90% 34 557 89 1259 6% 96% 7% 93%

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Male to Female Male to Male Female to Female Female to Male

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 7.6 Percentage of thou (in relation to you) according to sex of speaker and addressee in Drama Comedy in the five 40-year periods (data from Table 7.5)

With regard to Table 7.5, for the five periods taken together, the difference in pronoun distribution between male and female characters respectively when addressing male characters is significant (χ2 = 128.076, p < 0.001, df = 1). The same is true of the difference between male and female characters respectively when addressing female characters (χ2 = 58.991, p < 0.001, df = 1). However, the sex of the character addressed does not appear to play a very important role: overall there is only a difference of one percentage point between male characters addressing other male characters (20%) and male characters addressing female characters (19%), and the difference in distribution in this regard is not statistically significant. This is also true of female characters addressing male and female


characters respectively (7% and 6%), again with no statistical significance. Thus the hypothesis that male characters might tend to give thou to female characters as the subordinate sex does not receive support from the quantitative data. As mentioned in Chapter 4 of the present study, Johnson (1966: 268–269) states that, throughout the seventeenth century, women in Drama Comedy and Fiction use you more frequently than men do, but she does not offer quantitative evidence to support this.11 She believes that this reflects women consciously choosing to use the prestige form (Johnson 1959: 233–234). The reasons for the tendency for male characters to use more thou than female characters do in my data are discussed in the micro-analysis. Such an analysis may reveal for instance whether the findings reflect the depiction of an avoidance by female characters of thou as the form with connotations of emotion and the expressions of one’s social superiority and/or a conscious use of thou by male characters to assert ingroup membership or seek covert prestige by using the old vernacular form.

7.3.3 The age parameter Here I investigate the hypothesis that as a reflection of an unequal power relationship based on relative age, younger characters might use you to their seniors, but receive thou. Such usage was found by Bock (1938: 23) in his qualitative discussion of sixteenth-century Drama Comedy, and by Johnson (1966: 267–268) with regard to young relatives and their elders in seventeenth-century Drama (and Fiction). The distribution of the pronouns in my data according to the age of speaker and addressee for the 200-year period as a whole is given in Table 7.6.12 As in Chapters 5 and 6, the focus of the discussion is on the more precise age groups (youth, adult, and old adult), as defined in Chapter 3. Table 7.6 reveals that youth is the best represented age group among characters in Drama Comedy. Data for children, and those classified as ‘child or youth’, is not given in Table 7.6, as these age groups are very poorly represented in the genre. Further comment on these age groups is reserved for the micro-analysis, as there is only data for children in period 5, in which a child and an old adult exchange you, while data for ‘child or youth’ is found primarily in period 1 in address to old adults. 11. Johnson (1959: Chapter 4) analyses three plays in detail, and gives the number of examples used by each character. This might be the data source upon which she bases this argument. 12. As explained in Chapter 5, the more precise age groups (child, youth, adult, old adult) are highlighted in bold in the tables in this study, unless the raw data for thou and you in corresponding data cells is limited to single-digit figures.

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Youth

Youth Youth/Adult Adult Adult/Old Old Total thou you thou you thou you thou you thou you thou you 393 2207 20 105 2 291 6 70 90 373 511 3046 15% 85% 16% 84% 0% 100% 8% 92% 19% 81% 14% 86% Youth/Adult 5 136 – 2 – 126 1 1 – 10 6 275 4% 96% 100% 100% 2% 98% Adult 57 235 41 33 13 183 – 10 12 92 123 553 20% 80% 55% 45% 7% 93% 100% 12% 88% 18% 82% Adult/Old 6 95 – 1 1 11 34 35 18 77 59 219 6% 94% 8% 92% 49% 51% 19% 81% 21% 79% Old 129 628 4 31 9 76 15 71 10 112 167 918 18% 88% 11% 89% 11% 89% 17% 83% 8% 92% 15% 85% Total 590 3301 65 172 25 687 56 187 130 664 866 5011 15% 85% 27% 73% 4% 96% 23% 77% 16% 84% 15% 85% * Examples involving a character whose age is unknown, or a character who is pretending to be older or younger than he/she actually is are omitted from the table

Table 7.6 Thou and you in Drama Comedy 1560–1760 according to age of speaker and addressee*



In support of the hypothesis, the figures show that both old adults (those labelled ‘Old’) and adults use more thou to youths (18% and 20% respectively) than to either adults or old adults. Regarding address to characters of the three age groups by adults and old adults respectively, the difference in distribution is statistically significant (χ2 = 16.890, p < 0.001, df = 2; χ2 = 7.952, p = 0.019, df = 2). However, youths use more thou (19%) to old adults than they do to any other age group, including other youths, and the distribution in this regard is also significant (χ2 = 55.170, p < 0.001, df = 2). Moreover, it is adults rather than old adults who receive the least thou overall (4%). An examination of the distribution by period might shed more light on patterns of usage (see Tables 7.12–7.16 in the Appendix for periods 1–5 respectively). The data for period 1 implies that greater age gives greater power, reflected by the use of thou, as also found by Bock (1938) for this period (see above). Youths scarcely use thou to their elders (1% to adults, and 7% to old adults), compared with 33 per cent amongst themselves (possibly suggesting thou is an in-group marker): the difference in distribution is statistically significant (χ2 = 69.239, p < 0.001, df = 2). Moreover, old adults use thou only to characters younger than themselves (23% to youths, and 19% to adults). Adult characters, especially, give a high percentage of thou to youths (76%): although adults address old adults with as much as 41 per cent thou, the difference in distribution regarding adults’ address to these two age groups is statistically significant (χ2 = 10.728, p = 0.001, df = 1). Furthermore, those classified as ‘adult or old adult’ (labelled ‘Adult/Old’ in the tables) use 19 per cent thou to address youths, but receive no thou in return. The data for period 2 stands out in that there is no support for the hypothesis regarding character age: youths give only slightly less thou to old adults (37%) than they do to each other (38%); old adults do not give much thou to anyone, and there is little difference between the percentages (14% thou among themselves, and 11% to youths). Moreover, the fact that youths rather than old adults address the other group with more thou not only contradicts the hypothesis, but the difference in distribution is statistically significant (χ2 = 42.212, p < 0.001, df = 1). In periods 3–5, the predicted patterns reappear to a certain extent regarding youths, adults, and old adults. With the exception of youths addressing old adults with thou (8% in periods 3 and 4, and 23% in period 5), only youths receive thou, especially from old adults.13 (As discussed further in the micro-analysis, the relatively high percentage by youths to old adults in period 5 is largely explained by the address of one female character to her husband.) The difference 13. The one example of thou (1%) by an adult to an old adult in period 5 need hardly be considered here.


in distribution between youths addressing old adults and old adults addressing youths is statistically significant in period 3, and approaches significance at the 0.05 level in period 4 (χ2 = 14.070, p < 0.001, df = 1, and χ2 = 3.811, p = 0.051, df = 1 respectively). In the data for Drama Comedy the age of a character does appear to play a role in determining pronoun choice. The figures suggest certain tendencies predicted by previous research: youths receive the most thou, and – in the last three periods – especially from old adults. The results in this regard for period 2, as well as the use of thou by youths in other periods when addressing old adults, need some explanation, and are considered further in the micro-analysis.

7.3.4 The rank parameter In the Drama Comedy sub-corpus, the best represented rank is the gentry (see Table 7.7). Characters from the nobility and knights (here treated as one group:14 see Chapter 3), and professionals, are also well-represented in my material. In contrast, characters from the upper commoners are relatively few (there are no characters from this rank grouping in periods 3 and 5). There are, however, a sufficient number of characters from the lower commoners to test two hypotheses: one regarding usage between those of unequal rank, and the other related to usage between characters of the same rank, based on the findings of previous research. With regard to Shakespeare’s plays, Byrne (1936: 147–155) argues that attendants, servants, and others of low rank use you to superiors; the latter return thou, unless being stern, when you is used. The “servant class” and others of low rank exchange “the thou of lower class equality”, unlike the upper and middling status groups, who exchange you in unemotional speech (Byrne 1936: 146). The same is noted by Bock (1938: 7–11) for sixteenth-century Drama Comedy, although he illustrates that you is also found among the characters belonging to the lower ranks by the end of the sixteenth century. With regard to Drama Comedy and Fiction, Johnson (1966: 266–267) concludes that, throughout the seventeenth century, those of inferior rank tend to use you, but may receive thou or an ironic you in return, when addressing superiors. She argues that the ‘lower class’ exchange you, but “within the limits of the same occupation, the thou-singular commonly occurs” (Johnson 1966: 268). Table 7.7 shows the distribution of thou and you according to character rank in the Drama Comedy data as a whole (excluding examples involving characters

14. This group is henceforth referred to as ‘nobles/sirs’ or, in tables, ‘Nobles & Sirs’.

Upper Comms. Lower Comms. Total

Profs.

Gentry

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Nobles & Sirs

Nobles & Sirs thou you 97 302 24% 76% 31 370 8% 92% – 106 100% 1 14 7% 93% 8 289 3% 97% 137 1081 11% 89%

Gentry thou 52 14% 193 13% 4 1% 4 10% 17 6% 270 11% you 322 6% 1278 87% 339 99% 38 90% 276 94% 2253 89%

Professionals thou you 9 91 9% 91% 25 173 13% 87% 62 408 13% 87% 25 21 54% 46% 7 239 3% 97% 128 932 12% 88%

Upper Commoners thou you 1 11 8% 92% 12 55 18% 82% 3 19 14% 86% 1 14 7% 93% 9 15 38% 62% 26 114 19% 81%

Lower Commoners thou you 90 59 60% 40% 61 149 29% 71% 77 65 54% 46% 6 12 33% 67% 79 169 32% 68% 313 454 41% 59%

Table 7.7 Thou and you in Drama Comedy 1560–1760 according to rank of speaker and addressee thou 249 24% 322 14% 146 13% 37 27% 120 11% 874 15%

Total you 785 76% 2025 86% 937 87% 99 73% 988 89% 4834 85%



of unknown rank or those who have assumed a false rank).15 With regard to the row and column totals, Table 7.7 indeed suggests that the lower the rank, the higher the percentage of thou received (χ2 = 451.085, p < 0.001, df = 4). Also, excluding the poorly represented upper commoners, the higher the rank, the higher the percentage of thou given (χ2 = 100.707, p < 0.001, df = 4). These totals, of course, also include address among characters of the same rank. Interestingly, it is characters of the lowest rank who exchange the most thou overall (32%), which might be said to lend some support to the hypothesis that this would be the reciprocal pronoun among lower commoners. To what extent these findings are reflected in the data for the five 40-year periods is discussed below (naturally I focus on the data in cells where the figures are large enough to warrant comment: see Tables 7.17–7.21 in the Appendix for periods 1–5 respectively). There is clear evidence supporting the hypothesis that thou would be used to address social inferiors in four of the five periods. Lower commoners receive more thou than you from higher ranking characters. Other ranks receive thou from higher ranks, but there are no discernible trends across time, other than that the use of thou by nobles/sirs to professionals declines steadily between periods 1 and 3 (from 33% to 0%). The percentage of thou to lower commoners is highest in period 1, and declines over time; moreover, the higher the rank the higher the percentage of thou given to the lowest rank in each period. Thus nobles/sirs address lower commoners using 91, 51 and 56 per cent thou in periods 1–3 respectively, and 45 per cent in period 5, whereas the gentry give 44 per cent thou in period 2, 26 per cent in period 3, 0 per cent in period 4, and only 8 per cent in period 5 (professionals give 85 per cent thou in period 1, but only once thereafter, in period 5). In period 4, characters of the gentry dominate the data to the extent that little can be said with regard to address to lower ranks: upper commoners thrice receive thou (20%) from a higher rank (professionals), but characters of the lowest rank are scarcely addressed at all. Johnson (1966: 266, 269) notes that maids are addressed thou in plays in her corpus from 1682 and 1690, but with reference to Restoration Comedy, Barber (1997: 156) suggests that using thou to express superior social rank was no longer frequent. Bock (1938: 93–110) concludes that thou was only occasionally found in address to inferiors in plays from 1664–1705. Regarding address to lower commoners in my period 5 data, as the above-mentioned figures show, thou to express power, in terms of superior social rank, does not seem obsolete, unlike as suggested by Bock’s data (see 7.4.3.5). Interestingly, in periods 3 and 5, no rank other than lower commoners receives 15. Note that the abbreviations ‘Comms’ and ‘Profs’, for ‘Commoners’ and ‘Professionals’ respectively, are used in the first column of Table 7.7 (and Tables 7.17, 7.18 and 7.20 in the Appendix) due to space restrictions.


more than 6 per cent thou from a higher rank, which suggests a well-defined social division between the lowest rank in society and ‘non-commoners’ (i.e. professionals, gentry, and nobles/sirs). However, in period 4 there are relatively high percentages of thou by nobles/sirs to gentry and by gentry to professionals; whether this actually reflects the expression of superior power is examined in the micro-analysis. The avoidance of thou by characters of the lower ranks to those of higher ranks is predicted as reflecting these characters’ inferior social position. Again in four of the five periods, the evidence clearly supports the hypothesis. In period 1, excluding one thou example (1%) by the lowest rank to the highest, only the gentry use thou (9%) to address a higher rank: the gentry address nobles/sirs with thou in all periods except period 3, which suggests a certain degree of intimacy between characters from these two ranks (see the micro-analysis). As was found when discussing the results for the age parameter, period 2 stands out as the period where the data does not seem to support the hypothesis. Characters from the lowest rank use some thou to all ranks, although the percentages are increasingly lower towards the top of the social scale. However, the 100 per cent thou by upper commoners to professionals is simply due to one character’s idiosyncratic usage, as illustrated in the micro-analysis. It is also in this period that the percentage of thou by gentry addressing nobles/sirs is much higher (38%) than in other periods (< 10%). After period 2, the use of thou to characters of higher rank is negligible, and in direct address only occurs eight times between ‘non-commoners’ (3 further examples of thou to higher ranks are used in aside; see 7.4.1). Thus the patterns suggested by the macro-analysis for the 200-year period 1560–1760 show that thou is not commonly used by characters to address those of higher rank than their own, and that characters of the lowest rank receive by far the most thou forms by comparison with the other ranks. This would suggest that social rank is a highly relevant parameter regarding pronoun choice: the social inferior perhaps tending to use the deferential you, and the social superior expressing superior power by the use of thou, but with a decrease in the overall use of thou over time. Patterns of pronoun usage within each rank need some comment. In Figure 7.7, the percentage of thou with regard to address within each rank (excluding upper commoners) across the five 40-year periods is presented. As illustrated in Figure 7.7, characters from the lowest rank use a relatively substantial amount of thou to each other in periods 1–3, yet the figure never exceeds 48 per cent (note that there is no data for period 4). Characters of the professionals group consistently do not exchange much thou (never more than 22%), and it is increasingly rare after period 2. The two highest ranks pattern relatively similarly, with a substantial amount of thou (39–49%) until period 3. In the final period, the highest


100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Nobles/sirs Gentry Professionals Lower commoners

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 7.7 Percentage of thou (in relation to you) among characters of the same rank in Drama Comedy in the five 40-year periods (data from Tables 7.17–7.21 in the Appendix)

rank, unlike the gentry, exchange as much as 35 per cent thou, but, as the microanalysis will show, this is primarily the result of one character’s usage. All ranks prefer you when addressing characters of the same rank, throughout the 200-year period, but the figures suggest that the ranks differ with regard to their attitude to thou when addressing characters of the same rank, at least until the middle of the seventeenth century. In contrast to the professionals, characters of the two upper ranks seem willing to use thou to one another in the first two periods (1560–1639). Perhaps this is intended to reflect their secure social position: dramatists can depict these characters as being able to use thou without fear of being associated with the lower end of the social scale. By contrast, characters of the middling ranks may be represented as less socially secure and thus avoiding thou with its intimate/emotional connotations and possible associations with the usage of the lower ranks. Instead perhaps they tend towards hypercorrection (cf. Labov 1972: 122–142), and over-use the pronoun you, which is associated with cultivated usage. Finally, there is no clear proof that thou is actually the reciprocal pronoun among characters from the lower commoners: not only do they favour you, but they only exchange more thou than any other rank do in periods 1 and 3. However, Bock (1938: 40–41) suggests that, amongst characters who exchanged thou in unemotional contexts, you could be used to express emotion, such as anger. This might partly explain why the lower commoners exchange more you (54%) than thou (46%) even in the earliest period.

7.3.4.1 Comparison of the findings with a previous quantitative study (Johnson 1959, 1966) To my knowledge, the only previous quantitative study of thou and you in Drama Comedy in which the data is presented according to speaker and addressee


rank is the unpublished doctoral thesis by Anne Carvey Johnson from 1959, summarised in Johnson (1966). However, she fails to fully exploit her data, stating that “[q]uantitatively, the use of you and thou is extremely irregular and leads to the conclusion that the distinction between the two pronouns is meaningless” (Johnson, PhD abstract, 1959: 3). However, the figures obtained by Johnson definitely deserve further consideration; therefore, her figures regarding pronoun usage according to speaker and addressee rank are presented in Tables 7.8 and 7.9.16 These figures are not directly comparable to mine for a number of reasons: her much larger corpus includes some Fiction as well as Drama Comedy,17 and she includes the whole text of each play or work of fiction, as well as including up to four plays by a single author. Also, her classification of social rank is similar but not identical to mine,18 and she has not excluded any examples of second person singular pronouns such as those involving ‘assumed rank’ from her tables. (Note, however, that despite such examples being omitted from my data in Tables 7.17–7.21 in the Appendix, the overall percentages of thou and you in each period is the same in these tables as the percentages in Table 7.2.) Moreover, her time periods (1600–1649 and 1650–1699) differ from mine (1560–1599, 1600–1639, 1640–1679, 1680–1719, 1720–1760); furthermore, as noted above, I have dated the Drama Comedies by the date of publication, whereas Johnson has, apparently, dated the texts according to the earliest recorded date of performance, or when first penned. Despite these several differences between Johnson’s corpus and mine, the figures she presents reveal certain patterns similar to those found in my data. First, the use of thou decreases over time (only in two data cells is the percentage of thou slightly higher in the second of Johnson’s periods).

16. I present Johnson’s figures in a format similar to my Table 7.7 (and Tables 7.17–7.21 in the Appendix) to facilitate comparison. I have, moreover, rounded off her percentages, and added totals. 17. It would have been possible to extract the data for Drama Comedy alone, from the copious tables in Johnson (1959: Appendix II). However, given the many other caveats noted above, I decided to use the data offered in Johnson (1966). 18. Johnson includes the aristocracy, the gentry and some high-ranking professionals in her ‘upper class’ (which is thus roughly equivalent to my two groups ‘gentry’ and ‘nobles/sirs’). Her ‘middle class’ is similar to my two groups ‘professionals’ and ‘upper commoners’, which at first sight seems problematic for any comparison, but there are in fact so few representatives from this latter group in my data that it may not have any real effect. Her ‘lower class’ is similar to my group ‘lower commoners’, although she includes officials such as the police, and artisans, in this group.


Table 7.8 Thou and you in Johnson’s Drama Comedy (and Fiction) corpus 1600–1649 according to rank of speaker and addressee (data from Johnson 1966: 266) Hearer → Speaker ↓ Upper Class

Upper class thou you 1609 4310 26% 74% Middle Class 150 1396 10% 90% 1336 Lower Class 73 5% 95% Total 1832 7042 21% 79%

Middle class thou you 395 899 30% 70% 231 1129 17% 83% 27 432 6% 94% 653 2460 21% 79%

Lower class thou you 660 642 50% 50% 248 282 47% 53% 370 617 38% 62% 1278 1541 45% 55%

thou 2664 31% 629 18% 470 16% 3763 25%

Total you 5851 69% 2807 82% 2385 84% 11043 75%

Table 7.9 Thou and you in Johnson’s Drama Comedy (and Fiction) corpus 1650–1699 according to rank of speaker and addressee (data from Johnson 1966: 266) Hearer → Speaker ↓ Upper Class

Upper class thou you 1687 8920 16% 84% 940 Middle Class 116 11% 89% 1197 Lower Class 80 4% 96% Total 1883 11057 15% 85%

Middle class thou you 304 1099 22% 78% 322 1912 14% 86% 139 1112 11% 89% 765 4123 16% 84%

Lower class thou you 362 834 30% 70% 136 293 32% 68% 98 540 16% 84% 596 1667 26% 74%

thou 2353 18% 574 15% 317 10% 3244 16%

Total you 10863 82% 3145 85% 2849 90% 16847 84%

Second, in both periods, characters of each ‘class’ give the least thou to the upper class and the most thou to the lower class, which would seem to reflect the use of thou to express superiority (i.e. using thou to inferiors but generally receiving you in return), as suggested by my data also. In both periods in Johnson’s data, characters of the upper class give a higher percentage of thou to each of the three classes in turn (e.g. in the first period 26%, 30% and 50% respectively) than do middle class characters (10%, 17% and 47%) or those of the lower class, who give the lowest percentage of thou to each class (5%, 6%, and 38%). In other words the upper class characters use more thou than the middle class and especially the lower class characters do. This suggests that the higher the rank, the more power. However, unlike my data for periods 1–3, in no case is thou preferred to you when addressing a character of inferior rank in Johnson’s data. Also there is a greater tendency in Johnson’s data for inferiors to address superiors with thou, albeit never more than 11 per cent.


Third, when addressing characters of the same rank, the upper and lower class characters use more thou (26% and 38% respectively) than the middle class characters do (17%) in the first half of the seventeenth century, as was found for my data also. This difference in distribution is statistically significant (χ2 = 124.862, p < 0.001, df = 2). Again, this may be a reflection by dramatists of a certain complacency among the highest social group, in contrast to the middle class, about using the pronoun associated with the speech of the uncultivated. Fourth, Johnson’s figures show that the use of thou among lower class characters falls from 38 per cent in the period 1600–1649 to a mere 16 per cent in the period 1650–1699. As mentioned above, in my data a marked decrease in thou usage among characters from the lowest rank is not found until the period 1720– 1760, but I have no relevant data for the period 1680–1719. After totals have been added to Tables 7.8 and 7.9, it can be seen that the percentage of thou in address to both upper class and middle class characters is similar in both periods (21% in the first period, and 15% and 16% respectively in the second period), whereas the percentage is much higher to lower class characters (45% and 26% in the first and second periods respectively). This could indicate a greater divide between the lower class and the other two classes, than between the upper class and middle class. This is supported by statistical testing of Johnson’s data: whereas the difference in distribution is not significant with regard to the upper and middle class, there is significance when all three classes are considered, in both periods (χ2 = 729.002, p < 0.001, df = 2 in the first period; χ2 = 198.754, p < 0.001, df = 2 in the second period). A similar divide is suggested by my data for period 3 (see Table 7.19 in the Appendix), in which lower commoners receive 44% thou, compared with 3–7% thou for the three highest ranks (χ2 = 228.321, p < 0.001, df = 3). Finally, the above-mentioned overall decrease in thou usage in address to lower class characters (from 45% to 26%) also reflects a marked decline after 1650 in the use of thou to these characters by upper class and middle class characters (20 and 15 percentage points respectively). Similarly, in my data, in the plays from between 1600 and 1649, lower commoners receive 49 per cent thou (119x) from the higher ranks, whereas in those from 1650–1699, the figure is only 16 per cent thou (7x).

7.3.5 Summary of the macro-analysis The macro-analysis has suggested that the parameters of sex, age and rank are relevant regarding pronoun usage in Drama Comedy: male characters generally use more thou forms than female characters do, and the figures suggest that the expression of superior power based both on age and especially rank appears to


encourage the use of thou. Moreover, my findings regarding rank are supported by the figures presented in Johnson (1966). Despite the repeated patterns however, some further comment is necessary: in the Drama Comedy texts, although the higher ranks are well represented, commoners are predominantly represented by servant characters. Servants would be especially likely to be addressed thou, not only due to their low social rank, but because they were often ‘inferior’ also on the grounds of their social role (as the speaker’s servant), their age (usually youths) and even, in many cases, their sex (often female). Also, the figures hide the fact that thou is not only used to express superior power, whether based on sex, age, rank and/or some other parameter. For example, as mentioned above, emotion may also be expressed by the use of thou. Moreover, factors such as social distance (i.e. whether the characters are friends, acquaintances, or strangers) and level of formality may also play a part in pronoun selection. In other words, not only can thou be used to express things other than the speaker’s power, but pronoun selection is also dependent on the context of the dialogue. A micro-analysis is essential in order to take into account those factors which cannot be quantified, and consider how a range of factors operate in combination, which will shed further light on the trends revealed by the macro-analysis.

7.4

The micro-analysis: Pronoun usage in the Drama Comedy sub-corpus

7.4.1 Pronoun usage in aside and apostrophe Aside and apostrophe, in which the addressee is out of hearing and thus cannot, and is not expected to, respond, is found in only 52 examples in my data. An aside is defined as “words spoken by an actor which the other performers on the stage are supposed not to hear” (OED s.v. aside n.). I use the term ‘aside’ with reference to examples in which the character to whom the pronoun refers is on stage (or has just exited), and is (or has just been) in conversation with the speaker, but is not meant to hear the, often, mocking or snide remark. Essentially it is a remark which the speaker does not want the addressee to hear. The word ‘aside’ is often given as a stage direction in these cases, as in (1), in which the stage direction follows the aside. In the aside the character speaking reveals to the audience that he knows the addressee is not genuinely an army officer, but nevertheless plays along with the charade. (1)

Aim. What Regiment, may I be so bold? Gib. A marching Regiment, Sir, an old Corps.


Aim. Very old, if your Coat be Regimental, [Aside] You have serv’d abroad, Sir? Gib. Yes, Sir, in the Plantations […] (Farquhar, The Beaux Stratagem, 1707: 26)

Apostrophe19 is when a character turns to address someone or something as if they are present and can hear, though without expecting an answer. Typical addressees are God, the supernatural, inanimate objects, or the dead; however, occasionally another human character in the play may be the addressee (in which case this character is usually off-stage), as in (2). Here a queen apologises to her absent husband, after finding she had misconstrued a report of his feelings for her. Thus, unlike in aside, in apostrophe the speaker has no desire to hide his/her words from the character addressed, even if in practice the latter is rarely able to overhear. (2) Que. It doth, it doth: O pardon me my lord, that I mi stake thy royall meaning so. (Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: F4r)

On the basis of his and other researchers’ work on Shakespeare, Busse (2002: 34) states that “[a]side, soliloquy and apostrophe have to be regarded as special formulaic cases of pronoun use in EModE drama, because none of these is directed to an addressee who is present on stage. These instances are governed by the use of invariant thou.” However, my data reveals that both thou and you are used in aside and/or apostrophe in all five 40-year periods of my corpus, although thou is the more common pronoun (see Table 7.10). In apostrophe thou is found in 73 per cent of the examples, and in aside thou is also preferred (63%). Thus the pronoun usage is clearly not formulaic in aside or apostrophe in my data.20 As I will illustrate below, the examples of apostrophe in my data involve feelings of love, anger, or other emotions, and examples in aside often express contempt. Thus the prevalence of thou is unsurprising, although – as the examples of you indicate – not formulaic. Indeed, Stein (2003: 269, 270), discussing pronominal usage in Shakespeare, argues that in apostrophe21 (and when addressing 19. “A figure of speech, by which a speaker […] turns to address pointedly some person or thing, either present or absent; an exclamatory address. […] modern use has extended it to the absent or dead (who are for the nonce supposed to be present)” (OED s.v. apostrophe1). 20. However, my corpus does evidence the use of thou (with very few, if any, examples of you) in those examples not included in my data in which the supernatural or inanimate objects are addressed, as well as in soliloquy. 21. Stein (2003: 264) appears to define apostrophe as address to characters absent from the stage.


Table 7.10 Pronouns of address in aside and apostrophe in Drama Comedy 1560–1760: Raw figures and (for totals) percentages Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total

you –

Apostrophe thou you 11 2

14

2

3

2

–

7

5

3

–

1

9

6

4

–

–

10

5

1

3

3

12

19 63%

11 37%

16 73%

6 27%

52 100%

thou 1

Aside

Total

the dead) thou is what he calls the ‘unmarked’, or ‘normal’ form, but he shows that you does occur in apostrophe, albeit rarely (2003: 294–295). This is further evidence that researchers have overstated the case in suggesting thou is predictable and invariant in such cases. In my data for period 1 there are nine examples of apostrophe and one aside (involving 14 pronouns). In (3), a young knight presumes intimacy by using thou when addressing the absent young princess he is seeking to rescue and win. (3) [...] Faire Lady, if thou wert once shri ned in this bosome, I would buckler [= protect] thee (Peele, The Old Wiues Tale, 1595: C1v)

Also, sibling affection or familial intimacy is expressed by a young prince to his sister, the princess, when calling for her, using thou (2x). In Chapman’s An Humerous Dayes Myrth (1599), a young lord also uses the predicted thou (3x) to address his love in a reverie, unaware that the object of his love, a justice’s young daughter, can hear him. In the same play, thou (2x) is used when off-stage characters are cursed, by an old noblewoman to the justice’s daughter, and a young gentleman to another, as in (4). (4) [...] O vilde Lemot, my wife and I are bound to curse thee while we liue, (Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: G1r)

In all cases, the motivation for thou is clearly intimacy or affection, love or anger. However, the sex, age, and rank of the characters also encourage pronoun choice:


where there is a difference in sex, age or rank, the character speaking typically has more ‘power’ than the addressee. Only once might it be said that the character addressed (a king) is more powerful than the character speaking (his queen), on the basis of sex/marital relationship, illustrated in (2) above. In the two instances of characters addressing the dead, rank seems to be the motivating factor behind the pronoun choice. A young knight addresses his dead servant: “Iacke what art thou gone?” (Peele, The Old Wiues Tale, 1595: F3r). Prior to this the young servant addresses a powerful conjuror, upon the latter’s death: “Oh Sir are you gon” (Peele: F1r). A poor young ‘wench’ uses you to her off-stage sister when gloating on the chance of finding a husband before her sister does: “in faith Celanta I haue got the start of you” (Peele: D4v). You seems here to stress the cold mocking tone; in direct address she snaps at her sister, using thou. The one aside occurs when a host uses one loving thou to his maid (“I dare not say I loue thee” Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: 4v), with whom he is having an affair. In public he addresses her as you. In period 2, there are three asides to characters out of hearing, spoken with negative emotion. Interestingly, thou (2x) only occurs in one aside, when Pistol addresses old Sir John Falstaff, after being turned out of the latter’s service: “Let Vultures gripe thy guts […]” (Shakespeare, The Merry Wiues of Windsor, 1623: 42). Although this contradicts the hypothesis that superiors would not be addressed as thou, the irreverent Pistol also uses thou to Falstaff ’s face (7.4.3.2). Bock (1938: 9) notes that, in sixteenth-century Drama Comedy, embittered servants often use thou to masters behind their backs. Whereas thou in Pistol’s aside reflects anger and bitterness, the other two asides express milder feeling, mockery, and you is found. Thus a servant addresses her master (“You shall haue An-fooles head of your owne” Shakespeare, The Merry Wiues of Windsor, 1623: 43) and an old manservant addresses a young knight (1x), in The Miseries of Inforst Mariage (1607) by Wilkins. This suggests that rank is also relevant. Thou occurs in apostrophe, when a young gentleman admits to himself the remorse he feels for the way he treated his brother: in this case the use of thou reveals his emotion: “theres not a thought I thinke, But must pertake thy greefes, and drinke A rellish of thy sorrow and misfortune” (Wilkins, The Miseries of Inforst Mariage, 1607: I2r). Both aside and an apostrophe are found in period 3 also. Sex/marital relationship and perhaps age, but especially rank and emotion are relevant. Negative feeling seems to be the motivation for the use of thou (3x) on two separate occasions when a young peasant character thus addresses his scolding sister: “Thou’t never be two, I think; – For on my conscience, there is no man that knowes her, has valour enough, to come neere her” (Brewer, The Covntrie Girle, 1647: D1r). He uses you to her face. Four asides are by the same character, an old gentleman. He


uses thou (1x) affectionately but patronisingly to his naïve young wife, whom he also openly addresses in the same style (see 7.4.3.3). This seems to reflect his superior power on the basis of sex/marital relationship, which is perhaps encouraged by age: he addresses her as if she were a child. He uses you in aside to a female character of higher rank “Damn your civility” (Wycherley, The Country-Wife, 1675: 24) when frustrated at her persistence in wanting to see his wife. He also uses you in sarcasm to a young gentleman who fails to see that a ‘friend’ is hardly being kind in pursuing the gentleman’s fiancée: “Great kindness to you indeed; insensible Fop” (Wycherley: 20). But thou (1x) is used to the same young gentleman when expressing contempt. Despite her anger, a merchant’s wife addresses a Lady as you: “I would the Devill were in your Coachmans Coat” (Brome, A Mad Couple Well Match’d, 1653: C3v). In Brome, an apostrophe, with you (1x), is also possibly influenced by the lower rank of the character, a professional, who addresses an absent gentleman who has carelessly wronged him. There are five asides in period 4. The characters speaking are all young gentry, as are the addressees in all but examples (1) and (5), in which the characters addressed are older and belong to the professionals group, although in (1), the addressee is only assuming this rank (see 7.4.2). Emotion, rather than sex or age, seems to be the determining factor regarding pronoun choice here. When expressing contempt, thou is used by male characters to female characters, in Killigrew’s Chit-Chat, from 1719 (1x) and in Manley’s The Lost Lover, from 1696 (1x), as well as to a male character, shown in (5). When the emotion is less evident, you is found, as in (1) above, which is merely sarcastic in tone. A further example is found in Manley, when a female character addresses her female ‘friend’ coldly “my Interest pulls too strong against you, to leave you a Moment to your self till I have put it out of Fortunes power to injure me” (Manley, The Lost Lover, 1696: 8). (5) Wild. Go thy ways, for an old Jealous, I wish be-gad, I could say, Cuckold, but my honest Endeavours shall not be wanting to make thee, that thou believest thy self. (Manley, The Lost Lover, 1696: 10)

A difference in rank might further encourage the pronoun choice in (5), which illustrates all but one of the five instances of thou by a young character to an old character in the period 4 data: emotion, and possibly rank, outweighs any influence of age on pronoun choice here. The sex parameter does not seem to affect pronoun choice: a contemptuous thou is used to address both a male character and two female characters, and both male and female characters use you when the tone is negative but less emotionally charged. The pronoun choice also echoes that of the characters’ face-to-face exchanges, suggesting the aside is treated as a continuation of – rather than a deviation from – these dialogues in this period.


In period 5 there are three asides and three addresses to the ‘dead’. In all cases, the character speaking is female. In Miller’s The Mother-in-Law (1734), thou is used in two addresses by a young wife, Lady Hippish, in contempt of her old husband (who is merely pretending to be dead), as shown in (6): (6) [...] Thou poor, pitiful, credulous Fool, farewel. […] Alas! poor Dear, thou hast lost, then, the small matter of Breath thou wer’t Master of. (Miller, The Mother-in-Law, 1734: 81)

The ‘dead’ man’s daughter, however, addresses her father with respect, using you (3x). A merchant’s daughter and her aunt both use thou in aside: the younger character of the two addresses a young gentleman in contempt: “She that willingly goes to Bed to thee, must have no Shame, I’m sure” (Steele, The Conscious Lovers, 1723: 47). The aunt appears to address her niece in a maternal tone: “Well, go thy ways, thou willful Innocent!” (Steele: 31). As illustrated in (7), from Miller, a servant addresses a young gentleman with both thou and you in an aside: (7) Prim. By t’ye, Bubble, and Fortune bless thee, for thou art one of her own Dotard Brood. (Miller, The Mother-in-Law, 1734: 78)

This is the only aside in which a female from the lowest rank uses thou to a superior, expressing an odd mixture of sympathy and contempt. Possibly the use of thou is influenced by the reference to the supernatural, namely the goddess Fortune (see above). The examples in my data suggest that the pronouns used in aside and apostrophe are governed by similar contextual constraints as in face-to-face dialogue: strong emotion may trigger the use of thou, but rarely in conflict with, especially, the rank parameter. In the case of (7), the use of thou, which would be highly improper in direct address to a gentleman by a maid, may be due to the conspiratorial relationship the servant has had with this foolish gentleman. As mentioned above, address to other characters in aside and apostrophe is limited to 52 examples in my data. Unlike statements made in previous research, there is some evidence not only that the use of thou is not predictable in such cases, but also that the motivation behind pronoun usage is similar to that in faceto-face exchanges. This would appear to justify the inclusion of these examples in the figures presented in the macro-analysis.


7.4.2 The influence of assumed sex, age and/or rank on pronoun usage In all periods in my data, as mentioned in 7.1, there are examples of characters who have assumed (or, in period 1, have been given by enchantment) a false identity, and are disguised as the opposite sex, as older or younger, and/or of different rank (or profession) than they really are. These are excluded from the macroanalysis regarding the relevant parameter(s) of sex, age and/or rank of the speaker and addressee in Drama Comedy, as it is not always clear whether pronoun usage in these cases is intended to reflect the ‘real’ or ‘assumed’ identity of a character. If pronoun usage, at least in general, is dependent on a character’s assumed identity, the use of you to reflect the social distance between strangers might be predicted. In general a character in disguise is a ‘stranger’ to the other characters in that the disguised character is not recognised by other characters (except by those ‘in the know’).22 Only rarely do characters assume the identity of another character who is known by the intended dupe(s). There is indeed a clear preference for you in examples featuring characters in disguise (see Table 7.11). However, the figures shown in Table 7.11 suggest that you is by no means predictable: compared with the overall results for thou and you in Drama Comedy (Table 7.2: see 7.3.1), there is in fact more thou used by, or to address, characters in disguise (37%) than in the overall figures (24%) for period 1. Nevertheless, Table 7.11 attests a rather more rapid decline in the occurrence of thou after the first period regarding address by or to these disguised characters, compared with the overall figures in Table 7.2 (7.3.1). Moreover, the raw figures for the first two periods are far lower than those of periods 3 to 5. Clearly an in-depth investigation is needed in order to account more fully for the pronoun usage here. In the period 1 data, there are three characters whose true identity is in some way hidden: a young nobleman disguises himself as a servant, a young gentleman is magically transformed into an old beggar-man, and an old conjuror transforms himself into a young man. In the first case, the nobleman is mistaken for the real servant by the servant’s master, and addressed as thou (2x): “Hold still thou knaue” (Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: G4r). The use of thou could be interpreted as expressing anger at the incompetence of the ‘servant’: the master, a host, otherwise uses you in direct address to a servant (see 7.4.3.1). In the latter two cases, the false identity is maintained until the final scenes of the play. In 22. All examples of pronoun usage in which a character addresses or is addressed by a character in disguise have been excluded from the relevant tables (i.e. for sex, age, and/or rank) in the macro-analysis, even in cases in which the speaker/addressee is aware that the other is disguised (as they often play along with the charade), unless it is fully evident that they are speaking to, or being addressed by, the character ‘behind’ the disguise.


Table 7.11 Pronoun usage in Drama Comedy 1560–1760 in cases in which characters have a false identity* Period

Assumed sex thou you – –

Assumed age thou you 16 31 34% 66% – –

Assumed rank Total thou you thou you 1 6 22 18 31 1560–1599 21% 79% 37% 63% 2 – – 4 24 4 24 1600–1639 14% 86% 14% 86% 3 – 118 – – 6 23 6 141 1640–1679 100% 21% 79% 4% 96% 4 – – – – – 105 – 105 1680–1719 100% 100% 5 – 151 – 82 – 150 – 175 1720–1760 100% 100% 100% 100% Total – 269 16 113 16 324 28 476 100% 12% 88% 5% 95% 6% 94% * Note that a character in disguise may have adopted a combination of false sex, age and/or rank, resulting in period totals that may appear not to tally with the figures for assumed sex, age, and rank respectively.

the form of the old beggar-man, the young gentleman almost invariably receives you and the address term ‘father’ from young characters: princes, knights, and a servant (11x). A patronising thou is only used when the princes promise the ‘old man’ alms (3x). The ‘old man’ addresses the young characters as ‘son’, and uses one disrespectful thou to a bragging knight, who asks him the whereabouts of the lady he seeks: “[…] farre inough from thy fingering sonne” (Peele, The Old Wiues Tale, 1595: C1v). It seems that you is motivated by his role as a wise man, who can help other characters in their quest (as when treated as a beggar in need of alms, he is addressed as thou). Likewise, the ‘old man’ exchanges reciprocal you (11x) with his poor old neighbour, possibly reflecting the fact that the neighbour has similarly come to discuss ‘business’. Interestingly, when he has resumed his real identity, the young gentleman is addressed with a comradely thou (1x) by one of the knights, to indicate that he is now admitted into their social circle: “Come [...] Erestus and thy deare Venelia: We will to Thessalie with ioyfull hearts” (Peele, The Old Wiues Tale, 1595: F3r). The conjuror (whose rank is unclear) is addressed with one bitter thou by a servant he has just bewitched, but receives you (4x) from the confused princess who believes she is beholden to him: “Will it please you to sit downe sir [...] I pray you sir let mee haue the best meate from the king of Englands table” (Peele: C2v). Her usage appears to be due to his superior status as her guardian/provider rather than his age, either real or apparent. It seems to be on the basis of his magical power that the conjuror talks down to a friar, a prince,


and a knight, using thou (4x) with a tone of superiority: “Holde thee there Friar” (Peele: C3r). He also speaks affectionately, using thou (7x), when addressing the princess he loves: “Ah Delya, fairer art thou than the running water” (Peele: C2v). He switches to you (4x) when being a little more ‘matter-of-fact’: “How now faire Delya where haue you bin?” (Peele: C2v). In period 1, assumed age seems of little relevance, whereas ‘occupational role’ or rank (assumed or otherwise) seems important, in combination with emotion, which encourages thou, and business, which encourages you. In period 2, there is only one character, old Justice Over-doo, who assumes a false identity, dressing as one of the lower ranks, a fool, in order to spy on all the other characters. When he is masquerading as a member of the lower ranks, one might expect him to receive thou and give you. Although Over-doo’s wife comments that the ‘fool’ “hath something of Master Ouerdoo” (Jonson, Bartholmew Fayre, 1631: 29) regarding the bombastic way he speaks, she does not recognise him. She uses you (3x) to address the ‘fool’, as does her young gentleman brother (10x), and the gentleman’s old tutor (10x). This is likely to be intended to distance themselves from the fool. The ‘fool’ uses a preaching, condescending thou to address both the tutor (2x) and a young thief (2x). The disguised justice’s pronoun usage seems to reflect that of a fool, as fools and madmen are often characterised as using thou inappropriately (see 7.4.3). The justice, as himself, tends to use you to all (i.e. in examples outside the corpus sample). The period 3 data contains examples of a young chambermaid masquerading as her young mistress, a Lady, and a female character pretending to be a man, which is part of a plan to undermine the relationship between the Lord she loves, and his lover. When not in disguise, the maid is usually addressed as thou (see 7.4.3.3), whereas in the role of the ‘Lady’ she is addressed as you (22x) by all, including a worthy suitor and the Lady’s old brother-in-law. However, the latter also uses thou when kindly reassuring the ‘Lady’: “I can shew thee A Glasse, shall shew thee better things; – a Glasse, That shall reflect, no such affrighting shadowes –” (Brewer, The Covntrie Girle, 1647: C2v). His usage is likely to be motivated by intimacy, positive emotion, and age. One suitor, a foolish character, uses thou (3x), as he echoes her melodramatic tone, illustrated in (8): (8) Bab. Alas: – upon their Captive heart, My sorrowes yet have set too strong a Guard For such delights to enter. Plush. I could wish That Conquerour of thy heart, and all his Guard Were visible, that I might challenge them. (Brewer, The Covntrie Girle, 1647: C1r–v)


The ‘Lady’ uses you (1x) to address a suitor, a young knight. In Brome’s A Mad Couple Well Match’d (1653), a young gentlewoman disguised as a gentleman gives and receives you in greetings, which would be the expected form even without the disguise (10x). Reciprocal you (108x) is also exchanged when a merchant’s promiscuous wife tries to seduce the young ‘gentleman’ (after ‘he’ has pretended to be attracted to her as part of the above-mentioned plan). The tone, despite the intimate topic, is business-like, as the wife is only offering her favours in return for ‘his’ aid; thus the you of business contract is apt. Pronoun usage both by and to these characters seems in accordance with their assumed identity. In period 4, in Farquhar’s The Beaux Stratagem, from 1707, two impoverished gentlemen assume a false rank. One pretends to be an army officer, the other acts as the servant of his friend, a third young gentleman (who is not in disguise). The ‘army officer’ exchanges you with the ‘servant’ (5x), the young gentleman (23x; see also example (1) above), a priest (5x), an old landlord (6x), and the landlord’s young daughter (6x). You is used in polite greetings or warily to strangers, or in a business-like if familiar tone with the receivers of stolen goods. The ‘servant’ exchanges you with everybody: with the ‘army officer’, when drinking with a genuine servant (22x), when being pumped for information by two gentlewomen (21x), and with the landlord’s daughter (13x); he is also addressed as you by the landlord (3x). The use of thou would be unlikely in these cases, due to the speakers often being strangers, and/or the frequently light-hearted but unemotional and non-intimate nature of the discourse. Interestingly, in this period the disguises are not totally convincing: as (1) above shows, the character’s assumed identity of ‘captain’ is not believed (due to his apparel). Owing to the way he talks, the ‘servant’ is also discovered to be a gentleman by the landlord’s daughter. The data for period 5 includes a range of characters who have assumed a false sex, age, and/or rank in order to deceive characters of the higher ranks. As in period 4, these disguised characters only give and receive you, but in this period the disguises are convincing, and pronoun usage is similar to that found in exchanges between characters who are not in disguise (see 7.4.3.5). In The Male-Coquette by Garrick, from 1757, a young gentleman, Tukely, exchanges you (22x) with a young gentlewoman disguised as a provocative gentleman: hers is a parody of male behaviour; as the stage directions show, the disguised female character plays the part to the hilt, as she struts, swears and picks her teeth. This gentlewoman, in a further disguise as a nobleman and then as a knight, exchanges you (35x), primarily with one young gentleman, Daffodil. Daffodil also exchanges you while attempting to seduce Tukely, who is disguised as a knight’s wife (36x). In The Mother-in-Law by Miller, from 1734, a maid occasionally receives thou in direct address (see 7.4.3.5), but a business-like you is used in the comedic exchange between old Sir Hippish, his brother, and the maid disguised as an old doctor


(58x). The same tone, with you, is used in Steele’s The Conscious Lovers, from 1723, between old ‘lawyers’ (a young manservant and a gentleman in disguise) and their clients (12x), as well as when the ‘lawyers’ address each other in the company of these clients (12x). In all cases, the characters are disguised as strangers, or comparative strangers, to those they intend to deceive, further encouraging the use of you. In all, pronoun usage appears to be intended to reflect the false identity of characters with regard to assumed sex and/or rank/occupational role. Assumed age is less important, as it is the occupation with which it is combined that seems most influential: in the one case in which a character has only assumed a false age (period 1), this does not appear to influence pronoun usage. The increasing predominance of you in cases of assumed identity is partly due to the use of you between strangers and/or in a business context, which is especially relevant in period 5. It is also due to the characters involved representing the higher ranks in the majority of cases, in periods 3 and 5 in particular, encouraging the use of reciprocal you. The increased use of you is likely also to be a reflection of the overall decline in thou usage across time.

7.4.3 Pronoun usage in direct address in the Drama Comedy sub-corpus23 I now turn to trends found in face-to-face interaction between characters in the sub-corpus in each period (excluding examples discussed in 7.4.1 and 7.4.2, unless otherwise noted), and relate these to the figures in the macro-analysis. I discuss and exemplify usage according to the sex, age and rank respectively of both the character speaking and the character addressed, while also taking into account other possible motivating factors, such as the degree of emotion involved.

7.4.3.1 Trends in pronoun usage in the period 1560–1599 The macro-analysis showed that the difference in pronoun distribution between male characters and female characters was statistically significant; the former used more thou (26%) than female characters did (16%) in this period. The micro-analysis also reveals differences in pronoun usage with regard to the sex parameter: whereas male characters addressing female characters tend to use thou 23. The pronoun usage in the Drama Comedy texts in period 1 and period 4 has been briefly discussed in an earlier study of mine (Walker 2003), which was based on an earlier version of the CED. The current version of the corpus, together with the detailed rank classifications, as well as the separate discussion of asides, assumed identity etc. included in the present investigation may result in differences between the two studies regarding both the figures and conclusions.


to express positive emotion, female characters basically reserve thou for rare expressions of anger or contempt. Of the 26 examples of thou by women addressing male characters, 22 express negative emotion. This is most often when a female character addresses a relatively lower-ranking male character (14x): the wife of a citizen24 to a tell-tale attendant, and a noblewoman and a queen to a gentleman. An example of this is when the queen demands of the gentleman, “Forth and vnlade the poyson of thy tongue” (Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: F4v). Only two female characters use thou, again to express negative emotion, to male characters of higher ‘status’ (8x), namely a commoner to a wooing knight, in Peele’s The Old Wiues Tale (1595), and a citizen’s wife to her husband, and to his twin, in Warner’s Menaecmi (1595). (The commoner, a peasant girl, also uses the only examples of thou (4x) between female characters, to snap at her sister; by contrast, upper-ranking women exchange you (3x)). These two female characters are characterised by the dramatists as ill-humoured scolds, and their use of thou may be intended to emphasise this further. Nevertheless, it might tentatively be argued that female characters are generally represented as avoiding thou unless roused by fairly strong emotion. For example, in address to her thieving husband, even the citizen’s wife uses mostly you, with only two switches to thou, as in “Fye vppon thee” (Warner, Menaecmi, 1595: C4r). By contrast, the husband replies using a calm you (“Pray wife, why are ye so angry with me?”). Only in three cases (8x) is thou used to express negative emotion by male characters addressing female characters, for example: “Go thy waies for the prowdest harlotrie that euer came in our house” (Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: E1r). In one of these cases, it is only in contemptuous response to the furious use of thou by Mulier, the citizen’s wife, and even here, a distancing you is maintained at first by the man, as shown in (9). (9) Mul. Impudent beast, stand ye to question about it? For shame hold thy peace. Men. What offence haue I done woman, that I should not speake to you? Mulier. Askest thou what offence? O shamelesse bold nesse. (Warner, Menaecmi, 1595: D2v)

24. “An inhabitant of a city or (often) of a town; esp. one possessing civic rights and privileges, a burgess or freeman of a city [...] also distinguished from a member of the landed nobility or gentry” (OED s.v. citizen n.). Citizens, as merchants and traders, are classified as part of the ‘professionals’ group in my data.


In all three plays, thou is primarily used by male characters to female characters to express positive emotion or social closeness: a note of affection, intimacy, or concern is found in 38 of the 46 examples (including address by the conjuror mentioned in 7.4.2). For example, thou to express affection or intimacy is consistently used by princes (8x) to address their sister (“O Delya happy are we to see thee here” Peele, The Old Wiues Tale, 1595: D3v), as well as by a knight (5x) in his courtship of the princess (Thou fairest flower” Peele: F1v). Although you is the preferred pronoun used by other male characters to female characters, the use of thou may be encouraged by the male characters usually being superordinate in the relationship: thus they address their wives or lovers (of all ranks), and a daughter, with an occasional thou, but tend to receive you in return. This is illustrated in (10) in which an old count addresses his young wife: (10)

Lab. O wife where hast thou beene? Flo. where did I tell you I would be I pray. Lab. In thy close walke thou saidst. (Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: G3r)

However, the sex parameter may not be relevant as regards father/daughter address: fathers also address sons with thou (3x), and receive you (9x) consistently (albeit the figures are low), as in (11). Moreover, Bock (1938: 17) argues that, in his sixteenth-century data, parents give thou to children, but receive you in return. (11)

Lab. Good sonne [...] I wish thou wouldst confesse to marrie. Dow. To marrie father? [...] O how you are deceiued (Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: D3r)

Male characters use most thou when addressing other male characters (193x). Especially in Chapman’s An Humerous Dayes Myrth (1599) and Peele’s The Old Wiues Tale (1595), thou is used to express both positive emotion or social closeness, such as concern for a brother: “What brother doost thou fall?” (Peele: C3v). Negative emotion may also be expressed using thou. This is found especially in one play, to characters, often of the same rank, who seem mad (18x): “Why fond man, art thou mad to deny that thou euer setst foote within thine owne house where thou dwellest?” (Warner, Menaecmi, 1595: D4r). Thou is also frequently used to show the superior rank of the speaker, especially in Peele and Warner, as here to an attendant: “Tush, say as I bid thee man” (Warner: B1r). There may be a difference between the sexes in that there is a tendency among male characters (gentry and knights) to employ a light-hearted thou to express male camaraderie, indicating that the speaker and addressee are members of the


same tight-knit group, which is not found among female characters. For example, courtiers (in Chapman) and pages (in Peele) seem to exchange thou (28x) in this way, such as when a character is teased “What, dost thou cry?” (Chapman: E2v) after he has been the butt of a joke; such usage is usually followed by a switch back to you (39x). However, it is impossible to confirm whether this usage is confined to male characters due to the lack of data regarding pronoun exchange between female characters. In the macro-analysis, based on the figures for the age parameter (see Table 7.12 in the Appendix) it seemed that young characters would address older characters with you, but receive thou in return, reflecting power based on seniority. However, the micro-analysis indicates that where there is a difference in age between the speaker and addressee, this may not be the prime motivating factor for the use of a particular pronoun. Relationship or rank seems to play more of a role in Chapman’s An Humerous Dayes Myrth (1599): thou (7x) by old adults to youths is mostly due to a father addressing a son, as in (11), and an old husband addressing a young wife, as in (10). Similarly, the you to the old by the young largely reflects superior rank; this is gentlemen addressing nobility/royalty, or address to a father, or husband. The thou by adults to youths (51x) is almost entirely due to the address of a citizen and a merchant to servants in Warner’s Menaecmi, from 1595 (46x), while address by male and female servants (135x) to the citizen and the merchant (and also to the host in Chapman) largely accounts for youths addressing adults with 99 per cent you. Thus rank, and not age, seems the relevant factor here, illustrated in the exchange between Menechmus and his servant Messenio in (12). (12)

Men. I gaue thee thy freedome? Mess. You did. Men. When I giue thee thy freedome, Ile be a bondman my selfe: go thy wayes. Mess. Whewe, marry I thanke ye for nothing. (Warner, Menaecmi, 1595: E3v)

However, the relatively high percentage of thou among youths (33%) does partly reflect pronoun usage based on age, insofar as it is young male characters who exchange thou to show in-group membership, often with affectionate terms of address, such as ‘fellow’ or ‘sirrah’ (28 of the 105 thou examples in face-to-face interaction). Other thou examples among youths are largely accounted for by address to servants or lovers, and by the expression of emotion. The preference for you among youths (67%) seems largely due to a speaker’s inferior rank in relation to the addressee, in Peele’s The Old Wiues Tale (1595), and Chapman’s An Humerous Dayes Myrth (1599). For instance, 83 examples of you are servants


(who mostly fall into this age group) addressing a higher rank, and 62 examples are gentry addressing nobility, as when a gentleman addresses a countess, sarcastically: “I thanke you for your gentle tearmes, you giue me vilain at the first” (Chapman: F1v). The unexpected use of thou by the group ‘child or youth’ to old adults (in Peele) is accounted for by the address of pages to an old smith, which seems to be familiar and frivolous in tone: “[...] we make faces for feare: such as if thy mortall eyes could behold, would make thee water the long seames of thy side slops, Smith” (Peele: A4r). This is possibly also influenced by the smith’s lower social position. The smith’s use of thou (2x) to address the page might be encouraged by his age, as he is thus able to adopt a fatherly tone to the youngster, despite his inferior rank: “Come on my Lad, thou shalt take thy vnnaturall rest with me” (Peele: B1r). This might also be true of the pages’ address to the smith’s wife. They use thou (2x) to her to express gratitude, but thereafter use you, as she assumes a motherly role. Thou by adults to older adults (11x), found in Warner’s Menaecmi (1595), is due to the citizen addressing those he believes to be insane, and thus age is not a relevant factor. The results for the rank parameter summarised in the macro-analysis (and given in Table 7.17 in the Appendix) suggested the use of thou by characters from the higher ranks to indicate their superior status, and their receiving deferential you in return from the lowest rank. The micro-analysis reveals that the high frequency of thou by professionals (85%) is due to address to servants, as in (12) above, and an attendant, in Warner’s Menaecmi (1595). Moreover, in the same play, the 100 per cent you to professionals by lower commoners is accounted for by servants and the attendant. Professionals use thou (39x) and you (9x) to address their attendant/manservants, but also use both thou (37x) and you (4x) to the attendant/servants of others.25 Thus whether or not an attendant or servant is their own does not seem to play a role in the pronoun usage of professionals: thou is used to these characters whether being friendly, matter-of-fact, or angry, whereas you is used sarcastically when a servant or attendant ‘forgets his place’, but also when a mistress imperiously commands her manservant: “Go dispatch as I bid you, and looke ye returne with all speed” (Warner: B2v). However, the use of you (2x) in address to a maid by a merchant does not seem to carry any such undertones. Gentry, in Chapman’s An Humerous Dayes Myrth (1599), address

25. Usage is fairly similar regarding address to both servants and the attendant, so I have not distinguished between them in the figures here. If the separate figures are examined, we see that professionals use thou (22x) and you (9x) to address their manservants, and thou (24x) and you (2x) to the servants of others. A citizen uses thou (17x) to address his attendant, but other professionals use both thou (13x) and you (2x) to this attendant.


others’ servants in the same way as professionals do: a manservant receives thou (6x), but a maid receives a mocking, teasing you (7x), as in (13). (13)

Ma. Who cald for a course napkin? Ca. Marry I, sweete heart, do you take the paines to bring it your selfe, haue at you by my hosts leaue. Ma. Away sir, fie for shame. (Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: E2r)

The 91 per cent thou to lower commoners by nobles/sirs is also largely due to address to their own, primarily, or others’ manservants (24x), in Chapman’s An Humerous Dayes Myrth (1599), but especially in Peele’s The Old Wiues Tale (1595). Conversely, the 99 per cent you by lower commoners to nobles/sirs is mostly in address by servants (primarily in Peele, but also in Chapman). In Peele, pronoun exchange between a male pauper and a knight (5x) does not differ from that of the knight and his servant, but there is very little data (and none in the other plays) regarding exchange between nobles/sirs and lower commoners (other than servants). However, the thou by a peasant girl to a knight is possibly intended to strike the audience as both socially unacceptable and comic: “By gogs bones thou art a flouting knaue” (Peele: E1v). The pronoun usage emphasises her shrewishness, and reflects how magic has upset the order of things, as the bewitched knight woos her using you as if she were a lady: “Let me faire Ladie if you be at leisure, reuell with your sweetnes” (Peele: E1v). In Chapman, upper commoners, a master and son, address their maid using you (6x) and thou (1x: see below) in the same way as the higher ranks do. Overall, it would be tempting to suggest a difference in pronoun usage based on the sex of the servant, due to the use of you (20x) to maids by male characters, excepting one angry thou: “Go thy waies [...]” (Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: E1r). Indeed, Bock (1938: 15) notes that maids are normally addressed as you, at least by upper-ranking employers. In my data, the use of you seems to depend on the irony intended towards the uppity maid in Chapman by her ‘betters’ (15x), and angry address to her by a manservant (3x). While a condescending thou seems the usual pronoun of address to both an attendant and servants in the plays, you is used by these characters when the attendant is being obsequious or complaining, and when a servant is deferential, advising or lecturing characters of higher rank. You is more commonly used by higher-ranking characters to address upper commoners, probably due to the business context between customer and host/hostess, in Chapman’s An Humerous Dayes Myrth (1599) and in Peele’s The Old Wiues Tale (1595), but thou occurs when there is a more personal note. Thus a king addresses the host “Hearke you mine host” but “Keepe them thy self Veron” (Chapman: G4v and H1r; my italics). Unsurprisingly, two upper commoners, a host and hostess, address higher


ranks using you (21 of 23 examples), apart from a confidential thou by the host in Chapman. Pronoun usage between the pages and the smith and his wife, discussed above, may be unrelated to rank. It was shown in the macro-analysis that all ranks prefer you to thou when addressing characters of the same rank, yet the two upper ranks both use as much as 39 per cent thou in this context (see Table 7.17 in the Appendix). As hinted at in the macro-analysis, this can be accounted for by the expression of positive emotion and intimacy/friendship. It is used by male characters of the highest rank to both friends and family, and among gentlemen, in Peele’s The Old Wiues Tale (1595) and Chapman’s An Humerous Dayes Myrth (1599), as noted above. Positive emotion and social closeness also account for the use of thou by the gentry to the highest rank (9 of 11 examples), especially in friendly teasing in Chapman, as in (14) by a gentleman to a Lord, who is short of funds: (14)

Lab You must lend me some, for my boy is runne away with my purse. [...] Lem. And neuer since he went thou hadst not a peny, but stand by, Ile excuse you. (Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: G4v)

However, negative emotion by female characters to one mischievous gentleman is the motivation for much of the 43 per cent thou by the highest rank to the gentry: “Vilain, thou didst it in contempt of me” (Chapman An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: F2v). As also found in previous research (e.g. Byrne 1936: 146; Bock 1938: 7), the reciprocal pronoun by the two highest ranks, and the professionals group, seems to be you in less emotional contexts, in Chapman’s An Humerous Dayes Myrth (1599) and Warner’s Menaecmi (1595). In Warner, characters of the professionals group exchange far less thou (14%) with each other than do any other social rank. As already suggested in the macro-analysis, this might be meant to reflect the less secure social position of these characters compared with that of the higher ranks, that is, a position based on trade or profession rather than birth, which thus leads them to emulate the you of cultivated society, and avoid the pronoun associated with the lower ranks. You is used by professionals between both strangers and intimates, often even when angry, for example with a wife: “If ye were not such a brabling foole and mad-braine scold as yee are, yee would neuer thus crosse your husbande in all actions” (Warner, Menaecmi, 1595: A4v). Nevertheless, thou is used, mainly to express frustration and/or anger when addressing the ‘insane’, and when a wife is infuriated with her husband, although there are also three occasions when an


affectionate thou is used, to a lover for instance: “I neuer looke vpon thee, but I am quite out of loue with my wife” (Warner: B1v). The only, very brief, address between upper commoners is between father and son, mentioned above. There is little evidence of characters of the lower commoners, mainly servants, exchanging reciprocal thou in any of the three plays. However, unlike for the other ranks, there are no examples of unemotional address between lower commoners in the data. Although they exchange 46 per cent thou (13x), it occurs most commonly when expressing negative emotion (11x) in the three plays. Yet, interestingly, you (in 12 of 14 examples in face-to-face address) is also found in such cases, such as when a servant insults a gravedigger with “You whoreson sodden headed sheepes-face” (Peele, The Old Wiues Tale, 1595: C4v). It could be argued that this supports the claim by Bock (1938: 40–41) that those who might exchange an unemotional thou could switch to you to express emotion/ intimacy. Nevertheless, Bock (1938: 36) notes that thou could also be used when emotional, with the emotion indicated by a change of tone. Positive emotion is also expressed with both you (2x) and thou (2x), including a tender exchange between newly-weds in Peele in which the man uses thou, but the wife uses you, possibly reflecting female subordination. The micro-analysis of the period 1 data suggests that rank, especially with regard to exchanges between the higher ranks and attendant/servants, plays an important role in determining pronoun choice. Sex, age, family relationship, and degree of intimacy also appear to have some influence on pronoun usage. Emotion clearly encourages the use of thou between social equals, although even here you may be employed.

7.4.3.2 Trends in pronoun usage in the period 1600–1639 Few observations can be made regarding the influence of the sex parameter on pronoun usage in period 2, largely due to the dearth of data for female characters addressing each other (19x), and of female characters addressing lower-ranking male characters (1x), as in period 1. Two middle-aged citizens’ wives exchange you (and the term ‘woman’) in familiar address. One switches temporarily to thou (6x) when the subject becomes confidential, shown in (15): (15)

Mi. Ford. If I would but goe to hell, for an eternall moment, or so: I could be knighted. Mi. Page. What thou liest? Sir Alice Ford? these Knights will hacke, and so thou shouldst not alter the article of thy Gentry. (Shakespeare, The Merry Wiues of Windsor, 1623: 43)


Notably, whereas in period 1 thou was used primarily to express negative emotion by female characters when addressing male characters, in this period, it is only used by them to express positive feeling, albeit there are only five examples (compared with 172 you examples in face-to-face interaction). For example, Mistress Ford uses thou (3x) affectionately to her citizen husband: “How now (sweet Frank) why art thou melancholy?” (Shakespeare, The Merry Wiues of Windsor, 1623: 44). This she does, according to Byrne (1936: 72), possibly to “forestall his well-known jealousy”. The high percentage of thou (46%: see Table 7.5 in 7.3.2) used by male characters to address female characters is largely accounted for by address to two wives by a knight and a gentleman (56x) in Wilkins’ The Miseries of Inforst Mariage, from 1607. These female characters respond by using a respectful or patient you (27x): “As doth befit your seruant and your wife, That owe you loue and duty […]” (Wilkins: H1r). This is regardless of whether their husbands are being cruel or feigning affection. However, the use of thou in address to wives, in Wilkins, is almost entirely motivated by strong emotion, namely love (whether feigned or genuine) and hate, illustrated in (16), whereas address to husbands does not involve these emotions. In (16) a knight switches from an affectionate thou to a cold you when he finds his new wife is penniless, returning to thou in his fury: (16)

[...] Thou art my sweet Rogue, my Lambe, my Pigsny, my play-fellow, my pretty pretty any thing, come a busse prethee [...] Doe you heare Puppet, do you thinke you shal not be damned for this, to Cosen a Gentleman of his hopes, and compell your selfe into Matrimony with a man, whether hee wil or no with you [...] Whore, I and Iade, VVitch, Ilfacst, stinking-breath, crooked-nose, worse then the Deuill, and a plague on thee that euer I saw thee. (Wilkins, The Miseries of Inforst Mariage, 1607: H1r–H2r)

The use of both you (7x) and thou (20x) by the other husband, a gentleman character, in Wilkins, reflects his unstable state of mind. He first addresses his wife as you as if she were a stranger, and then switches to a condescending thou, which seems to indicate that he is superordinate in the relationship. As he starts to rave and insult her he switches back and forth between the two pronouns, for instance: “now your Champions gone, Minx thou hadst better ha gone quick vnto thy graue.[…] Ile teach you tricks for this, ha you a companion. […] Ile marke thee for a strumpet, and thy Bastards” (Wilkins, The Miseries of Inforst Mariage, 1607: I4r–v).


Where a wife, Mistress Ford, does briefly express emotion, thou is used (quoted above), yet the husband returns one rather impatient you: “I am not melancholy: Get you home” (Shakespeare, The Merry Wiues of Windsor, 1623: 44). It therefore appears to be emotion more than either the subordinate status of a wife, or sex per se, that motivates the use of thou. Moreover, despite the relatively substantial number of thou examples by husbands to wives in this period, it only relates to the usage of two characters, described above. In contrast to Johnson’s results (1966: 268), with regard to the early seventeenth century, there is no evidence in my data of fiancées using thou to fiancés in this period. There is a brief, affectionate address in which thou (2x) is used by a young gentleman to his fiancée: “pre’thee be not melancholy for my mis-chance; sorrow wi’ not keepe it, Sweet heart” (Jonson, Bartholmew Fayre, 1631: 30), but she addresses him sarcastically, using you (2x): “I am beholden to you, Sir, and to your Bartholmew-wit” (Jonson: 40). Otherwise, male and female characters of the same or similar rank (including family members) – whether upper or lower rank – do not use thou. This is possibly because there is relatively little or no emotion involved. The macro-analysis did not reveal any clear patterns regarding the age parameter (see Table 7.13 in the Appendix), and it is difficult to discern any influence age may have on pronoun usage in period 2. As in period 1, there is little sign of old characters addressing younger characters as thou but receiving you based solely on seniority. A good deal of the pronoun exchange between young and old characters is accounted for by a difference in rank. You is preferred (89%) by old characters to address youths due, to a great extent, to two characters: an old manservant addressing gentry and knights (95x) in Wilkins’ The Miseries of Inforst Mariage (1607), and a surly old tutor addressing his young master and other gentry (107x) in Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre (1631). Likewise, the use of thou by young characters to old characters is largely in address to an old manservant by gentry and a knight in Wilkins (28x), and to the old tutor (12x) and fairs-people (8x) by gentlemen in Jonson. Thus gentlemen, and a knight in the following example, address a gentleman’s old manservant in a friendly but condescending way: “Butler, let but this be done, and all the benefit requitall and happines I can promise thee fort, shall be this, Ile be thy rich maister, and thou shalt carry my purse” (Wilkins, The Miseries of Inforst Mariage, 1607: G1v). The use of you by young characters to old characters again seems to reflect rank. This is illustrated by a female servant’s address to Falstaff (34x) in Shakespeare’s The Merry Wiues of Windsor (1623). It is further illustrated in Wilkins, by the mocking use by a knight and a gentleman to the old servant (17x), as in “Yes goodman-slaue, you shal be master” (Wilkins: I4v), and by the gentleman to a lord and a knight (7x). Thou is used by old (male) characters having familial authority (in Wilkins) and/or being of higher rank than young addressees (14x), which includes Falstaff addressing


a female servant (in Shakespeare). Moreover, the pronoun usage of an old Irish pimp character in Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre (1631) accounts for half of the thou examples by old characters to all ages (30x), which has more to do with his being an uncouth ‘foreigner’, than his age: “Duke Quarlous, how dosht tou? tou dosht not know me, I feare? [...] Gi’ me tweluepence from tee, I vill help tee to a vife vorth forty marks for’t” (Jonson: 33). Such idiosyncratic usage by one character also contributes to the high percentage of thou (49%: see Table 7.13 in the Appendix) by the age group ‘adult or older adult’ to characters of the same age group, due to the ‘ranting’ Host’s consistently over-familiar address to professionals (25x): “What saist thou, my Bully-Rooke?” (Shakespeare, The Merry Wiues of Windsor, 1623: 45). Byrne (1936: 167) points to Shakespeare commonly exploiting thou for the purpose of depicting character qualities in his plays, arguing that the Host’s insistence on using thou shows him to be a braggart. Otherwise, the age group ‘adult or older adult’ is made up mostly of professionals, who generally use you (discussed below), in both Shakespeare’s The Merry Wiues of Windsor (1623) and Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre (1631). Young characters’ use of thou to other young characters in period 2 (124x) is largely due to address to wives (see above) and the expression of strong emotion between brothers, primarily anger, in Wilkins: “Draw and defend thy selfe, or Ile forget Thou art a man” (Wilkins, The Miseries of Inforst Mariage, 1607: I1r). It is also due to the expression of male comradeship in both Wilkins and Jonson (23x): “Now were a fine time for thee, Win-wife, to lay aboard thy widdow, thou’lt neuer be Master of a better season, or place” (Jonson, Bartholmew Fayre, 1631: 35). Thus as in period 1, in this last respect, the age of the characters using thou to express in-group membership does seem relevant, as older characters do not use thou in this way. Johnson (1966: 268) also draws attention to thou being used, for instance in Bartholmew Fayre and another play from the early seventeenth century, to express intimacy among close male companions, but notes that this also occurs among young ladies in two plays from the early seventeenth century. The rank parameter clearly influences pronoun usage in period 2 in that the characters belonging to the lowest rank – fairs-people (in Jonson) and servants (in Wilkins and Shakespeare) – tend not to use thou to the higher ranks, but use a business-like or deferential you respectively. Even when characters abuse those of higher rank, thou is rarely used: a gentleman is abused by a fairs-woman, who uses you, as in “you were engendred on a she-begger, in a barne, when the bald Thrasher, your Sire, was scarce warme” (Jonson, Bartholmew Fayre, 1631: 26). As mentioned in the macro-analysis, there are actually quite a few examples of thou to higher ranks (see Table 7.18 in the Appendix), but this is due to the address of the impudent attendant Pistol (see below) to Falstaff (9x) in Shakespeare’s The Merry Wiues of Windsor (1623), and the Irish pimp’s consistently inappropriate


usage (25x) in Jonson, and, to a much lesser extent, the comedic use of thou by the old servant, Butler (2x) in Wilkins’ The Miseries of Inforst Mariage (1607). He mockingly echoes a knight’s use of thou, shown in (17): (17)

Har. Nay then I tell thee they tooke into this wood. But. And I tell thee (setting thy worsh. Knighthood aside) he lyes in his throat that saies so: (Wilkins, The Miseries of Inforst Mariage, 1607: F3r)

The serving-man’s usage is possibly acceptable as he is pretending to be mad (to divert suspicion from himself), and the language of a fool or madman in Drama often goes against social convention (e.g. Finkenstaedt 1963: 115; Stein 2003: 293, 303). Exactly as described by Byrne (1936: 147–155) with regard to Shakespearean Drama, attendants/servants are generally addressed with a condescending or angry thou (“Thou lyest” Wilkins, The Miseries of Inforst Mariage, 1607: I3r), or a stern, peremptory, or mocking you, often in combination with ‘sirrah’ or ‘sir’, by their masters: “Hold Sirha, beare you these Letters tightly” (Shakespeare, The Merry Wiues of Windsor, 1623: 42). (Johnson (1966: 266–267) makes a similar observation regarding you, with reference to a play from 1621.) Thus the knight Falstaff gives thou (6x) and you (20x) to his attendants, the gentry give thou (7x) and you (19x) to servants, while professionals give you (11x). Unlike in period 1, there is a clear preference for you to a character’s own attendant or servant. When addressing others’ servants, knights prefer a condescending thou (21x) to an ironic you (5x). Other than one indignant you, the gentry only use thou (13x). Professionals only use peremptory you (7x): “speake-a-your Tale” (Shakespeare: 42), or a more neutral you (2x). Thus, with the exception of the latter rank, thou is preferred when addressing another’s servant: often this is when the servant is in a position to help, which suggests that thou has a patronising yet friendly note. Falstaff, for example, addresses the female servant in this way: “I am yet thy debter” (Shakespeare, The Merry Wiues of Windsor, 1623: 46). The increase in you from period 1 (9%) to period 2 (49%) by nobles/sirs to lower commoners is largely explained by address to an attendant and to another’s servant, who are both getting above their station, in Shakespeare and in Wilkins’ The Miseries of Inforst Mariage (1607) respectively. In Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre (1631), undesirables at the fair, such as the pimp and the young thief, are generally addressed by gentlemen as you (24x), probably to imply distance: “You are a cutpurse, Sir, this Gentleman here, and I, saw you” (Jonson: 45). But a contemptuous thou, to the pimp, also occurs (2x): “wilt thou be gone” (Jonson: 33). Other fairspeople – traders and a ballad-singer – are addressed as you (10x), but also with a condescending albeit friendly thou (20x) by the foolish young gentleman, Cokes.


It is this latter use of thou to fairs-people and others’ servants which accounts for much of the gentry’s use of thou (44%) to lower commoners in period 2. Professionals are distinct from the other ranks insofar as they use only you to all other ranks. The 100 per cent you (see Table 7.18 in the Appendix) to the highest rank reflects a citizen’s address to Falstaff (37x), when they, who are supposedly strangers, discuss a ‘business’ proposition in Shakespeare’s The Merry Wiues of Windsor (1623). Also in this play, and Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre (1631), you is used by professionals to gentry in address which ranges from polite to familiar, but unemotional (39x): “Come, gentle M. Slender, come; we stay for you [...] By cocke and pie, you shall not choose, Sir: come, come” (Shakespeare: 41). The tutor in Jonson uses you (107x) in unemotional address, and when lecturing, abusing, or being cold to gentry; he also uses it when mocking a female pedlar (7x). A peremptory you (see above) is preferred to order servants about in Shakespeare’s The Merry Wiues of Windsor (1623). Professionals seem to receive rather a lot of thou from the lower ranks. However, this is accounted for by the address of the over-familiar Host and the irreverent Pistol, which reflects the character of the speaker rather than the rank of the addressee. Byrne (1936: 158, 167) suggests that, in his dramatic works, Shakespeare was more interested in character qualities than social position: she refers to thou as “the pronoun of coarseness of soul” with reference to Pistol. The use of thou to professionals by a higher rank may reflect the relationship of master/tutor rather than that of gentleman addressing professional in Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre (1631): otherwise there are only three examples of thou, in which Falstaff addresses a citizen in an unexpectedly familiar manner to a relative stranger. This is possibly to show Falstaff ’s coarseness: “Master Broome, thou shalt know, I will predominate ouer the pezant, and thou shalt lye with his wife” (Shakespeare, The Merry Wiues of Windsor, 1623: 47). Amongst professionals, you (31x) is almost invariably used, even in familiar address between close family and friends (in Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre from 1631, and Shakespeare’s The Merry Wiues of Windsor from 1623). This is perhaps due to the generally unemotional contexts, which is in stark contrast to the emotional outbursts attested among the two higher ranks (see below). Unlike as put forward in the macro-analysis, and which seemed to apply in the period 1 data, this does not seem to be due to playwrights representing these characters as avoiding thou where thou might otherwise be predicted. As illustrated above, in the few instances of real intimacy (when sharing confidences) or when expressing affection/concern, thou is found (9x). Moreover, the percentage of thou is higher in period 2 (22%) than in period 1 (14%). The relatively similar figures (shown in Table 7.18 in the Appendix) for you (53%) and thou (47%) amongst characters of the highest rank (nobles/sirs) are due to two dialogues in Wilkins’ The Miseries of Inforst Mariage (1607). This is


the use of thou in both fury and feigned love (and a cold you) by a knight to his wife, who responds with you. There is also a brief exchange of you between a knight and a lord: “S. Will. My honoured Lord, your happily wel met, Lord. Ill met to see your Nephew in this case” (Wilkins: F1v). The high percentage of thou amongst the gentry (49%) is accounted for mainly by emotional address to a wife, and the expression of, primarily, anger by male characters in Wilkins. It is also accounted for by address to a fiancée and the expression of camaraderie between close male friends in Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre (1631). However, you is also used by these comrades, as thou is only occasionally inserted into their conversation. Otherwise, you is exchanged by the gentry in Wilkins when emotion is less strong, when a character is being courteous with the opposite sex in Jonson, and between relatives in Shakespeare’s The Merry Wiues of Windsor (1623). Thus, highly emotional exchanges in Wilkins’ The Miseries of Inforst Mariage (1607) seem to account for the increase in the percentage of thou among gentry and among nobles/sirs in this period compared with period 1. In both periods thou is primarily used by gentlemen characters to the highest rank to express camaraderie, despite an increase in thou from 9 per cent in period 1 to 38 per cent in period 2. However, two of the 15 thou examples, in Wilkins, are when a drunken gentleman insults his guardian, a Lord, as shown in (18). The pronoun switching highlights the gentleman’s inebriated state: (18)

Scar. Pitty ith thy throat, I can drinke Muscadine and Egges, and Muld sack, do you heare: you put a peece of turnd stuffe vpon me, but I wil– Lord. What will you do Sir? Scar. Pisse in thy way, and thats no slander. (Wilkins, The Miseries of Inforst Mariage, 1607: F1v)

Characters of the highest rank address the gentry as thou when chastising: “Shame to our name, to make thy selfe a Beast” (Wilkins, The Miseries of Inforst Mariage, 1607: F1v), which has more to do with emotion and family relationship than superior rank. A knight also uses thou once in a confidential, warning tone: “Be not so wilde, it is thine Vnckle Scarborrow” (Wilkins: F1v). Otherwise, whether being unemotional or stern, nobles/sirs use you to address gentlemen, and an obsequious, reverential you is used by a suitor to a gentlewoman: “Kind Mistres, as I protested, so againe I vow. Ifaith I loue you [...] Loue me then, The which loues you as Angels loues good men” (Wilkins: G4r). As can be seen in Tables 7.17 and 7.18 in the Appendix, there is a marked decrease in thou by the highest rank in address to gentry in period 2 (23%) in comparison with period 1 (43%). There is little evidence of characters from the lower ranks using thou as the unemotional reciprocal pronoun of address. For the same period, Bock (1938: 87) found that, in Shakespeare’s later plays, you was increasingly found among char-


acters of the lower ranks. Servants exchange you (18x) in Wilkins’ The Miseries of Inforst Mariage (1607) and Shakespeare’s The Merry Wiues of Windsor (1623). This is with the exception of “pray thee” (1x) to a close colleague (Shakespeare: 42). By contrast, Johnson (1966: 268) notes that thou is exchanged between servants in two plays from the early seventeenth century. Falstaff ’s attendants only briefly exchange a comradely thou (4x), and use one contemptuous thou: “O u base hungarian wight: wilt y the spigot wield” (Shakespeare: 41). As noted also by Bock (1938: 88–90), in Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre (1631), fairs-people tend to use you (39x). This is even when expressing negative feeling (“I may shew my ware, as well as you yours” Jonson: 39). Johnson (1966: 268) also points to this play as illustrating the tendency of the lower ranks to exchange you in the seventeenth century. The exception is two characters in this play who use thou (21x). These are the pimp, who is characterised by his ‘misuse’ of language (see above), and another character who only uses thou in familiar address to a ‘pig-woman’, Ursula; she addresses him rudely, but uses you. Although they are not man and wife, their bandying of insults and course familiarity is reminiscent of comedic marriages, and perhaps the pronoun usage is a mockery of prescribed husband/wife usage. In the period 2 data, you (65%) is preferred to a greater extent than it was in period 1 (54%) amongst characters from the lower commoners (see Tables 7.17 and 7.18 in the Appendix). If playwrights were basing the pronoun usage in their comedies on real everyday spoken interaction, my data suggests that you was the unemotional pronoun of address amongst all members of the lowest ranks by this period, and especially among servants (contrary to Johnson 1966: see above), who might be more likely to emulate the higher ranks due to their everyday contact with them (see e.g. Wales 1983: 117). The micro-analysis of the period 2 data suggests that rank, often in combination with emotion, plays an important role in pronoun selection. Inferior rank discourages the use of thou. Conversely, superior rank encourages the use of a condescending thou, especially when combined with mild positive or strong negative emotion. However, you is increasingly used when being stern, and particularly in an ironic tone when servants/attendants get above themselves. The use of thou between those of the same rank seems to be motivated by, often, strong emotion rather than perhaps sex, marital relationship, or age. But it is also occasionally used in a comradely, light-hearted tone by young gentlemen and knights to each other, as in period 1. Bock’s conclusions (1938: 87–93) regarding this period are not dissimilar. He notes not only an increase of you among the lower ranks, but he finds that you is further supplanting thou, as both pronouns can be found in angry conflicts, when intimate, and in address to inferiors.


7.4.3.3 Trends in pronoun usage in the period 1640–1679 There is some difference between the usage of male and female characters when addressing members of the opposite sex in period 3. In Wycherley’s The CountryWife (1675) and Brome’s A Mad Couple Well Match’d (1653), husbands address their wives using thou (15x) as well as you (52x), but husbands tend to receive you (33x) in return, as also noted by Johnson (1966: 268). You occurs between husband and wife in a familiar tone, but also when the husband is being firm or the wife is reproaching the husband. Only once does a young gentlewoman use thou, affectionately, (which is not appreciated) to her old husband (2x), as shown in (19): (19) Mrs. Pin. Oh my dear, dear Bud, welcome home; why dost thou look so fropish, who has nanger’d thee? Mr. Pin. Your a Fool. (Wycherley, The Country-Wife, 1675: 16)

Thou is also used with a similar note of affection, or to imply intimacy, by husbands, but it tends to carry an element of condescension, as when the old husband addresses his naïve wife: “No, thou never met’st with it, poor Innocent” (Wycherley, The Country-Wife, 1675: 34). In (20), from Brome’s A Mad Couple Well Match’d, from 1653, it is unclear whether the use of thou by a merchant, Saleware, to his wife Alicia is intended as implying superior power and/or is an attempt to express intimacy (he uses a you to her in the presence of a customer). If intimacy is intended, her cold resigned response with you seems a rejection of this; if condescension is intended, her reference to her subjugation to him clearly shows her resentment of this also. This leads to his attempting to pacify her, letting her have her way, but still trying to maintain superiority/intimacy: she relents, and he, happily thinking the relationship is saved, introduces ‘friend’ as a pet name to confirm their intimacy. However, she interprets this ‘friendship’ that he so readily suggests in a rather different way, and in his eagerness to please he is manipulated into a redefinition of their relationship, as that of friends rather than husband/wife. As a result his use of thou (8x) – whether to express power or intimacy – is no longer appropriate and he switches to you (4x). Sal. […] I hope thou hast overreach’d him indeed. Al. Thomas your hopes are vaine, Thomas in seating mee here to overreach, or underreach any body. I am weary of this Mechanick course Thomas; and of this courser habit, as I have told you divers and sundry times Thomas, and indeed of you Thomas that confine me to’t, but the bound must obey. Sal. [...] But for thy habit (though this be decent on

(20)


a Citizens wife) use thine owne fancy, let it be as Courtly, or as Lady-like as thou pleasest, or my Lords desires. Al. Then I am friends agen. Sal. Troth, and I’le call thee friend, and I prethee, let that be our familiar and common compellation: friend it will sound daintily, especially when thou shalt appeare too gallant to be my Wife. [...] Al. Is that a friendly question? Sal. I am corrected friend, but will you not take a Man to wait upon you? Al. To watch me, shall I? and give you account of my actions? was that spoke like a friend? Sal. I am agen corrected friend, Doe your own pleasure [...] (Brome, A Mad Couple Well Match’d, 1653: C7r–v)

The use of thou to wives, unlike the address of wives to husbands, is in some contrast to period 2, in which thou was used especially to express strong emotion – both love and hate. In period 3, honest affection is expressed, sporadically, but there are no violent outbursts of emotion as found in Wilkins’ The Miseries of Inforst Mariage (1607) in period 2. Also, unlike in the period 2 data, husbands almost immediately switch to you. It seems that only when the female character is under the authority of a particular male character is thou sometimes used, not only by a husband, but by a father, and a landlord. The greater part of the 21 per cent thou by male characters addressing female characters in period 3 (see Table 7.5 in 7.3.2) is found in Brewer’s The Covntrie Girle, from 1647. This is in address to the ‘covntrie-girle’ by her father, an old peasant (22x), but also by an old knight, Sir Robert, who is her landlord and would-be lover (20x). These men use you (18x) when rebuking her for her ‘ingratitude’ for the knight’s attentions, for example: “Is this the best you can returne him?” and “let me tell you Minion” (Brewer: C4r and D2r). To both, the girl consistently returns a respectful you (37x). With regard to address between husbands and wives, sex or marital status seems to influence pronoun usage, but in the case of the father and the knight, the authority is probably based on family relationship and rank rather than sex per se. Female characters give far less thou to each other (6x) than do male characters in direct address (40x). This is largely a result of the use of thou by male characters to signal in-group membership (27x) in Wycherley’s The Country-Wife (1675), illustrated in (21):


(21)

Spar. Come, you bubling Rogues you, where do we sup – Oh, Harcourt, my Mistriss tells me, you have been making fierce love to her all the Play long, hah, ha – but I – Har. I make love to her? Spar. Nay, I forgive thee; for I think I know thee, and I know her, but I am sure I know my self. Har. Did she tell you so? [...] Hor. Ay, Women are as apt to tell before the intrigue, as Men after it, and so shew themselves the vainer Sex; but hast thou a Mistriss, Sparkish? ’tis as hard for me to believe it, as that thou ever hadst a buble, as you brag’d just now. Spar. O your Servant, Sir; are you at your raillery, Sir? (Wycherley, The Country-Wife, 1675: 37)

Much of the address among female characters in all plays involves sisters, or sisters-in-law, and such signals might be considered redundant amongst them, although Johnson (1966: 269) in fact finds that some young ladies “say thou only to a female relative” (or a maid). The findings in the macro-analysis regarding age (see 7.3.3) suggested that age influences pronoun usage in the period 3 data: the highest percentage of thou (23%) is used by old characters addressing young characters (see Table 7.14 in the Appendix). The majority of these examples (43x) occur when an old peasant addresses his daughters, and Sir Robert addresses one of these peasant girls, in Brewer’s The Covntrie Girle, from 1647. As mentioned above, superiority based on family relationship and rank respectively probably has more influence than age here, but of course age may also encourage Sir Robert’s usage. Similarly, husbands occasionally addressing wives as thou may be additionally encouraged in two cases by the men being older (in Wycherley’s The Country-Wife, from 1675). This might also be the case in the address of a merchant (an ‘adult’) to his young female cousin (in Brome, A Mad Couple Well Match’d, 1653: see below). However, male authority, intimacy, or positive emotion seem the primary factors behind the pronoun choice in these cases. The unexpected 8 per cent thou (10x) used by young characters to address old characters are all examples motivated by rank (a gentleman to an old nurse) or emotion; that is, affection for a husband, negative feeling among male characters, or exasperation by a young Lady to an old Lady, as in “Thy tongue’s my ceaslesse torment” (Brewer, The Covntrie Girle, 1647: B3v). Young characters exchanging thou face-to-face (51x) can be said to relate to age, insofar as young gentlemen characters use thou to express camaraderie (illustrated above), accounting for over half the thou examples among youths.


The figures discussed in the macro-analysis pointed to the rank parameter influencing pronoun usage (see 7.3.4, and Table 7.19 in the Appendix). In accordance with previous research, there are no examples of thou used by characters to address those of higher rank, other than the brief address (2x) by a merchant when comforting his young gentlewoman cousin: “weepe not, but hold up thy head Cuz” (Brome, A Mad Couple Well Match’d, 1653: E3r). The use of you by the lowest rank to higher ranks usually reflects respect or deference. Thus peasants address an old knight (50x): “Our poverty possesses nothing Sir, But what is yours; you may command it” (Brewer, The Covntrie Girle, 1647: D1v). Only one country-maid addresses the afore-mentioned knight (1x) with a little less respect, when she refuses to leave: “An your Knighthood were –” (Brewer: D3r), meaning ‘regardless of how rich you are’. You is used by servants (90x) as expected, in Brewer and Brome. This is even when they are arguing, or gently rebuking their ‘betters’: “Away wag away, your Aunt loves you too well to thinke so of her” (Brome: D3r). The highest percentages of thou are due to address to characters of the lowest rank; as mentioned in the macro-analysis, characters of the highest rank actually prefer thou (56%) to you when addressing these characters, and the gentry also use thou (26%) to them. As discussed further below, characters of the lowest rank address members of the same rank using almost as much thou (48%) as you. The figures regarding address by the higher ranks to the lowest, reflect the use of thou by old Sir Robert to the peasant girl and her brother (21x), and by old Ladies to servants (3x) in Brewer’s The Covntrie Girle (1647), as well as by gentlemen addressing male and female servants (9x) in Brewer and in Brome’s A Mad Couple Well Match’d (1653). Rank seems a clear determining factor in all these examples, although often encouraged by other factors such as age and emotion. Apart from one example of you to address a street trader, there are no commoners represented at all in Wycherley’s The Country-Wife, from 1675. In the other two plays, address to servants in period 3 is not dissimilar to that in period 2, although there are far fewer examples. There is a slight preference by the two upper ranks for thou (10x) rather than you (7x) to servants of other characters. As in period 2, thou is used especially when attempting to enlist the support of the servant in a scheme, and the tone is condescending but friendly: “Doe, as thou hast done Wench [...] and I’le promise thee, it shall cost me a Chamblet Pettycoat” (Brewer, The Covntrie Girle, 1647: C2r). You (25x) is preferred to thou (2x) in address to a character’s own servant by the two upper ranks. Professionals only use you (4x) to another character’s servant. The use of you in address by higher ranks to servants tends not to carry the peremptory or ironic tone found previously, but can be found in both neutral and friendly address: “And you have brought me, what sweet Mistris Closet?” (Brome, A Mad Couple Well Match’d, 1653: D2r). However, in (22), the address of a gentleman, Carelesse, to his manservant, using both thou and you, is


clearly not friendly. Carelesse is the only character in this period to use you, and ‘sir’, in a clearly ironic tone, and thou in anger, to a servant. (22)

Wat. Do you thinke shee’l part with’t sir? Car. Cannot you beat it out of her sir? Wat. I cannot tell how to do that. Car. Thus sir – i’le give you demonstration, you malicious Rogue, you that conspirst with her to betray me, so good a Master I have beene to thee, and so good a friend to her, i’le recompence you both. (Brome, A Mad Couple Well Match’d, 1653: D6r)

In Brewer’s The Covntrie Girle (1647), a peasant addressing his daughters, and a manservant addressing his pregnant lover (a chambermaid), basically account for the use of thou (30x) face-to-face among characters from the lowest rank. In the first case, parental authority is the prime motivation: “Tis my conceit, that all his talk, – his Letters, and all the gifts he sent thee, were imployed, Ith’ way of triall: – Not to make thee naught; But so to sound thy goodnesse” (Brewer, The Covntrie Girle, 1647: C4v). In the second case male power may be the determining factor (she, being pregnant, is at the mercy of the man), but also the chambermaid may be considered of even lower status in the servant hierarchy than the manservant, who states dismissively: “Come, thou mak’st such a Matter, of Nothing” (Brewer: B3r). What is clear is that the high percentage of thou among the lowest rank does not reflect reciprocal thou, as the female characters thus addressed give you (7x) in return, implying respect and indignance respectively: “Think you so? I’le think so too then Father” (Brewer: C4v); “Nothing, doe you call it, Master William?” (Brewer: B3r). You is the pronoun of address between siblings in Brewer (18x), apart from one conciliatory thou: “Prethee be patient Sister” (Brewer: C4v). However, the use of you may be due to the lecturing tone adopted by a sister (12x). This character also uses a peremptory you to a nonfamily member: “Fidler, strike. I strike you else; – and cut your begging bowstrings” (Brewer: D3v). The use of thou to characters of the same rank by the professionals and gentry reflects the merchant’s address to his wife (in Brome’s A Mad Couple Well Match’d, from 1653), and, for the most part, light-hearted teasing by gentlemen characters, or affectionate address by spouses (in Wycherley’s The Country-Wife, from 1675). Nobles/sirs also use thou to characters of the same rank in a primarily positive or intimate tone (6x) in Wycherley and in Brewer’s The Covntrie Girle (1647). Thou is very rarely used in address to characters of the same rank to express negative emotion in period 3, occurring only between gentlemen (3x), and one Lady addressing another (2x). Other than the husband/wife exchange,


professionals are represented by characters who are not intimates, and only you is found, as might be expected. However, the majority of pronoun examples between nobles/sirs and gentry involve familiar address to relatives or close friends, yet you is clearly preferred. Also with regard to the two highest ranks, you occurs between engaged couples (77x) or during courtship (45x), even when these characters are affectionate or angry: “Dear, little Rogue, I told you, I’d bring you acquainted with all my Friends” and “You must pardon me, Sir, that I am not yet so obedient to you” (Wycherley, The Country-Wife, 1675: 19 and 45). You occurs also when a suitor is reverential, as in period 2: “I have not, in this eagernesse of Suit, Pursued, what’s yours, But you [...] the indowments Of your faire soule, – your vertues” (Brewer, The Covntrie Girle, 1647: D4v). Johnson (1966: 268) finds evidence of fiancés but not fiancées occasionally using thou in plays originating from this period in her corpus. Among the higher ranks (nobles/sirs, gentry, and professionals), in exchanges where there is a difference in relative rank, you is also found in all but three cases. The merchant twice addresses his gentlewoman cousin as thou (mentioned above). Also, there is a temporary switch to thou when a Baronet mocks a gentleman acquaintance he supposes to be a eunuch (3x) in Wycherley’s The Country-Wife (1675), and when a virtuous Lady is shocked by a young gentleman’s vulgar attempt to seduce her (7x) in Brome’s A Mad Couple Well Match’d (1653). Unsurprisingly, you is also found between non-intimates, of different relative rank, among the three highest ranks, but this is maintained even when the topic becomes personal. This is illustrated in (23), an exchange between a Lady and the merchant’s wife, Alicia (48x). The polite, formal business pronoun between customer and merchant takes on a false, icy, undertone as the Lady reveals that she knows her husband has paid £100 for the other woman’s favours: therefore the Lady has decided to get revenge by taking goods to the same value. (23)

La. […] My husband left with you, or lent you the last Terme a hundred pound, which hee assign’d to me; and now I have it in Commodity. Had you forgot it, when it was to do you a good turne, when your absent husband faild you, and you wanted it. […] Al. And I hope you will finde your money so well bestowd Madam, that you will vouchsafe always to know the Shop. La. Ever upon the like occasion, Mistris Saleware, so most kindly farwell sweet Mistris Saleware. Al. The humblest of your servants Madam. (Brome, A Mad Couple Well Match’d, 1653: C3r–v)


The decrease in thou from 26 per cent in period 2 to 10 per cent in period 3 (see 7.3.1, Table 7.2) is likely to be due in part to the lack of highly emotional scenes, which clearly led to a high incidence of thou in the previous period. There is little evidence of strong – uncontrolled – emotion in the three plays from this period, and thou motivated purely by emotion is rare. The micro-analysis shows that thou in this period tends to be motivated by superior rank, and the superior status of a father/husbands, or is found in comradely address by gentlemen characters to each other. Nevertheless, you is preferred in address to both servants, wives, and gentleman friends, and within all ranks represented, even when there is a degree of emotion involved. Bock’s findings (1938: 93–101) are again similar to mine in that thou is infrequent, and only occasionally found to express anger, intimacy, and to address inferiors, as well as to reveal character type. In the earliest play, from 1664, he finds some evidence of the lower ranks exchanging thou, but also you. He also illustrates the use of thou in pathos, by a lovesick character, which might be comparable to the address by the foolish suitor to the maid disguised as the Lady (see 7.4.2). However, unlike my data, Bock’s data (1938: 16, Appendix) attests many examples of prithee (77x), which he considers a frozen expression.26 Bock (1938: 99, 101) argues that pronoun usage is increasingly unsystematic and inconsistent, but my data does not support this conclusion. Pronoun usage in my data is fully explicable, and usage clearly indicates that thou is gradually being superseded by you.

7.4.3.4 Trends in pronoun usage in the period 1680–1719 In this period, there is some evidence in my data of differences in pronoun usage which may be based on the sex of the characters involved. Two wives, though usually addressed as you (34x), are also addressed as thou (8x), but the husbands are not. Moreover, this is noted by Johnson (1966: 268), for example, in a play from 1682, but she also finds thou used by both spouses, for instance, in a play from 1690. In my data, the use of thou (2x) by a young husband, Worthy (by name and nature), seems to be motivated by love, and an attempt to placate his sullen wife: “Come, prithee cheer up, and glad my Heart that knows no Joy while thou art sad” (Killigrew, Chit-Chat, 1719: 26). Elsewhere he uses you in affectionate speech (9x), but receives a chilly you (3x) from his wife. However, a jealous old merchant’s usage to his young wife, illustrated in (24), might be interpreted as reflecting male authority. He generally uses a sharp or sarcastic you (25x), but reprimands her, using thou (6x), when she protests he is being ridiculous, as in (24): her address, using you, seems resigned (16x).

26. See Chapter 8 for a discussion of prithee in my data.


(24)

Oliv. Because you heard he courted me before I was Married, you think I must needs be naught with him. Smy. No, no, very Good in your sense, I warrant; Naught, why thou art not a Citizen’s Wife for nothing; thou hast more grace I trust in the Lord, than not to think Cuckolding thy Husband a good honest practicable Thing; (Manley, The Lost Lover, 1696: 17–18)

Also possibly reflecting male dominance, an old knight (described as ill-bred) addresses his reluctant young fiancée using mostly thou (10x), in a condescending and overly-intimate manner; she parries this with a coldly polite you, and ‘sir’ (7x), illustrated in (25). Note his switch to you when the reference is less ‘personal’. (25)

Sir Rustick. Which dost thou like best, my Dear, the Town, or Country. Mar. The Town, Sir, beyond Comparison, all good Judges are of my Opinion, I hope you are one of them. Sir Rustick. Before George not I, yet if it had not been for me you had been there still; I persuaded my Lady to send for you up, and have provided a Husband for thee, Girl, what say’st thou to a Husband, heigh. Mar. ’Tis a sort of Creature, has not yet fallen under my Consideration. Sir Rustick. All in good time, Child; I like thee ne’er the worse for that. […] (Manley, The Lost Lover, 1696: 6)

There is another possible difference between the sexes: the great majority of the thou examples used by young male characters of the upper ranks addressing other young male characters are to express comradeship, often through lighthearted teasing (33x), as also found in earlier periods. Johnson (1966: 268) also comments on this thou of male companionship, with reference to two plays (from 1682 and 1700). It might be argued that two of the five thou examples in my data between female characters might be compared to this usage, when a married (adult) gentlewoman character marks an increase in intimacy with her young sister-in-law with a light-hearted and affectionate “Ha, ha, ha, my dear Sister, let me embrace thee, now we are Friends indeed!” (Farquhar, The Beaux Stratagem, 1707: 22; this is also the only example of thou in the corpus sample of this play). And a rather teasing tone is evident when a young gentlewoman character, Marlove, notes to her recently married young friend, Moderna “I’m glad to find neither Marriage, nor the Country, have been able to spoil thy Gaiety” (Killi-


grew, Chit-Chat, 1719: 7). However, thou does not otherwise occur in scenes in which female characters address other female characters that are comparable to the scenes in which male characters use occasional examples of comradely thou. For example, the two above-mentioned female characters in Farquhar exchange you when discussing intimate matters – at length – and plotting together (83x), and apart from one gentle prithee, the second pair exchange you (24x) in polite, friendly or intimate discourse. In this period, it is primarily female characters who lose control of themselves and use thou (17x) in anger: “thou Faithless, Base, Perfidious Man” (Killigrew, Chit-Chat, 1719: 3). Interestingly, this is most evident in The Lost Lover (1696) written by a woman dramatist, Mary Manley. Thou is used in anger by male characters to female characters (13x) – both face-to-face and in asides (see 7.4.1) – but only in response to thou by these female characters (in Manley and Killigrew). In one long scene (Manley, The Lost Lover, 1696: 25–28), a young gentlewoman, Belira, exchanges you with a young gentleman, Wilmore, her ‘lost lover’, even when intimate. But she switches to thou (15x) when most deeply moved (“thy heart, Traytor, thy perjur’d Heart; tell me, how shall I get it back?”), switching back to you (42x) when contemptuous (“I’ll think no more upon you”). He maintains a constant you (21x) until the end when he uses thou (11x) to show anger and contempt at her behaviour (“Let me not think upon thee, for fear it force my Tongue to something worse, than shou’d be said of Ladies”). It thus seems that thou can be used regardless of the sex of a character when the emotion is powerful, but that, at least in this period, it is women who are characterised as being more susceptible to emotional outbursts. Age difference between characters is unlikely to play much of a role in the data for this period, simply because it is predominantly young characters who are represented in the data. Nevertheless, the highest percentage of thou with reference to age (see Table 7.15 in the Appendix) is accounted for by old characters addressing youths (18%). All examples but one are by male characters addressing female characters over whom they have some power, namely a fiancée and a wife (illustrated above), which would further encourage this usage. These two men are characterised as ridiculous: the use of thou seems to be used frequently in Drama Comedy to signal that a character is foolish. The predominance of young characters has an effect on pronoun usage, as it results in a high proportion of thou examples between male characters expressing in-group membership, which seems to occur almost exclusively among young male characters: “Friend, I am as glad to see thee pleas’d, as Knaves wou’d be to have thee griev’d” (Killigrew, Chit-Chat, 1719: 3). This accounts for 44 per cent of thou usage amongst youths. The remainder of thou examples among this age group for the most part express negative emotion, especially between male and female characters, as illustrated above. The


use of 8 per cent thou by young characters to address old characters, apparently contradicting the premise that addressee seniority would discourage this usage, is commented on in 7.4.1: a gentleman scornfully addresses a jealous merchant in an aside (4x), and rank and emotion outweigh age, as in period 3. The gentleman character uses thou only once in direct address to the merchant, switching from you: “my Friendship to you, hinders me to think of her, as I would, if she were not thy Wife” (Manley, The Lost Lover, 1696: 9). This use of thou seems to reveal the gentleman’s true feeling of anger, following his falsely polite you. In this period almost all the pronoun examples involve characters who are representatives of the gentry, as mentioned in the macro-analysis, and in almost two thirds of all the examples in this period both the speaker and addressee are gentry characters (excluding those in disguise: see Table 7.20 in the Appendix). Thou is primarily used amongst the gentry when expressing male comradeship (23x) or strong negative feeling towards characters of the opposite sex (30x). You is generally used in familiar address among the gentry, among the highest rank, and between these two ranks, even when expressing a degree of emotion (positive or negative), and during courtship. A Lady and a knight receive you from a daughter and son respectively (6x) as predicted, but the daughter, a gentlewoman, also receives you (6x) from her mother, even when parental power is expressed: “Sir Rustick Good-heart and I, have agreed upon your Marriage; my Authority secures your Consent” (Manley, The Lost Lover, 1696: 5). Thou in direct address to characters of slightly lower rank (the highest rank to gentry, or gentry to professionals) tends to be motivated by male comradeship (9x), or a claim to intimacy coloured by a hint of condescension (14x). With regard to the former, Townly, a character belonging to the professionals group, but part of the gentry ‘gang’, receives more thou (5x) than you (2x) from his gentlemen friends. Although this could be interpreted as a way of marking Townly as an outsider on the basis of his slightly inferior status, it is more likely to be a way of demonstrating his acceptance into the group, as in (26): (26)

Ala. Good, Bellamar; very good. — Townly, when shall I hear thee say such a Thing? Thy Wit is like a certain Friends of ours, who to be very sharp, bids you kiss his A---, and laughs. You know him, Bellamar? (Killigrew, Chit-Chat, 1719: 10)

This last alternative may be supported by Townly’s earlier use of thou (1x) to one of his gentlemen comrades, although he otherwise uses you (12x). Intimacy combined with condescension is demonstrated by the address of an old Lady to her young gentlewoman companion: “Belira, thou won’t flatter me” (Manley, The Lost Lover, 1696: 5), as well as that of the old knight to his fiancée (see above).


Also, when drunk, Townly is addressed as thou (3x) by a gentlewoman, as if he were a child, as in “You want warm Water to wash those Hands of thine, and that dear dirty Face. Why, Man, thou’rt as dirty as a Chymist” (Killigrew, Chit-Chat, 1719: 30). Elsewhere, you is exchanged between gentry and professionals, apart from the one thou in anger to the old merchant, quoted above. Unlike in period 3, there is little evidence of characters of the lower ranks being addressed with a superior thou, other than perhaps a brief use of thou (3x) by the old merchant to a fortune-teller, an upper commoner in Manley’s The Lost Lover (1696). The merchant otherwise exchanges you with the fortune-teller (31x). In Farquhar’s The Beaux Stratagem (1707), an innkeeper exchanges a business-like you with the gentry (5x), as does the landlord’s daughter with a gentleman (26x), when discussing marriage in terms of a business contract. Female shopkeepers also exchange you with customers, both gentlemen (17x) and gentlewomen (11x): an obsequious shopkeeper says “Madam, your Ladyship’s most humble Servant. I hope, Madam, your Head and Ruffles pleas’d your Ladyship”, and is answered in a cold, distant manner: “I’ll send you that monstrous Head and Ruffles; and if you can reduce them to a size fit for a Christian, you’ll do Miracles” (Killigrew, ChitChat, 1719: 28, 29). Unfortunately, there is very little data with regard to exchanges between higher ranks and the lowest rank, which is represented by servants in the three plays. Servants are addressed as you by their gentry employers (10x), by other gentry characters (4x) and a merchant (1x), and by an upper commoner to his own servant (2x). The tone is usually neutral or friendly: “Where’s your Master, Friend” (Manley, The Lost Lover, 1696: 17). A servant is only addressed as thou (1x) in his role as accomplice to his master, the fortune-teller: “thou didst it admirably” (Manley: 20). Not unexpectedly, servants give an unemotional you to those of higher rank, that is, the gentry (10x). There is no address between lower commoners at all in this period, and very little between upper commoners: the landlord exchanges you with his daughter (7x). His tone is rather sharp, as in “why you Jade [...]” (Farquhar, The Beaux Stratagem, 1707: 16). In the period 4 data, you is normally exchanged by all: in business contexts, when being polite, or distant, but also when talking to close friends or family, even when discussing intimate matters. With the exception of the foolish old baronet addressing his unwilling fiancée, thou is never the pronoun preferred in address to any character. Self-control may be temporarily lost during a discussion of personal matters, at which point thou can occur in a sudden burst of emotion. Thou may also occur, to express friendly condescension or male camaraderie, in a conversation in which you otherwise predominates. Bock (1938: 101–110) also points to the use of thou, fleetingly, to express emotion and intimacy, and finds it rarely used to inferiors in his data. As already mentioned, I have little data for


address to the lower commoners: the data by and large only reflects the pronoun exchange of gentry characters in this period.

7.4.3.5 Trends in pronoun usage in the period 1720–1760 The sex parameter appears to play a role in motivating pronoun usage in the period 5 data insofar as, like in period 4, it is female characters rather than male characters who lose control; male characters do not use thou in anger. In this period, for the first time in the data (see Table 7.5 in 7.3.2), female characters actually use more thou to male and female characters respectively (10% and 7%) than male characters do (2% and 4%). The same is true when address in aside and apostrophe (see 7.4.1) is discounted (8% and 6% for female characters addressing male and female characters respectively). This is largely due to two rather unsympathetic female characters, Lady Hippish (in Miller’s The Mother-in-Law, from 1734) and Mrs Dotterel (in Garrick’s The Male-Coquette, from 1757). These two female characters account for over half of the thou examples (26 of 42 in face-toface interaction). Their use of thou in anger (18x), but also the Lady’s superior thou to a maid (7x), may be meant by the dramatists to highlight these characters’ negative traits. Both use thou in furious outbursts of emotion. However, whereas Mrs Dotterel, the promiscuous wife, is baited by the mocking sarcasm of her ex-lover Daffodil, illustrated in (27), Lady Hippish has no such excuse. (27)

[...] Thou wretched, base, false, worthless Animal! Daffodil. You do me Honour. [Bowing. [...] I am never so happy, as when I am in your Company. Mrs. Dotterel. Thou liest: Thou art never so happy as when thou art deceiving, and betraying our foolish Sex – and all for what? Why, for the poor Reputation of having that, which thou hast neither Power nor Spirit to enjoy. (Garrick, The Male-Coquette, 1757: 22)

When Lady Hippish is revealed as a ruthless gold-digger, the respectful or affectionate tone feigned earlier in the play, using you (7x), for example, “The Regard I have for you and your Family, my Dear [...]” (Miller, The Mother-in-Law, 1734: 52), disappears abruptly. In anger, she addresses her husband as thou (11x), shown in (28), before regaining control of herself and switching to a bitter you


(7x): “I shall so harass you, my Dear, that you shall wish your self as dead as you pretended to be” (Miller: 85). (28)

Sir Cred. [To Lady Hip.] I’m very glad, Madam, I’ve discover’d your Affection, too, and heard the fine Panegyrick you made upon me. – A grunting, grumbling, filthy Fellow; always hauking, coughing, and spitting. – Hey! Mistress. Ah! this is such a Lesson as will make me wiser for the future, I believe. Lady Hip. ’Tis such a Lesson, Fool, as I shall make thee repent having ever got from me. Thou shalt pay so dear for thy Wisdom, as shall make thee wish thy self in easy Delusion again. (Miller, The Mother-in-Law, 1734: 84)

Unlike the unreciprocal use of thou in earlier periods between spouses, in one of the scenes prior to that illustrated above, Lady Hippish and her husband both use thou affectionately (2x), albeit insincerely on her part: however, Sir Hippish generally addresses her as you, whether affectionate (2x) or bitter (13x). Including this latter fond exchange, both male and female characters use thou fleetingly, to show affection or concern for family members or other characters of similar rank they are close to (10x). Of these, there is little evidence of thou being used by men to express in-group membership, although the following is a possible candidate. A respectable young gentleman character, Bevil, expresses concern using thou when first addressing his friend, another young gentleman: “Well Charles, why so much Care in thy Countenance?” (Steele, The Conscious Lovers, 1723: 23); however, once a sympathetic comradely tone is thus established, you (57x) is used by both as they discuss personal matters, argue, and conspire together to win the women they love. (This usage is reminiscent of an aunt addressing her niece, in the same play, with a kindly, maternal thou (1x), to show sympathy rather than condescension, before exchanging you (56x) in a calm discussion of a man’s merits.) Also, when Daffodil, a young gentleman, expresses mock annoyance with an old baronet (“Prithee, Sir William, be quiet – must a Man be in Love with every Woman that invites him!” Garrick, The Male-Coquette, 1757: 39), this might be construed as male camaraderie (despite the addressee’s age). However, the rest of the group, young upper-ranking ‘sportsmen’, exchange you in their vacuous banter (38x). Age is also less likely to play a role in the data for this period, as almost all the central characters are the same age, classified as ‘Youth’ (see Table 7.16 in the Appendix). Even where there is a difference in age, it seems that emotion and/or


family relationship is the prime motivation for pronoun usage. Thus the 23 per cent thou (16x) by youths to old adults, which appears to conflict with the predicted usage with regard to age, is essentially accounted for by young Lady Hippish in direct address to her old husband (12x), in a rage, or with pretended affection, as described above. Old Sir Hippish is also addressed affectionately by his adult brother, using prithee (1x), but when they argue they exchange you (97x). Sir Hippish, who thus receives thou, is also the character responsible for the 15 per cent thou by old adults to youths. Although he uses thou to his young wife and daughter (4x), this is motivated by positive emotion. He uses you (23x) when sharply rebuking his youngest daughter, a child: “Is this the way of doing what you was bid? Did not I order you to come and tell me immediately every thing that you saw? [...] O! I shall make you see something presently” (Miller, The Mother-in-Law, 1734: 53–54). The old baronet’s use of thou to the maid (2x) is also likely to be motivated by an element of emotion combined with rank: “But, Primrose, ar’t thee not afraid that her very thinking me dead, will break her Heart?” (Miller: 80). He elsewhere uses you to her in a sharp, exasperated tone: “you impertinent Hussy […] you meddling Baggage […] you tormenting Beast!” (Miller: 61, 73, 74). Also a result of emotion and family relationship is the thou (1x) in direct address by an adult (an aunt) to a youth (her niece), in Steele’s The Conscious Lovers, from 1723 (see also 7.4.1). Unlike in earlier periods in the data, the use of thou (24x) by youths addressing other youths hardly seems to be accounted for by the expression of male camaraderie, which is a usage apparently related to the age parameter. However, similar to earlier periods is the thou used between youths in occasional address to servants in all plays (12x), and in anger (7x), shown in example (27) above: this is usage which is not dependent on speaker or addressee age. Other than emotion, a difference in rank seems the main parameter influencing pronoun usage in period 5. Although not frequently, both maids and manservants are addressed with thou by their masters and mistresses (13x).27 This is usually encouraged by an element of positive emotion, such as concern (“What ails thee, Primrose? Why those Tears?” Miller, The Mother-in-Law, 1734: 82), or negative feeling (“Thou art a most incomprehensible Blockhead” Garrick, The Male-Coquette, 1757: 12). You tends to be used when there is no element of emotion involved, when servants are mildly rebuked, or given orders. Only one character, the cold Lady Hippish, uses thou consistently to her maid; it is her ad27. The highest rank give 9 thou and 11 you to their servant, the gentry give 3 thou and 19 you to their servants, a character of the professionals gives 1 thou and 16 you to her servant. Furthermore, a gentleman gives 1 thou and 4 you to another’s servant, while another gentleman uses only you (26x) to another’s servant.


dress to the maid which accounts for the high percentage of thou by nobles/sirs to lower commoners (45%) mentioned in 7.3.4. This character and her husband addressing the maid are, in fact, responsible for all occurrences of thou and you (20x) by the highest rank to the lowest (see Table 7.21 in the Appendix). The three examples of thou, by a maid, and a professional, to gentry, occur in aside (see 7.4.1). As expected, the use of thou by lower ranks to higher ranks is not found in face-to-face interaction: servants use you in direct address to characters of higher rank. For example, the maid in Miller’s The Mother-in-Law (1734) gives you (90x) regardless of either the tone or the addressee: she uses you when being cheeky to Sir Hippish, when conspiring with gentlemen, and when addressing an official, a doctor, or Sir Hippish’s relatives. With regard to the upper ranks, as also mentioned in 7.3.4, the high percentage of thou (35%) among nobles/sirs is essentially due to one character. It is the result of Lady Hippish’s usage (12x; see also 7.4.1), and the affectionate use of thou by her husband to her (“Goodby to thee, my Life.” Miller, The Mother-inLaw, 1734: 53). Elsewhere, these two use you when showing affection, respect, or bitterness (29x), as described above. A bitter you is also exchanged between Lady Hippish and her step-daughter, a gentlewoman: “Lady Hip. [...] shut your Mouth again; you’ll say some foolish thing else, that will make one blush for you. Belina. Blush! Fy on you! you are an audacious wicked Woman” (Miller: 85). The gentry’s use of thou to nobles/sirs occurs only when one gentleman addresses his brother Sir Hippish, and Daffodil addresses an old baronet friend, mentioned above. You is the normal pronoun these characters exchange, and that exchanged by the other gentlemen gamblers in Garrick’s The Male Coquette, from 1757 (see above). In the same play, female characters of the two upper ranks who have been vying for Daffodil’s attentions also use you (7x), even when being bitchy. During courtship, you (78x) is exchanged between a gentleman and gentlewoman in Garrick, and between a gentleman and a merchant’s young daughter in Steele’s The Conscious Lovers (1723). Two gentlewomen in Garrick use you (45x) when these cousins discuss one of them masquerading as a man in a plot to uncover the unfaithful lover, Daffodil. In Steele, professionals also exchange you; it is used between the aunt and niece, and between a merchant’s wife and her daughter (10x), even though the mother first expresses condescension and then anger. Doctors use you in a bullying tone to higher ranks (23x), but one receives a rather frosty you from a gentleman: “You are not us’d, I see, to talk to People’s Faces” (Miller, The Mother-in-Law, 1734: 58). Unlike period 4, there is data for pronoun exchange among lower commoners (but not upper commoners): servants exchange you in two plays from period 5. However, with the exception of a deferential you and ‘Mr’ by a servant lower in the hierarchy than the one he addresses, the data consists of only two exchanges.


One is between a manservant and a maid, in Steele’s The Conscious Lovers, from 1723 (55x), and another is between waiters (4x), in Garrick’s The Male-Coquette, from 1757. In both there is an echo of the language used by the upper ranks, and it is likely that the playwrights intended these as purely comedic exchanges and not as accurate reflections of usage by the lower ranks. Thus the maid addresses the manservant (their respective mistress and master are also courting, so there is a further ‘echo’): “Well, since you are so humble, or so cool, as to ravish my Hand only, I’ll take my Leave of you like a great Lady, and you a Man of Quality” (Steele, The Conscious Lovers, 1723: 43). The other dialogue is even more explicitly mirroring usage of the upper ranks: waiters serving the gambler Daffodil and his cronies, have a conversation (29a) which is a comic copy of that of their ‘betters’ (29b): (29) b.

a.

1st Waiter. I’ll lay you, Tom, Five Six-pences to Three, that my Lord wins his Bett with his Honour Daffodil. 2d Waiter. Done with you Harry – I’ll take your Half Crown to Eighteen-pence – (Garrick, The Male-Coquette, 1757: 40) Lord Racket. I’ll bet Fifty Pound, that he don’t live till Morning. Sir William. I’ll lay Six to Four, he don’t live a Week. Daffodil. I’ll take your Fifty Pound. (Garrick, The Male-Coquette, 1757: 37)

Pronoun usage in period 5 is very similar to that in period 4, other than that the expression of male camaraderie is scarce. You is used in period 5, whether the context is business-like, jovial, intimate, or emotional, except for isolated occurrences of thou, primarily to express sympathy or affection, but also sometimes pointing to the inferior rank of the character addressed. Apart from such fleeting usage, thou is only used by two female characters from the two highest ranks, by and large to express uncontrollable anger. Bock’s data for 1720–1760 is limited to one play, John Gay’s The Beggar’s Opera. In this play from 1726, the lower ranks exchange you, with thou essentially limited to expressing wrath and affection in much the same way as in my data (Bock 1938: 110–112). In the next play in his corpus, from 1768, Bock (1938: 112–114) finds thou restricted to a handful of examples, expressing positive feeling, in aside or apostrophe.


7.4.4 Summary of the micro-analysis The micro-analysis indicates that important factors influencing pronoun usage in Drama Comedy are character sex and rank, as is also suggested by the macroanalysis. In contrast, age per se does not have a clear influence on pronoun usage despite the figures presented in the macro-analysis. Moreover, the micro-analysis clearly shows that family relationship, social distance between characters, and especially the emotional state of the character speaking, play an important role which could not be discerned by the quantitative study. Furthermore, in some cases, pronoun usage seems to be specifically intended to reflect the nature of a particular character: the use of thou emphasising that a female character is a scold, or a male character a braggart, for example. When a character is a madman, unbalanced, or a fool, this has also been shown to encourage the use of thou. Usually, there is more than one of the above factors influencing the pronoun usage of a character in a particular utterance. Thou is encouraged when the address is an aside or apostrophe (7.4.1), as this is when characters are especially likely to express their true feelings. This also enables servants to address their masters using an emotional thou with impunity. Nevertheless, you also occurs, and the pronoun usage of characters in aside and apostrophe does not differ greatly from that of these characters in direct address. When a character is in disguise, pronoun exchange with other characters seems to depend on the identity assumed rather than the true sex, age, and/or rank of the disguised character (7.4.2). Taking into account that female characters address other female characters much less than male characters address each other in Drama Comedy (especially in the first two periods), there nevertheless seems to be one difference between the sexes regarding pronoun usage. In all periods, except perhaps period 5, there is a tendency for young gentlemen characters, and sometimes baronets, to use an occasional comradely thou in light-hearted conversation. This tends not to occur in light-hearted dialogue between female characters (albeit there is less data in this regard). The same tendency is suggested by Johnson’s qualitative analysis in that between male companions “the thou-singular occurs with especial frequency throughout the [seventeenth] century”, but a similar intimate thou between young ladies is only noted with reference to two plays from early in the century (Johnson 1966: 268). The reason for this difference is uncertain. If playwrights are reflecting usage in the society of the time, the reason may be that gentlewomen characters are represented as being more sensitive to the implications of superiority and emotion involved in using thou, and therefore avoiding it. Conversely, whereas gentlewomen characters in the data tend to associate with their relatives and only a few female friends, the gentlemen characters often belong to a wider


group of male friends. Such a group might encourage the use of insider language, in this case the occasional ‘pally’ thou, as a sign of membership. Whether there is an element of covert prestige in this use of thou (cf. Trudgill 1972) – in other words, whether or not it is associated with the hardy masculinity of low-ranking men – is unclear. The evidence from Drama Comedy suggests that you is the reciprocal pronoun even amongst lower commoners; yet in contemporaneous grammars (see Chapter 4), it is suggested that thou still occurred among the ‘ungentile’ into the eighteenth century (e.g. Greenwood 1711: 110). Alternatively, the dramatists – being male themselves, with the exception of Mary Manley – may simply better understand and thus better depict the familiar exchanges of all-male groups than those of all-female groups. There is some evidence of male characters using thou to female characters over whom they may have authority of some kind. It is unclear, however, whether this is due to male characters’ domination over female characters, as thou is usually used – mainly by husbands – in combination with positive or negative emotion, but also to mark intimacy. However, husbands use thou to wives (and receive you) far more often than vice versa, in periods 1 to 4, but not 5. Wives very rarely use thou in direct address to husbands and only to express emotion: when emphasising affection (6x) in periods 2, 3, and 5, or when furious (18x) in periods 1 and 5. When husbands use thou there is sometimes a condescending tone, or only a hint of emotion. Furthermore, it might be argued that the use of an intimate thou can be a way for a husband to remind other male characters present on stage that the woman belongs to him, and therefore that they should keep their distance. This might help to explain the negative reaction of husbands on the two occasions that wives address them as thou upon their entering the scene (periods 2 and 3). The use of you by both husbands and wives after being addressed thou can express a coldness which implies a rejection of intimacy and affection. Nevertheless, spouses most frequently exchange you, and no real change in pronoun usage between spouses can be discerned over time. You also predominates between lovers, and between characters who have had or are discussing having an affair. Between ex-lovers, thou occurs when expressing strong negative emotion, and this is usually by spurned female characters (periods 1, 4 and 5). Fiancés may use thou (12x) to their fiancées, and receive you (9x), in period 2 and 4, as Johnson (1966: 268) also finds in her corpus with reference to plays dating from period 3. However, this might reflect an eagerness for intimacy by the former, and the unwillingness of the latter, rather than a power imbalance based on sex: where the engaged couple both seem relatively disinterested, you is exchanged (periods 3 and 4). Furthermore, respectable suitors tend to give and receive you with the female character they are pursuing, at least after 1600 (cf. the unworthy suitor’s use of thou described in 7.4.2).


In all periods, there is some evidence of pronoun usage between parents and their, usually, grown-up daughters. You tends to be used, whether with an authoritative, neutral or warm tone. Thou is only ever used, by the father, never the mother, to express parental authority, in period 1 (2x) and period 3 (23x), but also to express affection (3x) in period 5. Sons are rarely addressed: in period 1 they receive thou (3x), and in period 3, you (1x). Both sons and daughters always give a respectful you to parents. Whereas there is evidence of familiar or affectionate thou between sibling characters before 1600 (12x), after this siblings usually exchange you, except for thou in fury in period 2, and in the last three periods an occasional prithee. The rank parameter plays a clear role in pronoun usage according to both the macro and the micro-analysis. Characters of the lower ranks tend to give you to those of superior rank. Upper and lower commoners in their role as shopkeepers and trades-people tend to exchange a distant/respectful you during business with higher ranks. Servants usually give a deferential you to higher ranks, but also use you when being cheeky or argumentative. They receive both thou and you (including the use of ironic you, with ‘sirrah’ or ‘sir’ in address to manservants). There is some change over time with regard to address to servants: in the first period thou is clearly the preferred pronoun of address, but after 1600, thou is used more to others’ servants (often when the servants are able to aid in a scheme), while you with stern, ironic or peremptory undertones is preferred by masters. After 1640 you is increasingly used without such undertones, although thou continues to occur, and is even used consistently by one mistress to her maid as late as period 5. Although not relating solely to servants, the evidence of a decline in thou to inferiors in my data is supported by the quantitative results of Johnson (1959, 1966) for the seventeenth century (see 7.3.4.1), as well as the qualitative results of Bock’s (1938) study: he finds there is no thou to inferiors at all after 1705 (see 7.3.4 and 7.4.3). Also in line with Bock’s findings (see 7.4.3), regarding pronoun usage from the end of the sixteenth century onwards, there is little evidence of reciprocal thou amongst even the lowest rank, although Johnson (1966: 268) points out that thou “commonly occurs” among lower class characters who share the same occupation, throughout the seventeenth century. In my data, you appears to be the pronoun used, especially in less emotional contexts, by characters of all ranks. Only characters of the two highest ranks (upon which most of Drama Comedy focuses), primarily gentlemen characters, exchange occasional examples of thou, as a mark of in-group membership. Characters of the middle-ranking group, professionals, tend to be more circumspect than other ranks in using thou to express emotion or intimacy to characters of the same rank in period 1. This might be intended by dramatists to reflect the insecure social position of this group. This was


also suggested by Johnson’s quantification with regard to 1600–1650 (see 7.3.4.1), in which her ‘middle class’ exchanged far less thou (17%) than the higher social group (26%) or the lower (38%). However, in my data for period 2, the relative lack of thou exchanged by professionals simply reflects a predominance of unemotional exchanges. Therefore I am unable to show clear evidence that the professionals group is depicted by dramatists as avoiding the use of thou/promoting the spread of you. The micro-analysis points to the age parameter being of lesser importance, although the figures presented in the macro-analysis seemed to suggest that age plays a role in pronoun selection. Often the use of thou by old to young characters actually reflects usage by a parent, address to a servant, by a husband, etc. Moreover, emotion and rank often override any influence age might have in encouraging or discouraging the use of thou or you. However, regarding the use of comradely thou amongst gentlemen characters, age does seem relevant, as it is primarily used between young characters. Throughout the 200-year period, social distance has an effect on pronoun choice in that close friends, at least male friends, may use thou, while characters who are strangers tend to use you: when, in period 2, Falstaff uses thou to a citizen he has just met, it may be intended to appear improperly over-familiar. The pronoun of business in the data is you irrespective of rank: it is used between customer/client and trades-people, shopkeepers, merchants, hostess or host, doctors, and lawyers (many such business-like exchanges involve characters in disguise: see 7.4.2). In period 1, when a host uses thou, it is in his role as confidant rather than host, while another host, who only uses thou to those of higher rank, in period 2, is seemingly characterised by his usage as being a coarse, over-familiar type. In the data, emotion is the factor influencing pronoun usage which can override any other variable. There are two text samples which have a markedly higher percentage of thou than other text samples of the same period, by Wilkins, The Miseries of Inforst Mariage (1607), and Manley, The Lost Lover (1696), shown in Figure 7.1 (see 7.2). These are also the samples which contain deeply emotional, and not typically comedic, exchanges. Emotion together with power based on rank or marital/family relationship, or strong emotion alone, is often a motivation for the use of thou. In the Drama Comedy sub-corpus, you seems largely the pronoun preferred in unemotional address throughout the 200-year period. Thou is the form usually reserved for indicating the superior power of the character speaking – although an ironic you can also be thus employed – and/or for expressing positive emotion (love, affection, gratitude) or negative emotion (contempt and anger). Thou may also be used to signify social closeness; in contrast, you can be used


to indicate a rejection of such intimacy. The macro-analysis showed that the use of thou declines over time: the micro-analysis reveals that thou continues to be used to express power and/or emotion, and intimacy, but is used more and more sparingly and fleetingly. As mentioned above, thou is no longer the pronoun preferred in address to servants after 1640. Also after 1640, thou is no longer used by characters consistently in address to intimates, but is used only sporadically to indicate social closeness. Increasingly, thou when used to express superior power often occurs in combination with emotion or closeness. After 1680, thou is predominantly used to express male camaraderie, great anger or contempt. In period 5, the prime motivation for thou seems to be strong emotion, especially negative emotion. Given the different corpora used, the similarities between my findings and those of Bock (1938) as well as the quantitative results, especially, of Johnson (1959, 1966) are remarkable, which further validates the findings.

chapter 8

The role of selected linguistic factors in thou and you usage

8.1

Introduction

In the preceding chapters I have investigated the motivation behind the use of thou and you in Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy, and shown that a range of extra-linguistic factors influence usage. These include the relative social status and degree of intimacy between speaker and addressee, as well as the level of emotion and formality. However, it is important to complement the study of extra-linguistic factors by investigating the extent to which, if at all, linguistic factors are also at work with regard to pronoun usage. Previous research suggests that thou, to a greater extent than you, might tend to co-occur with closed-class verbs, especially modals, and also with private verbs. In the first part of this chapter I examine whether there is any evidence for this in my data for the three genres investigated. I consider the distribution of thou and you as subject according to whether the finite verb form is closedclass or lexical.1 Further, I present both a quantitative and a qualitative study of the co-occurrence of thou and you with modal verbs, compared with the other closed-class verbs be, have, and do. I then investigate the co-occurrence of thou and you with public and private verbs (both finite and non-finite forms). The second part of this chapter focuses on pronoun forms. I present the distribution of the different forms of thou and you according to their syntactic function, and consider whether the decline in thou across time was more marked for a particular syntactic function (subjective,2 objective,3 possessive determiner, or possessive pronoun) or for a particular pronoun form (thee, thine etc.). In the 1. In using the terms ‘closed-class’ or ‘closed’ and ‘lexical’ verbs, I adopt the terminology used by Mulholland (1967) and subsequent researchers (see 8.2.1). 2. The term ‘subjective’ is an umbrella term for the following syntactic functions: appositive, subject, subject complement, and vocative (see 8.3.1). 3. The term ‘objective’ is an umbrella term for the following syntactic functions: direct object, indirect object and prepositional object (see 8.3.1).


light of previous research, I then examine the decline of the pronoun forms thine (as possessive determiner) and ye in favour of thy and you respectively. Moreover, the use and development of pray + second person pronoun is treated. Finally, I investigate a range of ‘fixed’ expressions, and how these relate to the overall distribution of thou and you in my data.

8.2

Is there evidence of grammatical conditioning of thou and you usage?

8.2.1 Closed-class vs. lexical verbs Previous researchers have investigated the possibility of grammatical conditioning of the choice of thou and you in the works of Shakespeare. Mulholland (1967: 38, 39) argued that there is a tendency “for th forms to have a higher frequency with closed verbs than with lexical” in Much Ado about Nothing, and, in King Lear, “there again seemed to be more th forms with closed verbs than with open”. Judging by her results, which show the same statements could be made about you, I believe that Mulholland means that there seems to be a greater preference shown for the use of thou than for the use of you with closed-class verbs as opposed to lexical verbs. Indeed, Mulholland’s results suggest that thou does tend to co-occur with closed-class verbs more than with lexical verbs to a greater extent than you does. Conversely, you apparently tends to co-occur with lexical verbs to a greater extent than thou does: the ratio of you to thou tends to be higher with lexical verbs than with closed-class verbs.5 However, as Mulholland’s results did not show statistical significance (and were based on only two plays by Shakespeare), the above-mentioned tendency was not proven. In the light of Mulholland’s research into closed-class versus lexical verbs, Barber (1981: 286) stressed that thou or you might be motivated by extra-linguistic factors, “and this choice might then influence the grammatical construction used”. Combining Mulholland’s results with his own from Shakespeare’s Richard 4. Note that both pronouns tend to be numerically more frequent with closed-class verbs than with lexical verbs. With very few exceptions, this tendency is also found in the larger-scale study by Busse (2002) and in the present study. 5. Note that, in line with both Barber (1981) and Busse (2002), I present my data with the percentages indicating the frequency of thou in relation to you with closed verbs and lexical verbs respectively. Using this format one can immediately see that if the highest percentages for you are with lexical verbs, and the highest percentages for thou are with closed-class verbs, the hypothesis is supported.

Chapter 8. The role of selected linguistic factors in thou and you usage 239

III, Barber (1981: 286) found the results to “approach” statistical significance,6 and concluded that “a larger body of material might indeed confirm, therefore, that in Shakespeare’s plays a speaker is likely to show a greater preference for you as the subject of lexical verbs, and of thou as the subject of closed-class verbs”. Fuelled by this claim, Busse (2002) considered these three Shakespeare plays (Much Ado about Nothing, King Lear, and Richard III), and a further five, in order to test if statistically significant patterns could actually be discerned. With reference to statements, only the results for As You Like It, previously analysed by Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak (1995), actually contradicted the hypothesis (Busse 2002: 216). However, neither the observed differences for each play nor for the data as a whole were found to be significant. With regard to questions, three plays diverged from the hypothesised pattern, and only two History plays showed statistical significance, at the 0.05 level of confidence (Busse 2002: Table 3, 217). Busse (2002: 221) concluded therefore that the claim that “co-occurrence with closed- or open-class verbs and syntactic distribution could perhaps influence the choice of pronouns to a certain degree is not strongly corroborated for statements and to an even lesser degree for interrogatives, as this category provides counter-evidence”. It is interesting to see whether an investigation into speechrelated material other than Shakespearean drama might reveal patterns which are statistically significant. In order to make my results comparable with the work of these previous researchers, I have adopted the same classification of sentence types and verbs (and terminology) as used by Mulholland (1967), Barber (1981) and Busse (2002). Thus the examples in my databases in which thou or you functioned as subject were divided into six categories as shown in Table 8.1. For each of three sentence types (statement, question, or imperative), the pronoun was categorised according to whether the finite verb form was a lexical or a closed-class verb. The verbs classified as closed-class were the primary auxiliaries (be, have, do), and the modal auxiliaries (can, could, may, might, shall, should, will, would, must, and ought). Moreover, be and have (but not do) in non-auxiliary uses were also included among the closed-class verbs. Also in line with previous research, I have excluded examples not falling into these categories: these are constructions in which the verb was not given (e.g. and you never the wiser), or cases of inversion occurring after adverbials in statements (e.g. then came you home), and cases where there was more than one subject (e.g. you and all the rest + verb). Declarative questions such as You are sure of this? were also omitted; these are examples in which the syntax is that of a state-

6. By this Barber means that the chi-square test revealed statistical significance at between the 0.05 and 0.01 levels of confidence (Barber 1981: endnote 11).


Table 8.1 Thou and you according to type of verb and sentence, with examples from Trials and Depositions Subject before closed-class verbs in statements Subject before lexical verbs in statements Subject after closed-class verbs in questions Subject after lexical verbs in questions Subject after closed-class verbs in imperatives Subject after lexical verbs in imperatives

thow hast kept whores in thy howse You handle me hardly wilt thou keepe my Counsell what say you Phillip ffallicke Pray do you direct your Discourse to the Jury Ask you all the Judges here

ment but the semantics that of a question, requiring an answer. The examples thus excluded amount to 93 in Drama Comedy, 44 in Trials, and 25 in Depositions. The remaining examples were divided according to genre: Drama Comedy, Trials, and Depositions. Due to the relatively large number of examples in the Drama Comedy genre, I chose to focus on periods 1, 3, and 5 (1560–1599, 1640– 1679, and 1720–1760). For the other two genres, all five 40-year periods were taken into account. As Busse (2002: 218) also found in his data, there were too few examples of you and, especially, thou in imperatives,7 so I will not comment further on imperatives here (but see 8.3.3 and 8.3.5, on ye vs. you, and fixed expressions respectively). The remaining examples, in statements and questions, total 3,466 (1,543 in Drama, 1,323 in Trials, and 600 in Depositions). Before giving the results according to each of the three genres, I present the overall results, for the three genres taken together (Tables 8.2a and 8.2b). As I have only examined the data from periods 1, 3 and 5 for the Drama Comedy genre, the remaining periods, 2 and 4, are excluded from these tables also. What these overall figures reveal is that the ratio of thou to you is consistently higher before closed-class verbs than before lexical verbs in statements, but the exact opposite pattern is found in questions. In other words the hypothesis is supported with regard to statements, but the results are contrary to the hypothesis with regard to questions. The patterns are thus very similar to those found by Busse (2002) for statements and questions in Shakespeare’s plays, mentioned above. However, whereas his results were not statistically significant, significance was found for my data. The results per period and overall for statements in the three genres taken together are statistically significant (χ2 = 14.556, p < 0.001, df = 1 for period 1, χ2 = 5.024, p = 0.025, df = 1 for period 3, χ2 = 4.809, p = 0.029, df =

7. There are 104 examples of imperative constructions with you, but a mere 8 with thou. The lexical verbs look and hark (or near synonyms e.g. see and hear) predominate. In Drama Comedy there are 75 imperatives with lexical verbs, and 7 with the closed-class verb do (and 1 with the closed-class verb be). For Trials and Depositions, the corresponding figures are 14 and 6, and 7 and 2 respectively.


Table 8.2a Thou and you in Statements before closed verbs and lexical verbs in the three genres in periods 1, 3, and 5 Period 1 1560–1599 3 1640–1679 5 1720–1760 Total

Closed-class thou you 313 (65%) 169 (35%)

thou 60 (22%)

Lexical

43 (11%)

360 (89%)

13 (5%)

224 (95%)

29 (8%)

351 (92%)

5 (3%)

171 (97%)

241 (19%)

1024 (81%)

78 (11%)

610 (89%)

you 215 (78%)

Table 8.2b Thou and you in Questions after closed verbs and lexical verbs in the three genres in periods 1, 3, and 5 Period 1 1560–1599 3 1640–1679 5 1720–1760 Total


thou 30 (38%)

Lexical

19 (7%)

257 (93%)

6 (20%)

24 (80%)

15 (7%)

212 (93%)

1 (9%)

10 (91%)

99 (14%)

611 (86%)

37 (31%)

83 (69%)

you 49 (62%)

Table 8.3a Thou and you in Statements before closed verbs and lexical verbs in Drama Comedy in periods 1, 3, and 5 Period 1 1560–1599 3 1640–1679 5 1720–1760 Total


thou 27 (22%)

Lexical

you 96 (78%)

29 (10%)

255 (90%)

6 (4%)

143 (96%)

14 (5%)

253 (95%)

1 (1%)

122 (99%)

90 (12%)

652 (88%)

34 (9%)

361 (91%)

1 for period 5, and χ2 = 19.405, p < 0.001, df = 1 for the three periods together). Regarding questions, the low expected frequencies for periods 3 and 5 mean chisquare results for these periods may not be valid, and there is no statistical significance with regard to period 1. However, the observed difference for the totals for the three periods is statistically significant (χ2 = 21.373, p < 0.001, df = 1).


Table 8.3b Thou and you in Statements before closed verbs and lexical verbs in Trials in the five 40-year periods Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total


thou 14 (12%)

Lexical

you 107 (88%)

4 (8%)

45 (92%)

1 (5%)

18 (95%)

1 (1%)

81 (99%)

2 (3%)

73 (97%)

4 (4%)

89 (96%)

–

68

–

48

–

30

54 (13%)

364 (87%)

17 (5%)

296 (95%)

Table 8.3c Thou and you in Statements before closed verbs and lexical verbs in Depositions in the five 40-year periods Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total


thou 19 (61%)

Lexical

44 (73%)

16 (27%)

12 (48%)

13 (52%)

13 (35%)

24 (65%)

5 (38%)

8 (62%)

16 (53%)

14 (47%)

4 (33%)

8 (67%)

15 (23%)

50 (77%)

4 (17%)

19 (83%)

165 (49%)

172 (51%)

44 (42%)

60 (58%)

you 12 (39%)

I now turn to the individual genres with regard to statements. In Drama Comedy, the figures in all three periods (period 1, 3, and 5) seem to support the hypothesis (see Table 8.3a). However, the difference in distribution of the pronouns between closed-class and lexical verbs is never more than 6 percentage points. Moreover, only in period 3 (1640–1679) is the observed difference statistically significant (χ2 = 5.031, p = 0.025, df = 1).8 The combined figures for periods 1, 3, and 5 were not statistically significant. 8. The expected frequencies for period 5 (1720–1760) were too low for significance tests to be valid.


The figures regarding statements in Trials (Table 8.3b) in period 1 support the hypothesis. For periods 2–5, nothing can be said, as the figures for thou range only from 0–4, with no examples of thou at all in period 5. The combined figures for periods 2–4 did not reveal statistical significance. The chi-square test showed the observed differences for period 1 and for the overall figures in the table to be statistically significant (χ2 = 14.245, p < 0.001, df = 1, and χ2 = 11.442, p < 0.001, df = 1 respectively). For statements in Depositions (Table 8.3c), although the overall figures seem to support the hypothesis, the observed difference was not statistically significant. Only in period 2, which also patterns according to the hypothesis, is there statistical significance (χ2 = 5.039, p = 0.025, df = 1). The distribution for periods 1 and 3 does not support the hypothesis, but for period 1 there was no statistical significance, while the low expected values for periods 3 (and also period 5) mean that test results may not be valid. Neither when periods 3–5 were combined, nor even when periods 2 and 3, and periods 4 and 5 respectively were combined, was any statistical significance found. Thus, when the overall data regarding statements is broken down by genre, while there is no statistically significant evidence against the hypothesis, there is insufficient evidence to confirm it conclusively. The low expected frequencies, which may invalidate chi-square results, mean that little can be said about Trials after 1599. Moreover, the results for Drama Comedy and Depositions, both with only one period showing any statistically significant distribution, do not permit firm conclusions. The results regarding questions in the individual genres are even less conclusive. For Drama Comedy (Table 8.4a), the figures appear to consistently contradict the hypothesis. However, no statistical significance was found (only for period 1 and the overall totals were the expected frequencies high enough to validate significance test results). In Trials (Table 8.4b), the figures for thou after 1599 must simply be regarded as incidental, while the results for period 1 were not statistically significant, although the figures do not appear to contradict the hypothesis. (The low expected values for the overall figures for Trials mean that the chi-square test results may not be valid). For Depositions (Table 8.4c), there is insufficient data for statistical testing with regard to all periods other than period 1. Both period 1 and the overall figures showed significance (χ2 = 5.344, p = 0.021, df = 1, and χ2 = 6.263, p = 0.013, df = 1 respectively). However, these figures actually go against the hypothesis, with the ratio of you to thou being higher with closed-class verbs than with lexical verbs. This is the same pattern as was found when all three genres were considered together. To summarise, the results for the three genres taken together lend support to the hypothesis, in that the ratio of thou to you is higher with closed-class verbs


Table 8.4a Thou and you in Questions after closed verbs and lexical verbs in Drama Comedy in periods 1, 3, and 5 Period 1 1560–1599 3 1640–1679 5 1720–1760 Total


thou 12 (26%)

Lexical

12 (10%)

103 (90%)

2 (12%)

14 (88%)

7 (8%)

81 (92%)

1 (17%)

5 (83%)

53 (16%)

284 (84%)

15 (22%)

54 (78%)

you 35 (74%)

Table 8.4b Thou and you in Questions after closed verbs and lexical verbs in Trials in the five 40-year periods Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total


thou 6 (43%)

Lexical

4 (13%)

27 (87%)

1 (9%)

10 (91%)

2 (1%)

138 (99%)

1 (9%)

10 (91%)

2 (1%)

232 (99%)

–

13

–

107

–

4

23 (4%)

516 (96%)

8 (15%)

45 (85%)

you 8 (57%)

Table 8.4c Thou and you in Questions after closed verbs and lexical verbs in Depositions in the five 40-year periods Period 1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760 Total


thou 12 (67%)

Lexical

you 6 (33%)

9 (45%)

11 (55%)

–

5

5 (24%)

16 (76%)

3

–

4 (33%)

8 (67%)

1

–

8 (25%)

24 (75%)

–

1

42 (32%)

89 (68%)

16 (57%)

12 (43%)


than with lexical verbs, but only with reference to statements. The evidence with regard to questions runs counter to the hypothesis. Likewise, for the individual genres, in Depositions there is some statistically significant evidence both for (in statements, period 2) and against the hypothesis (in questions, period 1). The same pattern is found in Drama Comedy, but statistical significance is only found, regarding statements, in period 3. In Trials there is only statistically significant evidence supporting the hypothesis, regarding statements, for period 1. However, even when the data was pooled, with regard to questions the expected frequencies were not always high enough to validate the results of statistical tests. It seems that to confidently confirm or refute the hypothesis more data is still needed.

8.2.2 Modal verbs vs. be, have, and do9 The data proved of insufficient quantity to consistently support or disprove the claim that in statements and questions “a speaker is likely to show a greater preference for you as the subject of lexical verbs, and of thou as the subject of closedclass verbs” (Barber 1981: 286), especially with regard to the individual genres. However, a closer look at the data may reveal whether certain verbs or verb types tend to co-occur with thou rather than you, or vice versa. Busse (2002: 221) suggests that “[i]ntuitively it sounds convincing that the modal verbs, which express modality or states of mind, go together well with the more affective of the two pronouns”, meaning thou, although he could not find empirical support for this in his study. Therefore, for each of the three genres, I will examine the co-occurrence of second person pronouns with modals, as well as with the other verbs included in the closed-class category, be, have, and do. For the quantitative study, I have not divided the verbs into their different forms, but quantified them according to the base form, for example, shall includes shall, shalt, should, and shouldst, as the figures for thou especially are often too low to justify further division. However, I recognise that the ‘past tense’ forms of modal verbs may have certain modal meanings which differ from those of the ‘present tense’ forms. For Drama Comedy, the data with regard to statements for period 1 (1560– 1599), period 3 (1640–1679), and period 5 (1720–1760) is presented in Table 8.5a, while Table 8.5b shows the results for questions. Shall is the most common modal with both thou and you in statements in Drama Comedy, but will co-occurs 9. In what follows the verbs be, have and do are referred to either as ‘non-modals’ or simply ‘be, have and do’. Note that this group subsumes not only these three verbs in their function as (finite) primary auxiliaries, but also finite forms of non-auxiliary be and have in such phrases as thou art a fool; have you any more?.


Table 8.5a Closed-class verbs in Statements in Drama Comedy in periods 1, 3, and 5 Closedclass verbs can may must shall ’ll will Total be have do Total

1 1560–1599 thou you 4 7 2 13 2 10 9 24 – 4 5 11 22 69 (76%) (24%) 13 49 9 21 3 5 75 25 (75%) (25%)

3 1640–1679 thou you 1 19 1 19 – 15 7 26 3 14 4 36 16 129 (11%) (89%) 6 69 7 51 – 6 13 126 (9%) (91%)

5 1720–1760 thou you – 14 – 21 1 22 2 20 – 25 1 22 4 124 (3%) (97%) 8 65 2 53 – 11 10 129 (7%) (93%)

Total thou 5 3 3 18 3 10 42 (12%) 27 18 3 48 (13%)

you 40 53 47 70 43 69 322 (88%) 183 125 22 330 (87%)

Table 8.5b Closed-class verbs in Questions in Drama Comedy in periods 1, 3, and 5 Closedclass verbs can must shall will Total be have do Total

1 1560–1599 thou you – 5 – 1 – – 7 24 7 30 (81%) (19%) 9 19 6 13 12 38 70 27 (72%) (28%)

3 1640–1679 thou you 1 11 – – 2 2 2 23 5 36 (12%) (88%) – 15 2 10 5 42 7 67 (9%) (91%)

5 1720–1760 thou you 1 10 – – – – 1 19 2 29 (6%) (94%) 3 6 1 8 1 38 5 52 (9%) (91%)

Total thou 2 – 2 10 14 (13%) 12 9 18 39 (17%)

you 26 1 2 66 95 (87%) 40 31 118 189 (83%)

with you more than shall does after 1640. The picture is complicated in this genre by the use of the contraction ’ll (which includes, though not frequent, the contraction ’ld) with you, blurring the distinction between shall and will. As it is uncertain which verb is represented by ’ll, this form has been listed separately from both shall and will. Be is the most common non-modal co-occurring with both pronouns. In questions, there is far less data, but the modal will and the verb do are favoured by both pronouns, while can occurs predominantly with you.


Table 8.6a Closed-class verbs in Statements in Trials in periods 1 and 2–4 Closed-class verbs can may must ought shall will Total be have do Total

1 1560–1599 thou you 1 6 1 5 1 6 – – 1 10 3 11 7 (16%) 38 (84%) 14 26 13 34 11 3 63 (62%) 38 (38%)

2–4 1600–1719 thou you – 10 – 12 – 14 – 1 3 19 1 24 4 (5%) 80 (95%) 1 77 4 43 – 15 5 (4%) 135 (96%)

Total thou 1 1 1 – 4 4 11 (9%) 15 17 11 43 (18%)

you 16 17 20 1 29 35 118 (91%) 103 77 18 198 (82%)

Table 8.6b Closed-class verbs in Questions in Trials in periods 1 and 2–4 Closed-class verbs can must will Total be have do Total

1 1560–1599 thou you 1 – – – 2 – 3 – 3 3 1 2 8 7 12 (50%) 12 (50%)

2–4 1600–1719 thou you 1 19 – 1 2 33 53 (95%) 3 (5%) 3 59 – 54 2 231 5 (1%) 344 (99%)

Total thou 2 – 4 6 (10%) 6 1 10 17 (5%)

you 19 1 33 53 (90%) 62 56 238 356 (95%)

In both statements and questions, the ratio of thou to you is in fact lower with regard to modals than it is for the non-modals except during period 3 (1640– 1679). Thus only in this period is there any support for the hypothesis presented above; however, no statistical significance could be found for any of the periods 1, 3, and 5, or for these three periods taken together, with regard to either statements or questions. (The data regarding questions for the last two periods was insufficient for the results of statistical tests to be valid.) In Trials (Tables 8.6a and 8.6b), as the figures for thou were extremely low in periods 2–4 (1600–1719), I have considered these periods together, and compared them with those of period 1 (1560–1599). Period 5 (1720–1760) is excluded as there are no examples of thou in the Trials data for this period. In Trials, the number of modals occurring with thou is negligible: in all there are only 17 occurrences in statements and questions. Only will occurs more than once both


before and after 1600, and shall occurs three times in statements after 1600. You co-occurs most frequently with will and shall in statements in both periods, and with can, but especially will, in questions after 1600. In statements in period 1 Trials, where the figures for thou are not merely incidental, the pattern seems contrary to the hypothesis. The ratio of you to thou is higher with modals than with non-modals. Moreover, the difference in distribution is statistically significant for period 1 (χ2 = 7.110, p = 0.008, df = 1) and for period 1 and the period 1600–1719 combined (χ2 = 5.849, p = 0.016, df = 1). For statements in the period 1600–1719, the expected frequencies are too low for chi-square results to be valid. In questions with regard to both period 1 and the period 1600–1719, as well as when the figures for both these periods are combined, there is a hint of support for the hypothesis: however, the figures for thou are too low to justify conclusions, and the expected frequencies are again too low to validate chi-square results. For Depositions (Tables 8.7a and 8.7b), it was unhelpful to consider all five 40-year periods with regard to the closed-class verbs, as the figures for modals as a group rarely reach double digits after 1600 with either pronoun. Therefore I have pooled the figures by combining periods 2 and 3 (1600–1679) and periods 4 and 5 (1680–1760), although even then the figures remain rather low. Overall, both thou and you co-occur with can, shall, and will (in ascending frequency) in statements, and primarily with will in questions. To a lesser extent may and must co-occur with thou and you in statements. In statements in Depositions in period 1, and the period 1600–1679, as with both Drama Comedy and Trials in period 1, the hypothesis is contradicted in that the ratio of you to thou is higher with regard to modals than it is for the non-modals. The difference in distribution is statistically significant for period 1 and for the period 1600–1679 (χ2 = 11.093, p thou art a barrotor knave thow art an arrant whoremonger knave thow arte a stincking knave Thow art a verie villian thow art a barrator knave thow arte a whoremounger knave Thow arte no honest woman thow arte an vnonest woman I say to the, thou art a villaine thefe I say to the Thow arte a whore thow art a thefe I say thow arte a whore of thy tongue Thow arte a whormonger knave, for thow didst occupy mr whites mayde Thow arte a whormonger knave, & thow occupiedst my fathers mayde Thow art a whormonger knave and thow occupiedst my fathers mayde Thow arte a whoremongar knave Thow art a whore & an old bawdy whore Thow art an owld bawdye whore for thow hast byn an whore ever since thow wert xiiij yers old.

Figure 8.1 Extract from Excel Database for Depositions 1560–1599

ence in distribution here was found to be statistically significant. I will discuss the examples in the light of the linguistic context (verb form, clause structure, modal meaning) but also the extra-linguistic context (situational context, speaker/addressee relationship). In statements in period 1 Depositions, be is used only as a copula verb and co-occurs with thou 35 times (there are 33 examples of art and one example each of wert and was). The majority of examples are direct insults, with art (30x), exemplified by the extract from the database (Figure 8.1). All examples occur in the context of angry exchanges, primarily between members of the lower ranks. The angry utterances are often the cause of the case behind a deposition – defamation being a prime motive for church court cases in this period – and therefore it was important that the exact words used be reported. Thou is selected by a speaker to express anger or contempt, and the construction be present tense + NP is used to formulate the insult, resulting in the numerous examples of art. This construction is also found to the same end with you, in example (1). Here the pronoun you, by a husband to his wife, implies coldness or detachment, and is presumably used to contrast with thou, the pronoun he might normally address her with; moreover, the insult is much milder than those with thou.


(1) [...] when his father came home, his mother told him her husbande, that she had sent Herculus to Rosse his maide: and he answered, yee are a trim foole. (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: D1v)

In all, be co-occurs with you in only 15 examples. As with thou, be is used only twice in the past tense, and does not occur as an auxiliary. The context of the examples is largely related to contracts of marriage or the making of wills, the formality of which would encourage the use of you. Disputes over such agreements are again typical of church court cases. Here the construction be present tense + ADJ, as in (2a) and (2b), is found in seven cases, in which the addressee’s marital or physical state is relevant. (2) a.

[...] “for he that woll not geive his unkle a good daye (you beinge a lyve) woll moche lesse esteme hym when you ar deade.” (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 123) u b. nay qd this Depot, not well, for yo are sick t […] Then said this Depo to him / Why u Baconn it hath binn thought that yo are well monied & have other goodes [...] (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/5: 88)

Thus the choice of thou and you is decided on extra-linguistic grounds. Thou is much more frequently used than you when another party is being abused, and a great many of the cases in period 1 Depositions involve defamation of character. You is commonly reported in cases about broken contracts (marriages and wills), due to the formal context of making verbal contracts. In both defamation and contract cases, describing an addressee or an addressee’s state is relevant. Such descriptions motivated by the extra-linguistic context are expressed using the linguistic structure S + V + C which most often requires thou/you + be + NP/ADJ. In other words, the extra-linguistic contexts of defamation or contract-making promotes the description of people’s states, and the linguistic structure required to do this favours the use of be. The extra-linguistic context of defamation promotes the use of thou, while that of contract-making promotes the use of you. It is therefore not a particular pronoun which promotes the verb be or vice versa. That thou happens to co-occur with be more often than does you is due to the


prevalence of defamation cases, and to the necessity in these cases to report the actual insult. In contrast, you occurs more often with will than thou does. Will occurs in statements in Depositions five times with thou, and 12 times with you. Of these, would/wouldest is found with both pronouns twice, and occurs in apodoses of conditional constructions: see (3a) and (3b). The pronouns are selected on extra-linguistic grounds: thou is motivated by anger in the former example, and you by the formality of the context of will-making in the latter. Example (3c) shows an instance of thou + would, and you + will with reference to a promise. The difference in pronoun use here is again extra-linguistic: it reflects a difference in rank, between a gentleman landlord (who uses thou) and a labourer (who uses you). (3) a. b.

[...] And the saide mistres Brexton sayde, Pickford if here were any witnesses presente thou woldest not say so (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/4: 620) [...] And then this examinate said, “They saye, in this town, if you had not so many bastardes you would have maid your will or [= before] now.” (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 122) c. [...] the sayd Mr. Antony, comming out of the church of Hunstanworth, caulde for one Roger Doon, which at last came to hym, to whome the said Antony said, “Dyd not thou promess me that thou wold tell me and the parson of Hunstonworth who stole George Whit feld sheip?” and Don annswerd and said, “I neid not unless I woll.” Mr. Ratcliff said then to Donn, “Thou breaks promess.” And Done answerd that he wold not. “You will know yt soon enowgh, for your man, Nicoll Dixson, stole them, that ther stands, [...] (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 62)

Will/wilt with reference to addressee desire/willingness (or lack thereof) is found with both pronouns: see examples (4a–d). The fact that will often occurs in conditional clauses, or in clauses preceded by phrases such as I trust is not surprising: as Rissanen (1999: 211) points out, “volition was less easily projected to other persons”; it is easier to predict or suggest rather than actually know what


another person wants. The use of thou in (4a) and (4b) is again motivated by extra-linguistic factors; these are intimacy (an ex-lover pleading for release from the marriage contract) and difference in rank (a judge addressing a poor defendant) respectively. In (4c) you may also be explained by extra-linguistic factors: a clergyman’s wife using you to address her husband is explicable on the basis of rank, while you in (4d) may result from the formality due when making a verbal contract. (4) a.

[...] “Well,” quod the said Thomas, “yf thou will not release me, I have gone so far with my frendes in talk with an other woman, that it is best for you to get out a Citacion, and call me before the Ordinary.” (Furnivall ed., Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester, 1897: 59) b. [...] Elizabeth as thou wilt haue fauour confesse the truth. (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: B6r–v) c. [...] his said wife said vnto him, I pray you as euer there was loue betweene vs […] seeke som remedie for me a gainst yonder wicked beast (meaning the saide Annis Herd). And if you will not I will com plaine to my father, [...] (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: F2v–F3r) d. [...] whereunto shee this exa minat answered, and said, now I owe you a pint of milke, come for it when you will & you shall haue it: (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: E8r)

The majority of cases with you and the verb form will involve making some sort of contract or testament, and relate to the resolve and willingness of the addressee, as in (5a) and (5b). (5) a. [...] and therfore, I pray you, let her be made my wief, and then I trust you will suffer her to be my housekeper


[previous line continues] without suspicion.” (Furnivall ed., Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester, 1897: 8) b. / what have you any sisters or brothers or any kinred / & u r goodes on whom yo will bestow yo (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/5: 88)

Despite the low number of examples, it can be seen that will is used to express similar modal meanings, using the same structures, with both pronouns. As I have shown, situational contexts typical of Depositions are the making of agreements and contracts. You would be the predicted pronoun in such formal contexts, and these contexts require the expression of willingness/resolve/intent, expressed by will. As a result, will might tend to co-occur with you rather than thou. Thou occurs only once (in an intimate tone) in the context of contract-making. However, as with be, the motivation for the selection of both thou and you has been shown to be extra-linguistic rather than linguistic. Shall (shall/shalt) is used in 10 examples with thou, and eight times (including one should) with you. Shall co-occurs with both pronouns when expressing obligation, as in (6a) and (6b). (6) a.

[...] the said Isabell spoke to a baster litle boy of the said Isabell [...] thes words, “Thow shall not caule Katherine Reid mother, for she caul me hoor, [...] (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 90) b. & then they vnlosid handes; and she said, “you shalbe bound to me as I am to you”: and then he gave her his hand likewise, [...] (Furnivall ed., Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester, 1897: 187)

This modal also co-occurs with both pronouns in a predictive sense: see (7a) and (7b). Shall is preferred to will here as there is no element of addressee intent/ desire involved. Judging by the small data set examined here, a sense of volition is apparently still an essential characteristic of will in this period (cf. Rissanen 1999: 211–212). However, “You will know yt” in (3c) may be indicative of a change in progress in this respect.


(7) a.

[...] this examinate, beinge commed to see him, did heare the said Agnes saie to him, “Bullie, thow hast geven thy silver whistle and chaine unto Leonard Harle, but I trust thou shalt lyve to weare yt thy self;” (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 316–317) b. And in ther communicacion the said deponent said to hir, “I trust ye shall doo well how ever ye doo.” (Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, 1845: 66–67)

Example (4d) also includes the use of shall co-occurring with you in a promise to fulfil a verbal agreement (“you shall haue it” i.e. ‘I promise to give it you’). In fact, six of the eight examples of you with shall occur in Deposition cases relating to the making of contracts, in which shall expresses either what the addressee is obliged to do or is promised by the terms of the agreement, as in (6b). You again predominates in this context, and even in the lead-up to making a formal agreement, as in (7b). However, thou co-occurs with shall slightly more often than you does. Shall is used in a predictive sense in eight examples; in seven of these it is a negative ‘prediction’ unfavourable to the addressee, or a downright threat: see (8) and (9). (8) this Depot hard mistres Dingly say vnto mistres Singleton thus, goe thy wayes […] for I have a suspeccion in the, & if any in my house shoulde miscarry thow shalt aunswer for it (Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/5: 216) (9) [...] and that shee also sayde, thou haste not had so good lucke with thy gooslings, but thou shalt haue as badde: (A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: E4r)

In all 10 examples, thou is motivated by extra-linguistic factors, primarily anger, but in (6a) thou expresses superior power (in address to a child), and in (7a) it expresses intimacy (in a tender address to a husband). In (7a), the situational context is the contesting of a will: all but one of the other examples of thou + shall involve confrontations leading to defamation cases or accusations of witchcraft. Thus the co-occurrence of shall with both thou and you seems to be due to different situational contexts that are typical


of Depositions, which encourage a particular pronoun. Shall is used to express obligation and promises in typical ‘you contexts’, and to express predictions and threats in typical ‘thou contexts’. As has been shown, in statements in the Depositions, thou and you are chosen on extra-linguistic grounds, namely formality, difference in rank, emotion, and intimacy. Neither be, nor will or shall co-occurs with the ‘affective’ pronoun thou exclusively. Indeed, will tends rather to co-occur with you. It seems that the particular situational contexts typically represented in Depositions promote a particular pronoun and a particular use of closed-class verbs, rather than the pronoun and the verb having any interdependence as such. A qualitative investigation of the co-occurrence of thou and you with closed-class verbs in the period 1680–1760 would have been interesting, as this is the period when thou is preferred with modals, and you with non-modals, in statements in Depositions. One might hypothesise that the change in the distribution of closed-class verbs noted after 1680 is a consequence of a change in the type of cases represented in the Depositions: the later Depositions are criminal cases rather than the church court litigation representative of the earlier Depositions. Moreover, the decrease in shall (as shown in Table 8.7a) might be a result of its being replaced by will for unmarked future (see Kytö 1991: 277–344; Rissanen 1999: 211–212), whereas in the examples just discussed, threats, for instance, could scarcely be expressed using will, as it was still volitionally marked. However, since in Depositions, but also in Drama Comedy and Trials, there are few or no examples of thou for the later periods, and the results are of no statistical significance, I will not extend the qualitative study further.

8.2.3 Public vs. private verbs10 With reference to lexical verbs, one might predict a tendency in the distribution of thou and you with private and public verbs: it could be hypothesised that thou more than you might tend to co-occur with private verbs (e.g. believe, feel, see), rather than public verbs (e.g. certify, testify, swear), as private verbs have been found to reflect more personal involvement, and “are used for the overt expression of private attitudes, thoughts, and emotions” (Biber 1988: 105). For my investigation, I considered those verbs (both finite and non-finite forms) in my data which could be found listed as public or private verbs under the heading of factual verbs in Quirk et al. (1985: 1180–1182), which are also the lists used by Biber (1988). Also considered were the very infrequent examples of Early 10. ‘know’, ‘see’ etc. in small capitals subsumes both finite and non-finite forms of the verb.


Table 8.8a Drama Comedy in period 1 (1560–1599): Public and private verbs co-occurring with thou and you in statements and questions Private verbs Statements Questions Total

thou 3 13 16 (18%)

you 36 37 73 (82%)

Public verbs Statements Questions Total

thou 5 5 10 (38%)

you 9 7 16 (62%)

Table 8.8b Trials in period 1 (1560–1599): Public and private verbs co-occurring with thou and you in statements and questions Private verbs Statements Questions Total

thou 5 4 9 (22%)

you 26 6 32 (78%)


thou 12 11 23 (38%)

you 32 5 37 (62%)

Table 8.8c Depositions in period 1 (1560–1599): Public and private verbs co-occurring with thou and you in statements and questions Private verbs Statements Questions Total

thou 7 5 12 (55%)

you 6 4 10 (45%)


thou 7 7 14 (74%)

you 3 2 5 (26%)

Modern English synonyms of the verbs in Quirk et al., such as wot (synonymous with know). As there is less data for the later periods, I have focused on period 1 (1560–1599) in Drama Comedy, Trials and Depositions. The results for both statements and questions are shown in Tables 8.8a–c. The tables show that the hypothesis is not corroborated by the quantitative evidence. On the contrary, the overall ratio of thou to you is consistently higher before public verbs than before private verbs in all three genres.11 However, the observed differences in the overall totals for each genre are only statistically significant for Drama Comedy (χ2 = 4.825, p = 0.029, df = 1). (The observed difference for statements in Trials is not statistically significant: elsewhere, the figures result in expected frequencies that are too low to validate tests.) A look at the individual public and private verbs shows that both pronouns commonly co-occur with the same two verbs: the private verb know and the public verb say. In Drama Comedy, know and two other private verbs, see and mean, occur with thou and you (6, 4 and 5 examples respectively with thou, and 26, 11 and 11. Interestingly, if only finite forms of public and private verbs are considered, the pattern is the same, i.e. with the overall ratio of thou, in relation to you, higher before public verbs than before private verbs.


3 examples respectively with you). With the public verb say, thou co-occurs only slightly less frequently than you does (7 and 10 examples respectively): see (10a) and (10b). The private verbs hear, think, and remember co-occur with you (11, 12 and 4 examples respectively), though think also occurs with thou once. (10)

a. b.

Iacke: […] God giue you God morrowe sir, lacke you not a neate handsome and cleanly yong Lad, […] howe say you sir. (Drama Comedy, Peele, The Old Wiues Tale, 1595: E2r–v) Eum: Go along Iack, ile follow thee, Iack, they say it is good to go crosse legged, and say his prayers backward: how saiest thou? (Drama Comedy, Peele, The Old Wiues Tale, 1595: E4v)

In Depositions also, both thou and you co-occur with the private verb know (6 and 4 examples respectively: see (11a) and (11b)), and the public verb say (10 and 4 respectively). (11)

a. b.

and she asked what dishonesty know u t went his yo by me And then this depo way (Depositions, Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/4: 518) […] she hard bullman wyffe cauld styllinge nowghtie pak / who aunswerd what u nowtynes know y by me / (Depositions, University Library, Durham. Book of Depositions 1565–1573. MS DDR/EJ/CCD/1/2, f. 79v)

In Trials, the public verb say is again the most common with both pronouns (11 examples of thou, and 15 examples of you), followed by confess (10 examples each: see (12a) and (12b)). (12)

a.

[...] whereto Master Vicechamberlayne sayde, If you will say any thing for the better opening to the worlde of those your foule & horrible facts, speake on: but if you meane to make any excuse of that which you haue confessed, which els would haue bene and do stand proued against you, for my part, I will not sit to heare you.


(Trials, A Trve and Plaine Declaration of the Horrible Treasons, Practised by William Parry, 1585: 31) b. Then said my Lord Hunsdon, Hast thou acknowledged it so often, and so plainly in writing vnder thy hande, and heere of recorde: and nowe, when thou shouldest haue thy iudgement according to that which thou hast confessed thy selfe guiltie of, doest thou goe backe againe, and deny the effect of all? (Trials, A Trve and Plaine Declaration of the Horrible Treasons, Practised by William Parry, 1585: 32)

Know only occurs with you in this genre (10x). As in Drama Comedy, in Trials other private verbs, hear and think, co-occur with you (7 and 5 examples respectively), though again there is also one example of think with thou. In all three genres, other verbs rarely occur more than once or twice. What can be seen from each pair of examples, (10a) and (10b) through to (12a) and (12b), is that both pronouns occur in similar linguistic contexts. The difference in choice of pronoun in the examples is motivated by extra-linguistic factors such as unequal power, formality and/or level of emotion: for instance in (10a) unequal power and formality is reflected in the servant addressing a prospective employer as you, while in (10b) unequal power combined with an affectionate tone motivates the master to address his servant as thou.

8.2.4 Section summary Contrary to the three hypotheses considered in 8.2, there was no consistent tendency for thou rather than you to co-occur with closed-class verbs, modal verbs, or private verbs. Indeed, in certain cases the reverse was found to be true, with closed-class verbs in questions, and both modals and private verbs showing some preference for you. Nevertheless, given that statistically significant results are frequently not found, the data obtained cannot be said to conclusively refute these hypotheses: as is often the case, further research is needed. The qualitative investigation concerning closed-class verbs has revealed that a certain context which favours the use of, say, thou on extra-linguistic grounds, might also favour the use of a particular verb, rather than that the verb determines or even influences the pronoun or vice versa. The tentative answer to the question in the heading of Section 8.2 must therefore be “no”.


8.3

Pronoun forms and their syntactic function

8.3.1 The distribution of thou and you and their variant forms I now turn to the syntactic functions of thou and you and their variant forms in my data. I examine whether thou is more common in a particular syntactic function, and whether the use of the different thou forms declined at the same rate across time, or whether certain forms became obsolescent earlier than others in the three genres. For syntactic function, I grouped the forms according to whether they are subjective (appositive, subject, subject complement, vocative), objective (direct, indirect or prepositional object), possessive determiner, or possessive pronoun. The reason for not subdividing the subjective and objective forms further is twofold. First, there were only a few examples of subjective forms not acting as subject. Second, coding the data for direct and indirect object proved too time-consuming given that the end result would be unlikely to reveal greatly diverging patterns of distribution. For obvious reasons, possessive determiners are considered separately from the pronouns proper: they cannot function as subject, object etc. independently; they require a noun. Arguably, possessive pronouns, which act as subject (yours is better), subject complement (it is thine) or object (I gave her yours), should be included under subjective or objective function as applicable. However, these were considered separately as the main point of interest is the relative frequency of thine and yours. Moreover, the occurences were too few for their exclusion from subjective and objective function to skew the figures. In what follows I consider the distribution of thou and you according to syntactic function in the genres and periods investigated so far in this chapter. Thus the distribution in Drama Comedy in periods 2 and 4 (1600–1639 and 1680– 1719) is not presented: it was judged sufficient to present only periods 1, 3 and 5 for this genre, given the ample data offered. With regard to subjective, objective and determiner functions, the figures suggest that the ratio of thou to you basically follows the same pattern across time in each genre regardless of the syntactic function (see Tables 8.15a–c in the Appendix for Drama Comedy, Trials, and Depositions respectively). Moreover, the percentages of thou for each syntactic function for each period and genre only vary by up to 10 percentage points (with three exceptions: see below). Thus, for example, in Drama Comedy there is a steady decrease across the three periods in thou forms in subjective, objective and determiner functions from 22–29 per cent in period 1, to 8–13 per cent in period 3, and to 1–7 per cent in period 5 (see Table 8.15a in the Appendix). The pattern is even more striking across the five 40-year periods in Depositions, in which the ratio of thou forms (compared


with you forms) in subjective, objective, and determiner functions follows the same zig-zag pattern that is displayed by thou forms overall (see Chapter 6): the highest ratio of thou forms is in period 2, the next highest in period 1, followed by period 4, period 3, with the lowest ratio in period 5 (see Table 8.15c in the Appendix). In Depositions, there is a relatively low percentage of thou in period 4 in objective function (i.e. compared with subjective and determiner functions), and a relatively high percentage in period 2 in determiner function (i.e. compared with subjective and objective functions), but the latter is caused by the repetition of slanderous words in just one deposition case (see 8.3.2). The only deviation found in Trials is where the objective thou forms increase (rather than decrease as expected) in period 3, with a resulting 10 percentage point difference between subjective and objective thou forms (see Table 8.15b in the Appendix). However, in this genre thou forms are especially infrequent after 1600, and thus this inconsistency may be due to incidental examples having an undue effect on the figures. These results suggest that syntactic function has no impact on which pronoun (i.e. thou or you) is selected. The distribution of the different forms of thou and you according to syntactic function in each of the three genres will now be considered (see Tables 8.16a–c in the Appendix for Drama Comedy, Trials, and Depositions respectively). The pronoun forms (in a range of spelling variants) occurring in my data are thou, thee, thy, thine, thyself and prithee (actually an abbreviated form of pray + thee), and ye, you, your, yourself and yours, as well as the abbreviated form y’ (which might represent either ye or you). There are occasional examples of thee as a subjective form, as well as the use of your in vocative expressions (see Tables 8.16a and 8.16c in the Appendix). First, thee occurs as imperative subject in Drama Comedy in period 1 and in Depositions in period 4 (i.e. look thee, hark thee, see thee). A range of explanations has been offered by previous researchers for this usage, such as thee acting as the ‘unstressed subject pronoun’ (for a brief survey see e.g. Busse 2002: 266–267). Thee also occurs as subject in Drama Comedy and Depositions in period 5, in which it could indeed be interpreted as representing an unstressed form of thou, namely [ði], as illustrated in “What dost thee mean” (Drama Comedy, Miller, The Mother-in-Law, 1734: 80) and “Oh, my Dear, thee must hate that Man, thee must hate the Ground he goes on” (Depositions, National Archives, London. Henley upon Thames, Oxon Sessions Examinations: Rex v Mary Blandy, 1751. MS TS 11/864, deponent Susannah Gunnell). However, if this is so, one wonders why such examples are not more frequent in the texts used for this study, especially as these are related to spoken interaction, and since Mustanoja (1960: 124) notes that “[t]he occurs as an unstressed form of thou” in a number of texts as early as the Middle English period. Mitchell (1971: 84–85) also reports a few examples of


thee as subject in her British Drama data (e.g. “what hast thee done” from Marlowe’s 1591 play, The Jew of Malta), though primarily in imperatives, as does Bock (1938: 119–120) with regard to Drama Comedy. Second, the form your occurs in three vocative expressions (twice with the term ‘rogue’ and once with ‘sirrah’) in two depositions from Colchester, Essex, as in “And then she said to Abbott your rogue I knowe you;” (Depositions, Essex Record Office, Colchester. Borough of Colchester Informations, 1647–1675. MS D/B5/Sb2/9, deponent Anne White). Whether this is a dialect form, or intended to represent an abbreviation for you are (a), for example, is impossible to determine with so few instances. In all other vocatives, although not especially common in my data, the forms you, ye or thou are found. The preferred forms of the two pronouns used in subjective, objective and determiner functions are the same in all genres and periods: these are thou and you, thee and you, and thy and your respectively (see Tables 8.16a–c in the Appendix). A genre difference is suggested in that thine as possessive pronoun only occurs in Depositions (9x), while yours is negligible in Depositions (2x) and Trials (3x), but slightly more frequent in Drama Comedy for periods 1, 3 and 5 (20x). However, the use of thine (both as a pronoun and a determiner) in period 2 Depositions is perhaps exaggerated by the fact that it occurs in two speeches which are reported several times, as they are reported by different deponents. Neither the possessive pronoun yours nor thine is at all common in my material, and therefore it is not clear whether or not the pronoun thine was obsolescent, even though it does not occur after period 3 in my Depositions material. It is of interest to examine, in turn, those forms which do appear to be obsolescent, namely thine as determiner, and ye in both subjective and objective functions.

8.3.2 Thine vs. thy Table 8.9 presents the figures for thy and thine as determiner according to the following noun (or premodifier) in each genre and period in my data. Due to the dearth of data for thine, I have also included the figures for Drama Comedy periods 2 and 4 in this table. In her British Drama data, Mitchell (1971: 83–84) found that the figures for thine (as a determiner) declined from 113 instances in the period 1580–1630, to 13, 1, and 6 respectively in the ensuing 50-year periods. If the genres are taken together, and the data adapted to fit Mitchell’s time periods, the corresponding figures for thine in my material are 9, 12, 0, and 1. The increase after 1630 is due to the above-mentioned reporting by several deponents of the same slander in Depositions, with six examples of thine + own; for example:


“Thou art [...] a Cornuted asse [...] & thre of Thy Children [...] are none of thine owne” (Depositions, Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1631–1632. MS 21M65/C3/12: 17). Early Modern English grammars give the general rule that thine, as determiner, is used before a vowel, or, as implied in the following quotation, silent ‘h’: “myn, and thyn, ar vzed only befor a substantiu begining with a vowel: az myn ost [host], thyn yi [eye]” (Bullokar 1586: 20–21). Greenwood (1711: 105) limits this further by saying thine is only sometimes used before a vowel. Later scholars have added that thine was also found before the letter ‘h’ when it was pronounced (e.g. Sweet 1892: 345), but Barber (1997: 152) suggests that by the seventeenth century thy was normally used before articulated ‘h’ (and “almost without exception” before consonants). Mitchell’s data (1971: 83) supports this, with only four of the 133 examples of thine occurring before ‘h’, and never before a consonant, after 1580. Even before a vowel, Mitchell (1971: 82) shows that thine rather than thy is used in only 27 per cent (129x) of instances (although these figures relate to the whole of her 200-year period, 1580–1780): the corresponding figure for my much more limited data is 51 per cent (21x). Barber (1997: 152) further claims that thy and thine are “in free variation” before vowels by 1600. However, as Busse (2002: 234) shows for Shakespeare’s plays, and as even my small amount of data seems to suggest (see Table 8.9), thine, rather than being in free variation with thy before vowels, tends to collocate with particular words. In Busse’s data the words with a clear tendency to collocate with thine rather than thy are own, eyes, ears and enemy (73, 61, 23, and 17 thine, and 9, 12, 5, and 2 thy respectively). In my data own clearly favours the use of thine (15 thine, 2 thy): also, ears and eyes only occur with thine (albeit once only). Conversely, thy uncle (6x) occurs slightly more than thine uncle (4x) in Busse’s data, although in my data both forms occur once in a play from 1607, which is from the same period as Busse’s material. Thereafter in my data only thy uncle occurs, in Depositions, after 1680. Noting that before a vowel “certain words co-occur more often with one form than with the other”, Busse (2002: 232, 238–239) argues that this is due to stylistic reasons such as rhyme, parallelism, or repetition of a form for emphasis. However, the few examples in my data do not seem to be motivated by such stylistic factors. Busse (2002: 240) shows that certain words with silent ‘h’, heir, honesty, honour and host(ess), also occur slightly more with thine (i.e. in 16 of 23 examples) in Shakespeare’s plays. Finally, there seems to be little genre difference in my data: as Table 8.9 shows, in my corpus, words with ‘h’, whether silent or articulated, co-occur only with thy. In sum, with regard to speech-related texts, what evidence there is suggests that thine only survives as determiner after the end of the sixteenth century with an increasingly limited number of lexical items, and only before a vowel.


Table 8.9 List of words co-occurring with the determiners thy or thine in each genre and period (raw figures in parentheses)* Period 1 1560–1599

2 1600–1639

Determiner Drama Comedy thy absence (1) honour (1) unnatural (1) hands (2) house (1) + consonant (51)

Trials examination (1) hand (2) whole (1) + consonant (19)

thine

own (2)

thy

adversary (1) affairs (1) impatience (1) unstaid (1) uncle (1) haste (1) hand (2) haven (1) head (1) heels (1) whole (1) + consonant (70) ears (1) uncle (1) absence (1) art (1) embrace (1) infancy (1) habit (1) head (1) heart (3) + consonant (23) eyes (1) infancy (1) own (3) own (1) hand (1) heart (1) husband (1) + consonant (17) + consonant (4)

enterprise (1) intent (1) own (3) oath (1) hand (2) + consonant (1)

thine 3 1640–1679

thy

thine 4 1680–1719

thy

5 1720–1760

thy

hand (2)

almanack (1) + consonant (2)

Depositions honesty (1) heart (1) heels (4) hose (1) husband (2) whores (1) + consonant (33)

own (1) hands (1) heart (2) house (7) husband (4) whole (1) whore (4) + consonant (21)

own (6) + consonant (1) + consonant (11)

old (1) uncle (2) + consonant (5)

uncle (1) hand (1) + consonant (6) thine own (1) * only the raw totals are given for words beginning with a consonant other than ‘h’.


8.3.3 Ye vs. you Originally ye was the nominative form and you the accusative form in the second person plural (Barber 1997: 149).12 As the present study is concerned with second person singular pronouns, I have not considered examples of ye and you when the reference is to more than one addressee. With regard to Drama Comedy, before the middle of the sixteenth century, Bock (1938: 66) shows that ye was used in the nominative singular only, while you was used in this function to a lesser extent, to characterise members of the lower ranks. Oliphant (1886 vol. I: 358, 389, 401, 495) notes that you was “much used” in place of nominative ye in poems from 1500, and increasingly in royal letters, and plays (c. 1520), becoming the “new fashion” before the middle of the sixteenth century. Towards the end of the sixteenth century, you had become the most common variant in both nominative and objective, whether singular or plural (see e.g. Barber 1997: 149). Barber (1997: 149) also states that ‘ye’ might sometimes represent the unstressed form of either you or ye, as “in stressed position ye had fallen out of use by the end of the seventeenth century”. The probable reasons for the loss of ye are given succinctly by Görlach (1991: 85): “from the fifteenth century, ye and you had the weakly stressed form [jә] in common, which combined with redundant case marking to produce incorrect generalizations (possibly partly influenced by the reverse vowel pattern in thou/thee)”. Barber (1997: 149) offers the explanation for the objective form becoming the normal form in both nominative and objective in analogy with thou as “the two forms usually had the same vowel in late Middle English, and […] the form [jә~], rhyming with thou, still existed in the sixteenth century”. My data shows differences in usage in the three genres with regard to ye (see Tables 8.16a–c in the Appendix). In Depositions ye occurs only in subjective function, and only before 1600 (other than one instance of look ye in period 5: see example (24a) in 8.3.5), but you is clearly preferred to ye (calculations based on the data in Table 8.16c show that there is 82% you in period 1 compared with only 18% ye). A possible reason for the lack of ye in objective function is that the examples are primarily from depositions from the 1560s and 1570s, when ye was still less likely to occur in objective than in nominative (see e.g. Barber 1997: 149). In Trials, ye does not occur at all, with the exception of two examples (see ye and hear ye) in period 4 (1680–1719). In Drama Comedy the distribution of ye

12. To avoid misrepresenting the findings of previous research, where it is practical I give the terminology used by the particular scholars referred to. However, as I assume that Barber (1997) uses ‘accusative’ to refer to objective forms in general (i.e. direct, indirect and prepositional objects), I henceforth use the term ‘objective’. This term is also used in preference to Bock’s (1938) term ‘Dativ’, which he uses to refer to direct, indirect and prepositional objects.


versus you patterns thus (percentages are derived from the information in Table 8.16a in the Appendix): before 1600, ye is less common than you in both subjective (28%) and objective (30%) functions, and by the mid-seventeenth century it is only found in unstressed position (2% subjective, excluding the ambiguous y’ forms, and 1% objective). This is also true for the data after 1720 (4% in both syntactic functions), with two possible exceptions: “Go, ye liquorish Fool” (Drama Comedy, Steele, The Conscious Lovers, 1723: 43) and “– Ye don’t know me yet, I find” (Drama Comedy, Miller, The Mother-in-Law, 1734: 63). Interestingly, the ratio of ye to you is thus practically identical for subjective and objective functions in my Drama Comedy data, suggesting that syntactic role does not play much of a part in the selection of you or ye by the last decade of the sixteenth century (the three Drama Comedy texts from period 1 in my corpus are from 1595 and 1599). However, Bock’s figures (1938: 65, Tables 1 and 2) show a clear preference for ye in nominative rather than objective function (in plural as well as singular) throughout the period 1497–1779. In Drama Comedy from period 3 onwards (i.e. from 1640), ‘ye’ and ‘ee’ might represent the unstressed form of you: common environments for ye are d’ye, t’ye, w’ye, hark ye, and look ye (these 5 constructions account for all but one of the examples in period 3, and all but 7 of the 27 examples in period 5). Mitchell (1971: iii, Abstract) states that ‘frozen’ expressions like hark ye, look ye explain the survival of ye in her data (such imperative expressions also comprise the 3 examples of ye in Depositions, after 1600, and Trials): unfortunately, her figures are not comparable with mine, as she does not separate plural and singular forms. The evidence from my data regarding look ye and hark ye (and for comparison look thee and hark thee) is shown in Table 8.10. The table includes data for all periods and genres, and seems to suggest that the form represented by ‘ye’ or ‘ee’ in these expressions after 1680 is actually an unstressed you form, as prior to this period, you predominates as subject of the two most common imperative verbs. My own data is insufficient to allow firm conclusions, but Millward (1966: 10–11) shows that in Shakespeare you rather than ye was favoured in imperatives. Moreover, with regard to ye in the nominative in general, Bock (1938: 68–69) concludes that ye is the weak form of you used in unstressed position, as after 1675 it occurs almost exclusively in d’ye, hark ye and look ye. He argues that playwrights were trying to reproduce a colloquial spoken style, rather than trying to reintroduce the old nominative singular, and adds that d’ye is used to the same end even in modern plays (Bock 1938: 70). He also notes that ye is the weak form of you with regard to objective forms of ye, both singular and plural (Bock 1938: 76). Owing to Bock’s findings, I also considered my data for ye in Drama Comedy from period 4 (1680–1720): all 24 examples were in unstressed position; what is more, the 19 examples in subjective function were confined to d’ye, hark ye and


Table 8.10 Pronoun forms co-occurring with the two most common imperative verbs with an expressed subject (i.e. look and hark) in each genre and period (raw figures) Period

Pronoun

1 1560–1599 2 1600–1639 3 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 1720–1760

ye you thee you

Drama Comedy look 1 5 2 7

hark 6 19 1 1

Trials look – – – –

hark – – – –

Depositions look – – – –

you

8

7

2

1

–

ye (ee) you ye (ee) you

3 – 3 –

4 – 4 –

– 2 – –

– 2 – –

– – 1 1

look ye. To complete the picture of ye in my Drama Comedy data, I might add here that for period 2 (1600–1639) there is only one example of ye, in a vocative expression. Bock (1938: 68, 71) tentatively suggests that ye might be used where thou might have been used earlier, once you had become the normal pronoun of conversation, to express aversion or strong emotion, at least with regard to certain examples in two plays in the late seventeenth century. This is an interesting suggestion: however, the interpretation that the use of ye is due to unstressed position and colloquial style, which is Bock’s overall conclusion, is also possible in these cases. Moreover, if this were a general trend, this might encourage an increase of ye at the expense of thou, whereas in my data thou is consistently more common than ye (see Table 8.16a in the Appendix), and not only thou but also ye declines over the 200-year period. In Bock’s data (1938: 65, Table 2) for the years prior to 1675 that are also covered by my data (i.e. from 1560 onwards), singular ye comprises 9.2 per cent of the pronoun forms in nominative (i.e. thou, you and ye) in a play from 1560, 1.3 per cent in a play from 1599, and 1.7 per cent in another from 1633. In objective function, singular ye accounts for 6 per cent in a play from 1560, in a play by Jonson (the 1631 printing, Bartholmew Fayre, is sampled in my corpus), the figure is 1.3 per cent, and in a third play, from 1696, it is 1.2 per cent. The explanation for the much higher frequency of ye, in both subjective and objective functions, in my data for period 1 is that 189 examples of the 193 ye forms (see Table 8.16a in the Appendix) are from Menaecmi by William Warner, from 1595. In this play, ye is clearly preferred to you in subjective function (61%), while in objective function


the preference for ye is less marked (52%). It is clear that individual authors could vary greatly in their usage, a point also illustrated by Mitchell (1971: 86–87). In his investigation of Shakespeare’s usage in the plays, Busse (2002: 274) tentatively suggests that ye-users “are situated at the two extremes of the social scale” in Shakespeare, but he admits there is little data to base this upon. As mentioned above, Bock suggests that you in the nominative was used to characterise the lower ranks, in the second quarter of the sixteenth century. With regard to letter writers, however, Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2003: 141–142, 148–149) found that in their data, from 1460 to 1559, the middle ranks, followed by the upper ranks, led the change from ye to you as subject: after 1560, the difference between the ranks was insignificant, with all ranks preferring you to ye. The use of ye, in relation to you, does not seem to be influenced by the rank (or sex, or age) of the speaker or addressee in my data. In the Drama texts (other than in period 2), both sexes, and all ranks represented (which means, primarily, gentry, ‘professionals’, i.e. those in the professions and merchants, and ‘lower commoners’, i.e. mainly servants), both young and old, use ye. In period 1 Drama Comedy, as already mentioned, the majority of ye forms are in Warner’s Menaecmi (1595): this is a play dominated by characters of two ranks: professionals, and lower commoners (servants). With regard to subjective forms in Warner, professionals (who generally exchange you) exchange 59 per cent ye in relation to you; servants addressing professionals (servants generally use you to this group) use 61 per cent ye in relation to you. Professionals use you to servants relatively rarely, but even here the ratio (62%) is similar to the overall ratio of ye to you in subjective function in the play, mentioned above. The corresponding ratios of ye to you in objective function are 48, 58, and 50 per cent respectively. The ratio of ye to you thus remains fairly constant regardless of speaker or addressee rank, especially in subjective function. Clearly some other factor is at work here. Therefore, below I investigate whether the type of sentence influences the distribution of ye and you in Warner’s Menaecmi (1595), as well as – for purposes of comparison – in early Depositions. The hypothesis is that ye might occur more in post-verbal position as this is the position in which it survived (e.g. d’ye, hark ye) in later periods. Table 8.11 presents this distribution of ye and you as subject in Warner by speaker and addressee rank, in questions, imperatives and statements. Table 8.11 illustrates that ye is favoured in questions (and imperatives: this play contains all the examples of ye in imperatives in period 1) and you in statements. This suggests that the post-verbal position of the pronoun form does encourage the use of ye. The difference in distribution with regard to the total figures for questions and statements is statistically significant (χ2 = 19.719, p < 0.001, df = 1). (The expected frequencies for imperatives were too low to validate tests.) With regard to address to professionals in questions and statements, the distribution


Table 8.11 Ye vs. you as subject in Menaecmi by William Warner (1595) in questions, imperatives, and statements

Professionals addressing professionals Servants addressing professionals Professionals addressing servants Total

Question ye you 7 32 (82%) (18%) 8 27 (77%) (23%) – – 59 (80%)

15 (20%)

Imperative ye you 2 1 6

–

–

–

8 (89%)

1 (11%)

Statement ye you 26 32 (55%) (45%) 25 28 (53%) (47%) 5 2 56 (47%)

62 (53%)

also proved significant (professionals addressing professionals: χ2 = 13.440, p < 0.001, df = 1; servants addressing professionals: χ2 = 7.834, p = 0.005, df = 1). The observed difference between professionals addressing professionals and servants addressing professionals with regard to ye versus you (whether or not sentence types are treated separately or combined) is not statistically significant. This further suggests that it is sentence type and not rank which is important regarding which form, ye or you, is selected. There are instances in which the reason(s) for the selection of ye or you is not obvious, illustrated in examples (13a) and (13b), in which the linguistic and extra-linguistic variables are practically identical. In these examples, a professional is addressed familiarly by a servant: (13) a. Men. Tush, say as I bid thee man. Pen. Out of doubt ye are a fine man. (Drama Comedy, Warner, Menaecmi, 1595: B1r) Men. What saist thou? Cyl. If I may aduise ye, ye shall bestow this money which ye offred me, vpon a sacrifice for your selfe: for out of doubt you are mad that curse your selfe. (Drama Comedy, Warner, Menaecmi, 1595: B4r).

b.

Nevertheless, it seems fair to say that, even before 1600, ye shows a tendency to occur in positions which are more likely to be unstressed. Moreover, there are also four vocatives in which ye seems to be used when the pronoun is not stressed, and you when the stress is on the pronoun, for example “out ye rogue” and “you sir farewell” (Drama Comedy, Warner, Menaecmi, 1595: E2v, E4r). Similarly, stressed you is used once as a subject complement. By way of comparison, the use of ye in Depositions from the same period (1560–1599), shown in Table 8.12, also seems


Table 8.12 Ye vs. you as subject in Depositions in period 1 (1560–1599) in questions and statements

Depositions 1560–1599

Question ye you 9 (25%) 27 (75%)

Statement ye you 12 (14%) 75 (86%)

to reflect a preference for ye in questions rather than statements (there are no imperatives), but the difference in distribution is not statistically significant. To sum up, it appears that ye was favoured in positions in which the pronoun was less likely to be stressed as early as 1560–1599. Later, ye seems to function as the unstressed form of you rather than a form in its own right, and tends to occur especially in certain expressions, particularly d’ye, hark ye, and look ye. Although Barber’s comment “in stressed position ye had fallen out of use by the end of the seventeenth century” (1997: 149) is not restricted to speech-related texts, the data presented by Bock (1938) and my own data suggest that a slight revision of wording is needed in the quote with regard to Drama Comedy (but also Trials and Depositions), namely that in stressed positions ye had fallen out of use not long after the middle of the seventeenth century.

8.3.4 Pray + second person singular pronouns Previous research has shown that the verb pray in constructions (I) pray (thee/ you) underwent a process of grammaticalisation, developing from propositional to expressive, from a performative verb to a parenthetical politeness marker, functioning as an adverbial (Akimoto 2000: 67; Traugott 2000: 1, 4–6). As part of this process, the full forms I pray thee and I pray you were gradually reduced to prithee and pray respectively, although with a certain amount of overlap (see e.g. Akimoto 2000: 77, and Table 8.13 in the present study). As the focus of the present study is on thou and you forms, I have not collected data on (I) pray unless it co-occurs with a second person singular pronoun (examples with plural reference have been excluded). Nevertheless, many examples of (I) pray without a co-occurring pronoun have found their way into the data collection because they occur within an utterance which contains a separate example of thou or you (e.g. your in the following example): “O! your Servant, Madam – But pray tell me […]” (Drama Comedy, Steele, The Conscious Lovers, 1723: 33). Thus little can be said regarding the development of I pray you into the abbreviated form pray (but see below for a small-scale investigation of a Trial text). For the purposes of this book, and given the data at hand, the question is whether prithee should be regarded as a true thou form (i.e. as an abbreviated (I) pray + thee): is it used in the same way


Table 8.13 The distribution of the verb pray + second person singular pronouns in each genre and period* Period 1 1560–1599

2 1600–1639

Drama Comedy I pray you (2) I pray ye (1) I pray thee (1) I prithee (6) Prithee (3) I pray you (13) Pray you (5) I pray thee (6) Pray thee (13) I prithee (1) Prithee (8) I prithee (3) Prithee (11) Prithee (6)

Trials I pray you (2)

Depositions I pray you (7)

I pray you (1)

I prithee (1) I pray you (1) 3 Prithee (4) Pray you (1) 1640–1679 4 1680–1719 5 Prithee (6) 1720–1760 * One example each of pray + your Worship, your grace, and your Lordship are excluded from the table, as the you form in these cases is governed by the title (see 8.3.5).

as the full form (I) pray + thee or does the process of grammaticalisation affect its usage? Furthermore, does the use of (I) pray thee/you and (I) prithee differ from the use of thou and you forms in general, and is there any change over time in this regard in my data? I will look at the distribution of the various forms with the verb pray (shown in Table 8.13), describe how these are used in my material, and compare my findings with those of previous researchers. There seems to be a development towards simplification of the form with regard to (I) pray + thee, shown in Table 8.13 (forms with thee comprise 69 of the total 102 examples of (I) pray + pronoun). In this context, in Drama Comedy, the use of the first person pronoun I seems to drop out of use by the mid-seventeenth century, as does pray + thee as two separate words. Busse (2002: 194) shows that the decline of (I) pray thee in favour of (I) prithee can already be observed in the later plays in the Shakespeare Corpus. In my Trials data for the mid-seventeenth century, examples are rather scarce, but prithee occurs slightly more than I prithee. In the eighteenth century, only the short form prithee occurs, in Drama Comedy. For (I) pray + you, there are far fewer examples, but the lack of examples after 1640 in Drama Comedy, and in Depositions and Trials after 1600 (other than three examples in Depositions) might reflect a preference for simple pray alongside the increasing preference for prithee. Although, as mentioned above, the verb pray without a pronoun is not included in the quantification, this form is found in


Drama Comedy from period 1, as in examples (18b) and (19b), and Trials from period 2. For the ensuing discussion, most of the evidence is taken from Drama Comedy (although I will consider one Trial text in more detail). As will be shown below, the small amount of data from Trials and Depositions, while insufficient to allow conclusions for these genres, seems to lend support to the findings for the Drama Comedy genre. It is noteworthy that the type of sentence and the position of the pray + pronoun forms in my data do not vary greatly over time or with regard to the different forms. The majority of examples occur with imperatives (77 of 102 examples). In 21 of the 26 imperatives with (I) pray + you (occurring in periods 1 to 3), this form takes initial position. Similarly, in all 15 of the examples with the imperative, (I) pray + thee precedes the imperative (periods 1 and 2). In 30 of 36 imperatives with (I) prithee, this form takes initial position (periods 1–5). In five of the remaining six examples (in periods 2, 3 and 4), prithee occurs between two imperatives, as in “Come prethee sit” (Drama Comedy, Brewer, The Covntrie Girle, 1647: D3r). All forms occur, but rarely, with wh/how-questions (14 examples: all but one in Drama Comedy), although prithee occurs with most of these (11x). Akimoto (2000: 71–75) found rather more wh-questions, with prithee and pray, in his data for the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. In the examples from my data, the position of prithee is more flexible when co-occurring with wh-questions than with imperatives, as in “Where, prethe Butler where?” (Drama Comedy, Wilkins, The Miseries of Inforst Mariage, 1607: G4v), “Heaven forbid! – Pr’ythee who is it?”, and “What is it? What dost thee mean by this Blubbering, pr’ythee?” (Drama Comedy, Miller, The Mother-in-Law, 1734: 61, 80). However, more data would be needed to explore this apparent difference further. The remaining 11 examples with pray + pronoun in my data are too infrequent to justify further comment. These are examples such as “On, I pray thee” (Drama Comedy, Jonson, Bartholmew Fayre, 1631: 43) and “yea I praye yo u” (Depositions, Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/4: 93). In her brief study of two late seventeenth-century trials, Kryk-Kastovsky (1998: 49–52) shows that, in one trial, pray occurred slightly more with questions (14x) than with the imperative (9x), while, in the other trial, prithee occurred more with the imperative (9x), and rarely with questions (2x). She argues that questions are ‘more polite’, or less direct, than an imperative, and that the strategy chosen to extract information, direct or ‘polite’, depends “very much on the context and the roles played by the individual discourse participants” (Kryk-Kastovsky 1998: 51). Kryk-Kastovsky does not explicitly distinguish between the choice of pray or prithee in this respect, but if her argument that questions are ‘more polite’ is correct, the implication is that prithee, as it occurs mostly with imperatives, is rare in


these more polite contexts. Conversely, as pray occurs more often with questions, this would then suggest this form was preferred in more polite contexts. In order to make some comparison with Kryk-Kastovsky’s study, I extracted the simple pray forms (i.e. those without a pronoun) from The Tryals of Robert Green, Henry Berry, & Lawrence Hill from 1679, which is also the Trial text which had the most forms of prithee (3x) in my data. Due to the general level of formality in Trials, one does not usually find many thou forms,13 and in my Trials data, there are only five examples of prithee, occurring with the imperative and in address to those of lower rank than the speaker.14 In The Tryals of Robert Green, Henry Berry, & Lawrence Hill, simple pray only occurs with singular reference, with an imperative (14x), and with questions (12x). However, there is no clear difference in ‘politeness’ or directness dependent on whether pray occurs with an imperative or a question: as shown in (14a), pray + question can be quite direct and accusing, while the imperative is not necessarily less ‘polite’ in tone (14b). (14) a. [judge to witness favourable to the defendant] L. C. J. Pray how can you give such an accompt of Mr. Hill, as if he was always in your company? Mary Tilden. He came in to wait at Table, and did not stir out afterwards. L. C. J. Pray what Religion are you of? are you a Papist? (Trials, The Tryals of Robert Green, Henry Berry, & Lawrence Hill 1679: 53) b. [judge to witness unfavourable to the defendant] Mr. Recorder. Pray tell my Lord and the Jury whether you know Mr. Prance. L. Stringer. Yes, Sir, I do. (Trials, The Tryals of Robert Green, Henry Berry, & Lawrence Hill 1679: 41)

13. Contrary to this, there are a great many thou forms in the record of Lady Alice Lisle’s trial, from State-Trials (1730) and sampled in the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts, which is the source used by Kryk-Kastovsky for her discussion of prithee. However, the authenticity of this trial report has been called into question (see e.g. Keeton 1965: 314–315, and Chapter 2, Section 2.4.1.3, in the present study). Further evidence against the authenticity of this record is Jeffreys’ use of thou forms in the samples from contemporaneous trial records investigated in the present study (see Note 8, Chapter 5), in which he shows a much more restrained use of thou (expressing both condescension and contempt towards the addressee), but no prithee. 14. In the whole of A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760, there are only 2 further examples of prithee in Trials, with the imperative, one of which is accredited to Jeffreys, in a trial record from 1683. This trial is not included in the material used for the present study.


As the examples illustrate, “the roles played by the individual discourse participants” (Kryk-Kastovsky 1998: 51) indeed seem to affect the way they are addressed, but this does not appear to depend on whether pray co-occurs with a question or an imperative. I would argue that pray is used in a neutral or formal context (14b), but also when a judge/lawyer is being ‘frosty’, or stressing controlled emotion by being mock-polite in response to a witness’ behaviour (14a). As this is how you forms are used elsewhere in the data, this suggests that simple pray does behave as an abbreviated form of (I) pray you as argued in previous research, which would account for the total lack of pray + you forms in this Trial. Prithee seems to be used with a tone of condescension, to stress the addressee’s inferiority (see (16c) below), and/or suggest an emotional response to the addressee’s behaviour. For example, see (15a), in which the long-winded witness is told to get to the point, and note the sharp tone in (15b), which is taken from Kryk-Kastovsky’s data (although this last may not be a reliable report, see Note 13). In other words, as I will show further below, the selection of prithee, or pray (with or without you) would appear to be motivated by the same factors as thou and you forms overall. Lord Ch. Just. When was this? Mr. Bedlow. It was in October last, about the beginning, or latter end of September. Lord Ch. Just. Well Sir, Go on. Mr. Bedlow. I did Adhere to them all along, for I had a mind to Discover two Years ago, but was prevented; and I only drill’d them on, to know the Party, that I might prevent them. But they would never Discover the Party. Mr. Attorney General. Prithee come to this particular part of the Story. (Trials, The Tryals of Robert Green, Henry Berry, & Lawrence Hill 1679: 28) b. [Judge Jeffreys to a witness, a servant] L. C. J. Prithee be ingenuous, and let’s have the truth on’t? (from The Trial of Lady Alice Lisle, as quoted in Kryk-Kastovsky 1998: 51)

(15)

a.

In my data as a whole, (I) pray thee and (I) prithee are used to address those of lower status (16a–c), or by equals on intimate terms (17a–b), but not to address someone of higher status (unless an intimate of only slightly higher status). In this way they seem to reflect the use of thou forms in general. When (I) pray thee/prithee is used to those of lower status in the early Drama Comedy texts, it occurs in utterances in which thou is the normal pronoun of address to these


characters. In the later Drama Comedy texts, you is the pronoun more likely to be used to those of lower status, but switches to prithee and other thou forms occasionally occur. In these cases, the temporary switch to thou indicates the speaker’s emotional reaction (often exasperation) to a servant’s behaviour, as in “Thou art a most incomprehensible Blockhead” (Drama Comedy, Garrick, The Male-Coquette, 1757: 12) and “What is it? What dost thee mean by this Blubbering, pr’ythee?” (Drama Comedy, Miller, The Mother-in-Law, 1734: 80), or reflects a conspiratorial tone to a servant involved in some scheme or other (see Chapter 7). (16) a. [a courtier to a servant] Ca. Iaques, I prethee fill me a cup of canary, three parts water (Drama Comedy, Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: E2r) b. [a knight trying to calm a pauper] Eum: Hould thy hands, I pray thee good fellow be not too hastie. (Drama Comedy, Peele, The Old Wiues Tale, 1595: D1v) c. [a judge to a witness, a servant] Mr. Att. G. What is become of that Note? E. Curtis, My Lord, I cannot tell, my Master had it. Mr. Att. G. Prithee, tell us the story of it. (Trials, The Tryals of Robert Green, Henry Berry, & Lawrence Hill 1679: 39) (17)

a. b.

[a courtier to his close friend] Ca. Well harke you Lemot, in good faith you are too blame to put him to this vnkindnes, I prethee be friends with him. (Drama Comedy, Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: E2v) [two gentlemen friends] WIN. Doe not see him! he is the roaring horse-courser, pray thee let’s auoyd him: turne downe this way. QVAR. S’lud, I’le see him, and roare with him, too, and hee roar’d as loud as Neptune, pray thee goe with me. (Drama Comedy, Jonson, Bartholmew Fayre, 1631: 24)

(I) pray (you) is used to address those of higher status (18a–b), or between equals where warmth and intimacy is not being expressed (19a–b), but also to those of lower rank in cases where you is the usual pronoun used to these addressees. (I) pray (you) can be used to imply coldness or distance: in example (19b), the very fact that a comradely (I) pray + thee or (I) prithee is not selected


suggests that the speaker, having been exhorted to forgive the friend in (17a), has not entirely forgiven the offender. Similarly, in (20), the use of I pray you is clearly distancing, as the speaker reacts negatively to a relative stranger addressing him by his nickname. (18)

a.

[a beggar-woman to a clergyman] and the said Annis Herd then came to the hedge side and Anwicks wife with her, and said vnto him, I pray you giue me som plummes sir: (Depositions, A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: F3r) b. [a servant to a knight] Iaq. Hearke you, Monsieur Labesha, I pray let me speake a worde with you. (Drama Comedy, Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: E4v)

(19) a. [a guest to his host] Ma. Pa. Come, gentle M. Slender, come; we stay for you. Sl. Ile eate nothing, I thanke you Sir. Ma. Pa. By cocke and pie, you shall not choose, Sir: come, come. Sl. Nay, pray you lead the way. (Drama Comedy, Shakespeare, The Merry Wiues of Windsor, 1623: 41) b. [a courtier to a gentleman friend] Be. Wel, Ile neuer speake it more, as I am a gentleman. Le. No I pray do not. (Drama Comedy, Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: E2v) (20) WAS. Numps? S’blood, you are fine and familiar! how long ha’ wee bin acquainted, I pray you? (Drama Comedy, Jonson, Bartholmew Fayre, 1631: 38)

Brown and Gilman (1989: 181–184) investigated the verb pray, and prithee, in indirect requests in Shakespeare, considering the first 100 entries for each in the Spevack Concordances. They concluded that (I) pray + thee/you shows deference (a negative politeness strategy), co-occurring with honorific titles in 10 per cent of the examples, although never titles higher than sir. They do not differentiate between thee and you in this context, adding only that thee comprises 17 per cent of the examples. They treat prithee separately, arguing that it is used as an in-group marker (and hence a positive politeness strategy) rather than to show deference, as it co-occurs with terms of “friendship, affection, and intimacy”. My data clearly


points to the division being between thee and you forms rather than between the full form (I) pray (thee/you) and the abbreviated form (I) prithee: nevertheless, one can see the deferential use of (I) pray + you in (21), and the affectionate use of prithee in (22). Sl. Mistris Anne: your selfe shall goe first. An. Not I Sir, pray you keepe on. Sl. Truely I will not goe first: truely-la: I will not doe you that wrong. An. I pray you Sir. (Drama Comedy, Shakespeare, The Merry Wiues of Windsor, 1623: 41)

(21)

(22) Wor. Come, prithee cheer up, and glad my Heart that knows no Joy while thou art sad. (Drama Comedy, Killigrew, Chit-Chat, 1719: 26)

The use of a form of pray with an imperative, or similar construction (e.g. “On, I pray thee”: Drama Comedy, Jonson, Bartholmew Fayre, 1631: 43), is argued to be motivated by a desire to soften the force of the imperative, carrying the meaning of ‘please do this’ rather than a bald directive ‘do this’ (Brown & Gilman 1989: 180–181). However, in some cases the use of a ‘politeness marker’ may in fact strengthen rather than mitigate the force of an imperative, that is if the form is stressed: Quirk et al. (1985: 571) note how the courtesy subjunct please can be used to convey annoyance in Present-day English, as in “PLÈASE be quiet”. As described in Chapter 4, Culpeper (1996) has introduced a system of impoliteness strategies, in which, for example, condescension is a strategy for attacking negative face (see example (15a)), stressing distance is attacking positive face (19b), and mock politeness is attacking face ‘off-record’ or indirectly (14a). Thus, the selection of a particular pronoun form may be explained in terms of the speaker’s attacking rather than paying attention to the addressee’s positive or negative face. For example, the use of (I) pray + thee/prithee to one of lower status may rather stress the speaker’s superiority and/or annoyance than address the positive face of the former: “Why, there’s twelpence, pray thee wilt thou be gone” (Drama Comedy, Jonson, Bartholmew Fayre, 1631: 33). The use of (I) pray + you may be distancing rather than deferential, suggesting ‘you are no friend of mine’. (23)

Richard, said to his wife, I pray you be content and thinke not so, but trust in God and put your trust in him onely, [...] after his said wife said vnto him, I pray you as euer there was loue betweene vs, (as I hope there hath been for I haue v. pretie children by


you I thanke God) seeke som remedie for me a gainst yonder wicked beast (Depositions, A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex, 1582: F2v–F3r)

However, example (23), for instance, seems to illustrate attention to positive face wants, showing concern for the other and claiming in-group membership respectively, and yet you is the pronoun exchanged throughout the dialogue. This pronoun is probably motivated by the rank of the married couple (professionals). If both pronouns can be used for a particular strategy (in this case, a positive politeness strategy), then the theory is not useful in explaining why a particular pronoun is selected. Thus, although (I) pray (thee/you) and prithee can to a great extent be interpreted using politeness theory if combined with ‘impoliteness theory’, this is not entirely satisfactory. As I have shown above, the selection of pronoun form appears rather to follow the general pattern of thou and you usage (for a more detailed discussion of the application of politeness theory, to thou and you usage as a whole, see Chapter 4). Furthermore, unlike the findings of Brown and Gilman (1989), in my data both (I) prithee and (I) pray + you co-occur with courtesy terms, such as sir, and terms of “friendship, affection, and intimacy”, such as friend. A similar point is made by Busse (2002: 197) in his study of the Shakespeare Corpus. Busse (2002: 198) also mentions that in requests the most common verbs to occur with prithee are tell, let, and go, but that “the sequence of verbs for (I) pray (you) / (thee) is almost identical”, which suggests that “the weight of the imposition is not an important factor” in determining the form selected. The same is true of my data: the three above-mentioned verbs are the most common imperatives (7, 9, and 7 examples respectively), and occur with all forms. In sum, in answer to the questions raised earlier in this section, I would argue that prithee should be treated as a thou form: (I) pray + thee/prithee and (I) pray + you seem to be used in a similar way to thou and you forms overall in my data. Changes over time, and evidence of the process of grammaticalisation at work are found only insofar as the forms become simplified by the mid-seventeenth century.

8.3.5 Fixed expressions In this final section, I will briefly investigate the occurrence of so-called fixed expressions, that is the co-occurrence of words or phrases with a particular second person singular pronoun which does not seem to vary throughout the data. This is in order to show to what extent these exist, and what influence they have on


the figures with regard to the overall distribution of thou and you forms in my material. It has already been mentioned (8.3.3) that there are a number of expressions consisting of imperative verb form + subjective ye, which are found, primarily, in post-Restoration Drama, for instance hark ye, look ye. Mitchell (1971: iii, Abstract) and Busse (2002: 260), in his summary of the findings of Bock (1938) in this regard, call these ‘frozen’ and ‘fossilised’ expressions respectively. This seems to imply that there is little likelihood of these co-occurring with other pronoun forms. However, as Table 8.10 above (8.3.3) illustrates, in Depositions, look co-occurs with ye (24a) and you (24b), and, in Trials, hark and look co-occur only with you. Possibly the use of ye as opposed to you forms in Drama after 1680 reflects an attempt by the playwrights to imitate the everyday pronunciation of these expressions. (24)

a. b.

[master to servant] [...] her deceaced Master Geo Lea said to her, Nanny, look yee there is Ned Easton’s Face at the Window, (Depositions, National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1724–1758. MS ASSI45/24/1, deponent Anne Jibb) [a doctor to a major during an argument] and say’d look you it is not your being six foot or a Major that frightens me [...] (Depositions, National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1758–1760. MS PL27/3, deponent John Smith)

Similar imperatives which occur with ye (25a) also occur with thee (25b) in my data: see also (25c), albeit from an earlier period. Thee occurs in situational contexts in which other thou forms are being used, as in (25b) and (25c), and the imperatives with ye, and you, do not involve a pronoun switch when they are used either. This would suggest that it is the situational context rather than the verb form which decides the pronoun, although imperatives with thou are extremely rare in the data (see Note 7). (25) a. [witness to a judge] Mr. Mow. See ye, Sir, He did desire me to stay [...] (Trials, The Arraignment, Tryal and Condemnation of Stephen Colledge, 1681: 60) b. [a neighbour angrily after being attacked] see thee Rogue see thee Rogue look here thou hast Blinded mee [...]


c.

(Depositions, National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1696–1715. MS PL27/2, deponent Thomas Walmsley) [courtier to his close friend] Lem. Theres a prouerbe hit dead in the necke like a Cony, why hearke thee Catalian, I could haue told thee before what he would haue said. (Drama Comedy, Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: E3r)

Other expressions whose comparative frequency may make it appear as if they were set phrases actually occur with whichever pronoun is being used in the surrounding context, as shown in (26a) and (27c). Thus go thy ways (i.e. ‘clear off ’) and hold your peace (i.e. ‘shut up’) can be found reformulated with you and thou respectively: see (26a–b) and (27a–c).15 A similar observation was made by Mulholland (1967: 38) who points out that “expressions which previous writers on the subject have regarded as almost formulaic” namely pray you, thank you and fare thee well, were not restricted to either pronoun in her data from Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing. She therefore suggests that “these verbs too operate with systemic choice of pronoun” (Mulholland 1967: 38). (26) a. [angrily to a sister] Zant: Marrie gup with a murren, I knowe wherefore thou speakest that, but goe thy waies home as wise as thou camst, or Ile set thee home with a wanion. (Drama Comedy, Peele, The Old Wiues Tale, 1595: D4r) b. [master to servant, whom he always addresses with you] Eu. Go your waies, and aske of Doctor Caius house, which is the way; (Drama Comedy, Shakespeare, The Merry Wiues of Windsor, 1623: 41) (27) a. [attendant to his master’s wife] Pen. Nay hold your peace, wee’ll catch him in the nicke. (Drama Comedy, Warner, Menaecmi, 1595: C3v)

15. In Drama Comedy, both variants of these phrases occur, depending on the context: go thy ways (6x) is found in all periods but period 2, and go your ways (1x) in period 2; hold your peace (3x) is used in the first three periods, and hold thy peace (2x) in period 1. In the formal context of Trials, only hold your peace occurs (2x in period 2). In angry exchanges in Depositions, only go thy ways is reported (5 reports of 4 actual angry utterances, in periods 1, 2 and 5). As these figures illustrate, such expressions are not particularly numerous in the data.


b. [master to the same attendant] Men. Hold thy peace Peniculus. (Drama Comedy, Warner, Menaecmi, 1595: C4r) c. [judge to defendant] Well hold your peace, your answer comes too late. (Trials, A Breife Relation of [...] the Censure of [...] Dr. Bastvvicke, Mr. Burton, and Mr. Prynne, 1638: 9)

Phrases that do not show variation in which pronoun they co-occur with are hard to find, with the exception of the polite greeting/leave-taking formula your servant (i.e. an abbreviation of ‘I am your servant’), and honorific styles, or titles, such as your grace/worship/lordship/honour etc. Regarding the latter, Busse (2002: 105) notes that these are “fixed expressions that always co-occur with your, […] there is no choice of pronouns to be made”. However, he adds that “[f]or comic purposes these styles can also be used incongruously”, as in thy honour. My data supports these points: two examples with thy were found, with worship in period 2 Drama Comedy. One example is used in Jonson’s Bartholmew Fayre (1631: 33) by the character Whit, who always uses thou when you would be expected; the other example occurs in The Miseries of Inforst Mariage, by Wilkins (1607: F3r), when a character pretends to be mad, and adopts inappropriate language in his efforts to be convincing. Table 8.14 illustrates the effect these formulaic expressions have on the overall data with regard to the form your. The expression your (honour’s/ladyship’s etc.) (most humble) servant is found in Drama Comedy, from the mid-seventeenth century, but also occurs once in Trials. This expression accounts for as much as 7–8 per cent of all your occurrences in Drama Comedy after 1680. Throughout the 200-year period, the use of honorific styles consistently represents 8–10 per cent of all occurrences of your in Drama Comedy.16 In Trials, judges and lawyers receive the appellations your lordship (24), your grace (8), and your honour (6): at most this accounts for 16 per cent of the your occurrences.17 Neither polite greetings nor honorific styles occur in Depositions (bar one example of your Lordship): this is not unexpected given that the context of the cases is often brawling, slander, or the making of contracts between low-ranking neighbours. As both your servant and honorific styles tend to be used deferentially, it is not surprising that

16. In Drama Comedy the co-occurring nouns, in order of frequency, are: ladyship (52), worship (34), honour (13), lordship (8), grace (6), majesty (4), highness (2), mastership (1), and gibship (1) 17. Two occurrences of your majesty are also reported in The Trial of Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk.

Form

1 1560–1599 21 (10%)

2 1600–1639 22 (9%)

3 1640–1679 26* (8%) 9 (3%) 308 (100%) 11**** (16%) 69 (100%)

4 5 Total 1680–1719 1720–1760 Drama Comedy + title 30** (10%) 22 (8%) 121 (9%) 26*** (8%) 19 (7%) 54 (4%) + servant 241 (100%) 306 (100%) 268 (100%) 1337 (100%) Total: all your forms 214 (100%) 7 (7%) 8 (13%) 10 (11%) 4 (11%) 40 (11%) Trials + title 61 (100%) 95 (100%) 36 (100%) 368 (100%) Total: all your forms 107 (100%) 1 (11%) 1 (1%) Depositions + title 16 (100%) 24 (100%) 9 (100%) 36 (100%) 130 (100%) Total: all your forms 45 (100%) * includes 1 example of your gibship to an old nurse i.e. a mocking ‘title’ meaning one with the personality of a cat (see OED s.v. gib n.1) ** includes 4 examples of your ladyship’s …servant *** includes 2 examples of your slave (with the sense of an exaggerated form of your servant) **** includes 1 example of your honour’s …servant

Genre

Table 8.14 Formulaic expressions, i.e. your + title (and your + servant in Drama Comedy) by genre and period: Raw figures and percentages (in relation to all your forms)



these occur in formal contexts, among the upper ranks, or are used by the lower ranks to the upper, where you is used elsewhere in the context. Nevertheless, it naturally results in a higher incidence of you forms overall in the data for Trials, and especially, Drama Comedy. This, however, actually has little or no effect on the ratio of your in relation to thy/thine (as determiners), or the overall ratio of thou to you. By way of illustration: in Drama Comedy, if the formulaic forms are removed from the data, the percentage of your in relation to thy/thine decreases by only one percentage point in periods 1, 3, and 5. Similarly, the overall percentage of you in relation to thou in Drama Comedy decreases by one percentage point in period 1, and is not affected at all in periods 3 and 5. Other formulaic expressions occur, in the context of the pleading and sentencing in Trials, such as art thou guilty, as already described in Chapter 5, although not all the Trial texts sampled include these parts in the sample. In Depositions, the formulaic phrases used even today in wedding ceremonies, I take thee for my lawful wedded wife etc., are found in troth-plighting cases: however, these phrases are not predictable in Depositions, as not infrequently the pronouns and other parts of the formulae are misquoted (see Chapter 6). There is only one other phrase found in my data for which the pronoun does not vary. This is I thank you for your (good) X with an ironic sense or an exaggerated formal tone, and it is noticeable in that it occurs in utterances which otherwise contain thou: unfortunately, there are only two such instances in period 1 Depositions, examples (28a) and (28b), and another instance (28c) in Chapman’s An Humerous Dayes Myrth from 1599 (although this example is not actually in the part of the text sampled for the present study). The phrase is also uttered sarcastically in the corpus sample of this play, in an utterance in which thou does not occur (see Chapter 7). Without further supporting examples, it cannot be ruled out that this phrase might have been possible, reformulated, using thou: the shorter phrases I thank you and I thank thee both occur in my data (as also found by Mulholland 1967: 38), albeit without involving any pronoun switching. (28)

a.

[two women arguing] [...] and yn bullman wyff said what noughty hoor caull thou me nowghtie goose steiler / nay mayry I know the for no such saith stillinge wyffe / but u I thank yo for your good reporte whilles yu & I talk further / (Depositions, University Library, Durham. Book of Depositions 1565–1573. MS DDR/EJ/CCD/1/2, f. 79v)


b. c.

[a man complaining about the other’s behaviour] u [...] I thanke yo Kemp for yo r knavery, when I was at London thow didst send a Bum baylyff to my wife / (Depositions, Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1600–1602. MS 21M65/C3/11: 449) [a courtier mock-solemnly to his fellow courtier] Le. I thanke you for your good incouragement, but Colinet thou shalt see Catalian bring me hither an od gentleman presently to be acquainted withall, [...] (Drama Comedy, Chapman, An Humerous Dayes Myrth, 1599: A2v)

To sum up, there are certain expressions which tend to co-occur with a particular pronoun, such as hark ye, but these do not involve pronoun switching; imperative + ye only occurs in contexts where you is being used, and similar forms with thee can also occur in the data. There is little evidence of expressions which unvaryingly co-occur with a particular second person singular pronoun, with the exception of your servant and your + title, and, less commonly, legal formulae such as art thou guilty. None of these seems to influence the figures to any great extent regarding the overall patterns of thou and you in my data.

8.3.6 Section summary In 8.3 the different pronoun forms and their syntactic functions have been considered, revealing that, in each genre, the ratio of thou forms to you forms displays roughly the same pattern over the 200-year period irrespective of syntactic function. For example, in subjective, objective and determiner functions, there is a similar pattern of decline in thou forms over time in Drama Comedy (i.e. periods 1, 3, and 5). This is interpreted as an indication that syntactic function does not influence which pronoun (thou or you) is selected. The studies of particular pronoun forms showed that thine, as a determiner, survives after 1600 only before an increasingly small number of words beginning with a vowel, and that ye was favoured in unstressed positions as early as period 1. Moreover, ye was in fact likely to represent an abbreviated form of you rather than a form in its own right by the second half of the seventeenth century. From this time, primarily in the Drama Comedy data, ye tended to occur in certain expressions, such as hark ye and d’ye. With regard to (I) pray you and (I) pray thee, it was found that these were reduced to pray and prithee respectively by 1680. Both forms occurred in the same syntactic contexts, the difference between them being that of other thou and you forms, for instance with prithee used to indicate intimacy or camaraderie, and


pray being used more in formal contexts. Drama Comedy provided the majority of the data on (I) pray thee/you and (I) prithee, but an examination of one Trial text complemented this by furnishing data on the simple form pray. Finally, it was noted that there are few expressions which occur with one second person singular pronoun but not the other: these are legal formulae in Trials, honorific styles in Trials and Drama Comedy, and greeting formulae in Drama Comedy. However, these do not seem to be sufficiently frequent to skew the figures regarding the ratio of thou to you forms.

chapter 9

Summary and conclusions

9.1

Overview of the aims and hypotheses

The corpus-based investigation reported on in the present volume has examined thou and you during the period 1560–1760 in three speech-related genres: Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy. The main aims have been to study diachronic developments regarding the use of thou and you, to investigate which extra-linguistic factors were particularly relevant with regard to pronoun selection and the relative frequency of thou and you across the 200-year period, as well as to examine the extent to which linguistic factors may have played a role in determining pronoun selection. An eclectic methodological framework was adopted, embracing the fields of corpus linguistics, historical pragmatics and historical sociolinguistics. The corpus linguistics approach was taken in order to obtain sufficient data to enable conclusions regarding pronoun usage in the three genres. Moreover, to better understand the variation between thou and you, the range of pragmatic functions that could be filled by these pronouns was considered, together with the parameters of sex, age, and social rank, which previous research had found to influence pronoun usage. Sociolinguistic theories which might be adapted to the historical context were also taken into account, such as the possibility that the decline of thou might be encouraged by ‘hypercorrection’ among the middle ranks. It was predicted on the basis of previous research that extra-linguistic factors, to a greater extent than linguistic factors, would be shown to influence pronoun selection. Moreover, it was expected that differences between the three genres would be revealed with regard to both factors influencing pronoun usage and the ratio of thou to you, and that thou would decline in frequency across time. Also, it was hypothesised that those with power, on the basis of sex, seniority, or higher social rank, would tend to give thou but receive you from the powerless, and that the lower ranks might tend to exchange thou amongst themselves, but higher ranks would tend to exchange you. The parameters of sex, age, and social rank of speaker and addressee were quantified in order that these hypotheses might be tested. However, as other extra-linguistic factors such as emotional attitude and situational context, that is, factors which could not be satisfactorily


quantified, might also influence pronoun usage, the investigation was both quantitative and qualitative. The combination of a macro and micro-analysis of the data proved important in order to identify trends and reveal how a range of factors could influence pronoun usage in a given context. In this final chapter, I show the overall distribution of thou and you in the three genres and summarise the pronoun usage in each genre, before discussing both extra-linguistic and linguistic factors that influence the use of thou and you in my data. I comment on whether the hypotheses were confirmed, and offer suggestions for further research on second person singular pronouns in Early Modern English dialogues.

9.2

Summary of findings for the three genres

9.2.1 The overall distribution of thou and you in the three genres As expected, the three genres investigated, Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy, exhibited different patterns of distribution with regard to the ratio of thou and you in the five 40-year periods. To illustrate this, I have combined the results already presented in Chapters 5, 6 and 7 in Figure 9.1. Of the three genres, Trials had the lowest percentages of thou, and there was a marked decline after 1600: thou was rare in the seventeenth century, and did not occur after 1719 (see Chapter 5). The Depositions genre, by contrast, had much higher percentages of thou. There was an unsteady decline across the 200year period studied, but still as much as 21 per cent thou in period 5 (see Chapter

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Trials Depositions Drama Comedy

1

2

3

4

5

Figure 9.1 Percentage of thou (in relation to you) in each genre in the five 40-year periods from 1560–1760 (data from Tables 5.2, 6.2, and 7.2)

Chapter 9. Summary and conclusions 289

6). Drama Comedy exhibited a marked decline in thou after 1640, and a further decline after 1720. However, it was noted in Chapter 7 that the plays representing the period 1560–1599 were dated 1595–1599 in my data, which might explain the relatively low frequency in period 1 compared with period 2: the data in Bock (1938) for late sixteenth-century Drama Comedy showed that a decline in thou usage was also evident between periods 1 and 2, from 32 per cent to 25 per cent (see Chapter 7). In what follows, I summarise the main results of the analyses in Chapters 5–7, for each of the three genres in turn.

9.2.2 Trials In Chapter 5, it was shown that of the 2,187 pronoun examples in Trials, thou accounted for only 168 (8%). Moreover, 73 per cent of these thou examples (123x) occurred in period 1. A use of thou that was genre-specific was in formulaic legal phrases, without which the occurrences would have been even more negligible in the seventeenth century. The use of formulaic honorific styles (e.g. your grace) was also attested. The (non-formulaic) use of thou was found primarily in a text from 1585, in contemptuous address to a defendant of inferior rank by those presiding. It seems that thou (106x) was used to address the man personally, when viewing him as a despicable traitor; you (36x) was used when speaking to this man as the defendant, about the courtroom proceedings. With the exception of address to this one individual, the formal context of the courtroom seemed to encourage an almost exclusive use of you in this genre. Thou was only used sporadically: superior power in terms of rank, courtroom role, sometimes encouraged by the parameters of sex and/or age, allowed the occasional brief switch to thou, often in an attempt to manipulate witnesses. Thus there was generally a hint of positive or negative emotion expressed, in order to either encourage or bully the witness.

9.2.3 Depositions In Depositions, discussed in Chapter 6, the number of pronoun examples (1,274x) was far lower than that of Trials, but as much as 44 per cent of these were examples of thou (555x). Due to the size of the data set, each individual dialogue could be commented on with regard to the use of both thou and you. A formulaic use of thou was found in this genre also: in troth-plighting cases reported in the late sixteenth century, thou was the pronoun generally used when exchanging vows. Many of the dialogues reported on in this genre related to the making and breaking of business contracts, in which you appeared to be the pronoun of preference. Conflicts that led to litigation, often violent and emotional exchanges, were fre-


quently reported, encouraging the use of thou, but both pronouns were found in emotional, intimate, and unemotional contexts, with you increasingly used when negative feeling was expressed. In this regard, rank seemed to be a major influence on pronoun selection. The data was limited in this genre, but with this caveat in mind, it was suggested that gentry and professionals both tended to exchange you among themselves, even when quarrelling, throughout the 200-year period. Upper commoners used thou to express emotion in period 1, and to express strong emotion in periods 2 and 3. You, found in business contexts and in unemotional address, encroached on thou in that it was used in anger in periods 4 and 5, when thou seemed restricted to use among family members. The evidence for lower commoners was inconclusive as regards the pronoun preferred in unemotional contexts, although thou was more frequent than you in period 1, and found in both emotional and more neutral contexts. Increasingly after period 3, although data was rather scarce, thou seemed reserved for use – among lower commoners – when emotion was strong, between intimates, and you was used to express milder emotion or when participants were less socially close. The data, especially from period 1, attested the gentry tending to use thou, usually with emotional overtones, to address commoners, but only receiving you in return. By contrast, professionals tended to exchange you with commoners, but this was probably due to the contexts, which related to will-making and similar official business. Unlike the gentry, professionals (clergymen) were sometimes addressed with thou in anger by commoners. It was suggested that this might reflect the position of the clergy in Early Modern English society. There was limited data also with regard to master/servant, parent/child and husband/wife relationships. The superior/inferior dichotomy was attested in that servants and children only used you, but tended to receive thou from masters and mistresses and parents respectively. Servants also received you from masters and mistresses when there was no element of emotion in the address. There were no clear patterns with regard to exchanges between husbands and wives. Unexpectedly, in this genre, women used more thou than men did, but this proved to have more to do with their rank than with their sex: whereas the upper ranks (who tended to exchange you) were best represented by men rather than women, the reverse was true of the lower ranks (who tended to exchange thou). One parameter specific to this genre was that of region. It was shown that in regions where thou may still occur in the dialect today, which supplied the major part of the Depositions data, thou was more prevalent in the data for 1560–1760. In the data for the mid-seventeenth century, thou was found in these regions in contexts in which you was used in the regions where thou does not occur today.


Nevertheless the decline of thou across time, with you found in contexts where thou was used earlier, was attested in the data for all regions.

9.2.4 Drama Comedy This genre, the focus of much previous research, was discussed in Chapter 7. There were 6,087 pronoun examples in my Drama Comedy data, which is almost five times as many as in Depositions and almost three times as many as in Trials, easily allowing certain trends in pronoun usage to be discerned. Thou (15%) was more frequent in this genre than in Trials, but not as frequent as in Depositions. There were several factors influencing pronoun usage typical of this genre: you was found in formulaic greetings (e.g. your servant) and honorific styles (discussed in Chapter 8), while thou was often used by dramatists to depict a particular character as a braggart, a boor, a fool etc. Characters of the higher ranks, especially the gentry, predominated in Drama Comedy. The evidence suggested that all ranks exchanged you with characters of the same rank in less emotional contexts in this genre, although the data for lower commoners was scarce in this regard. All ranks might use thou to express anger, intimacy, and affection. It was suggested that dramatists might have been depicting characters of the professionals group as occupying a less secure social position, who thus tended to avoid using this pronoun which was associated with the uncultivated, but the evidence was inconclusive. On the other hand, gentlemen characters seemed to be depicted as being especially comfortable in using thou to express emotion and intimacy: a thou of comradeship inserted into familiar conversation occurred throughout periods 1–4, although you dominated even these exchanges. Regarding the superior/inferior dichotomy, lower commoners, predominantly servants, tended to use you to ranks above them. The preferred pronoun of address by masters to servants was thou or an ironic you before 1600, a sharp or ironic you in the first half of the seventeenth century, and you, with or without such overtones, after this time. Thou still occurred in address to servants even in period 5, but from 1600 it was used more often by characters of the higher ranks, especially when wanting help in a scheme from other people’s servants. Children, whether grown-up or not, addressed parents with a respectful you, but received either a patronising thou or a stern or unemotional you: there was no apparent change over time in this respect. Neither did address between husband/wife (among nobles/sirs, gentry, and professionals) differ across the 200-year period: you was generally exchanged, but an affectionate or patronising thou was sometimes used, often as if addressing a child, by husbands to wives. Wives rarely ad-


dressed husbands with thou, but you could be used by either husband or wife to underline a rejection of intimacy/affection by giving you after receiving thou. Throughout the period investigated, female characters tended to use far less thou than male characters, which might have been intended by dramatists to reflect a female preference for the prestige variant you. When female characters did use thou, it was usually when they had lost control, and were furious with male characters.

9.3

Factors influencing pronoun usage

9.3.1 Extra-linguistic factors As a result of the analyses in Chapters 5–7, a wide range of extra-linguistic factors have been found to motivate pronoun usage in dialogues in the three speechrelated genres. As shown above, genre-specific extra-linguistic factors encouraging thou were region and characterisation, in Depositions and Drama Comedy respectively. The formality involved in legal proceedings and contract-making encouraged you in Trials and Depositions. The language of business seemed to warrant the use of you in Depositions and Drama Comedy: thus trades-people, fairs-people, shopkeepers, merchants, clergy and lawyers exchanged you with customers and clients. This was also related to social distance, as those who were not intimates were less likely to use thou. There was also evidence of a difference in pronoun usage, attested in both Trials and Drama Comedy, dependent on whether the addressee was seen from a personal or business perspective. For example, in Trials, as mentioned above, the same person was addressed thou as a ‘traitor’ but you as a ‘defendant’; similarly a king in Drama Comedy addressed a person by his name and used thou, but when addressing him by his occupational title, he used you. You seemed also to be the reciprocal pronoun of unemotional familiar address among all ranks in Depositions and Drama Comedy, insofar as the evidence permits conclusions: however, it remains unclear which pronoun was preferred among lower commoners in Depositions. Thou between intimates, that is, close friends and family, tended to be found only intermittently, especially after 1600, and was rarely reciprocal. It usually carried an element of positive or negative emotion, and/or the superior power of the speaker encouraged thou. Superior power could be based on rank, parental authority, marital relationship (husband to wife), and reinforced by seniority. Age did not seem a prime factor in pronoun selection, except that it was young male characters of the gentry in Drama Comedy who used thou to mark in-group membership. The influence of the sex parameter was less than clear, partly due to a lack of data in Trials, and


to a dearth of examples in Depositions in which women and men were of equal rank. Upper-ranking female characters did not address their friends with thou in the same way that, or as often as, gentlemen characters did in Drama Comedy, but dramatists did seem to depict certain female characters, who used thou, as more emotionally volatile. Emotion was the one extra-linguistic factor that could apparently override all others in the three genres, for instance permitting thou in angry address to a superior, by female to male, by young to old, or during formal legal proceedings. However, often emotion served to motivate thou together with other factors, especially superior power. Negative or positive emotion combined with superior power accounted for many of the thou examples in all three genres. Conversely, you with an icy, bitter, or ironic tone, often a demonstration of controlled emotion (or sometimes a cold rejection of intimacy, in Drama Comedy), was found in all three genres. As can be seen in Figure 9.1 above, time was also a factor influencing pronoun usage: you was found to be gradually superseding thou in all genres.

9.3.2 Linguistic factors Chapter 8 revealed that there was little evidence in the material that pronoun selection was determined by linguistic factors. My findings were contrary to suggestions in previous research that, for example, hark ye and pray thee were fixed expressions, which no longer carried the socio-affective connotations of you and thou respectively. Moreover, few expressions could be found which occurred with thou but not you, or vice versa: even ‘formulaic’ phrases associated with troth-plighting in Depositions showed some variation regarding the pronouns reported. Exceptions to this were legal formulae in Trials, honorific styles in both Trials and Drama Comedy, and greeting formulae in Drama Comedy. Nevertheless, the effect these formulae had on the quantitative results was negligible. There was no indication that syntactic function influenced which pronoun (thou or you) was selected; for example, thou forms, whether subjective, objective, or possessive determiner, tended to decline at a similar rate across time in a particular genre (possessive pronouns were infrequent throughout the data). In general, the hypotheses that thou rather than you would tend to co-occur with closedclass verbs, modal verbs in particular, or private verbs were not supported by the quantitative results. In fact, regarding closed-class verbs in questions, and both modals and private verbs, some preference for you was indicated. However, for statements, statistical tests did seem to show that thou tended to co-occur with closed-class verbs more than with lexical verbs to a greater extent than you did.


9.4

Were the hypotheses confirmed?

The main hypothesis that extra-linguistic factors would have a greater impact than linguistic factors on pronoun usage has been confirmed by the present study. As described above, many extra-linguistic factors influenced pronoun selection, and to a far greater extent than linguistic factors: formulaic phrases had little effect on the data, and nothing was conclusively shown with regard to the co-occurrence of thou and you with different sentence and verb types. Differences and similarities between the three genres have been highlighted above. Moreover, the quantitative data for all three genres confirms that thou in relation to you declined in frequency across the period 1560–1760. With regard to the parameters of sex, age and rank, the hypotheses received some confirmation. Power based on higher social rank, especially between the top and bottom sections of the social hierarchy, was shown to influence pronoun usage in all genres. In unemotional familiar address, the higher ranks did tend to exchange you, but there was insufficient evidence to claim that the lower ranks would tend to exchange thou amongst themselves in Depositions, and more evidence to the contrary in Drama Comedy. It has been shown that power based on sex in husband/wife relationships affected pronoun usage in Drama Comedy, but other than this, no firm conclusions could be drawn about the sex parameter influencing pronoun usage. Seniority encouraged thou often only in combination with other extra-linguistic factors, although parental authority could encourage thou in Depositions and Drama Comedy.

9.5

Suggestions for further research

As we have seen, this investigation into thou and you in Early Modern English with regard to the genres of Trials and Drama Comedy has served to confirm and expand upon the qualitative analyses of Finkenstaedt (1963) and Bock (1938), and the quantitative results of Bock (1938) and Johnson (1959, 1966). Using a corpus of Trials, Depositions and Drama Comedy from 1560–1760 as the data source, this study has also complemented the quantitative analyses of Bock (1938), Mitchell (1971), and Busse (2002) with regard to the relative distribution and use of the various pronoun forms, and Busse’s findings with regard to the influence of sentence and verb type on the selection of thou and you in the Shakespeare Corpus. However, the present study has revealed that we still know relatively little about pronoun usage among commoners, especially lower commoners, particularly in Trials, but also among characters in Drama Comedy. In Trials, there is


little relevant data; in Drama Comedy, the authors tend to focus their attention on the higher ranks, with lower ranks represented primarily by servant characters. Depositions have been shown to be a source of information regarding pronoun usage among the lower echelons of Early Modern English society by both Hope (1993) and the present investigation. Yet the present study has revealed the need for further data from this genre. Hopefully, more data would also enable comparisons between male and female usage, which was impeded in the present study of Depositions by the relative lack of data for male speakers from the lower echelons and female speakers from the upper ranks of society. To obtain more data, it is necessary to collect and transcribe further documents from the wealth of manuscript material located around England in local archives: a three-year project (2005–2007) at Uppsala University, Sweden, to produce an electronic edition of Depositions originating from a variety of regions of England will help make such material more accessible for research. Indeed, as mentioned in Chapter 6, further work on second person singular pronoun distribution using material from this edition has already begun, and this work also suggests that region plays a role in pronoun usage (see Kytö, Walker & Grund 2007). Furthermore, large-scale quantitative investigations of other speech-related genres, such as Fiction and Handbooks/Didactic Works, which have also been sampled in the CED, would complement the qualitative work that, for example, Finkenstaedt (1963) has carried out on these genres, and further expand our knowledge of pronoun usage in Early Modern English dialogues. Finally, further research into the possible influence of linguistic factors could benefit from a larger quantitative analysis than that carried out in the present investigation, in order to examine the tendencies found with regard to the co-occurrence of thou and you with closed-class and lexical verbs in statements and questions.

Appendix

Table 5.9 Thou and you in period 1 Trials (1560–1599) according to age of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic) Hearer → Speaker ↓ Adult Adult/Old Old Total

Adult thou you – 21 100% 177 9 (9) 5% 95% – 74 100% 272 9 (9) 3% 97%

Adult/Old thou you 67 74 48% 52% 2 6 (6) 41 39% 114 (6) 45%

63 61% 139 55%

Old thou –

you 6

–

4

–

1

–

11 100%

Total thou you 67 101 40% 60% 15 (15) 183 8% 92% 41 138 23% 77% 123 (15) 422 23% 77%

Table 5.10 Thou and you in period 2 Trials (1600–1639) according to age of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic)* Adult/Old Old Total thou you thou you thou you 1 – – 8 9 (8) 8 – 26 – 3 – 35 100% 100% 111 9 1 38 – 52 – 12 6 (5) Old 5 (5) 95% 3% 97% 100% 100% 5% 1 39 1 78 – 23 15 (13) 154 Total 13 (13) 14 9% 91% 48% 52% 2% 98% 1% 99% 100% * Examples of thou (2x) and you (40x) where the addressee is of indeterminable age are omitted from this table

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Adult Adult/Old

Youth thou you – 8 (8) – 5

Adult thou you – – – 1

–

Youth thou you – –

Youth/Adult thou you – 6

Adult thou you – – Adult/Old thou you – 1 thou –

22 – – – 2 – 25 – 100% 100% 13 – – – 29 – 11 – Adult/Old 8 (8) 38% 62% 100% 100% Old 4 121 – – 1 13 1 75 2 3% 97% 7% 93% 1% 99% 3% 156 – 6 1 44 1 112 2 Total 12 (8) 7% 93% 2% 98% 1% 99% 2% * Examples of you (30x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable age are omitted from this table

Adult


Old

– 8 (8) 9% 8 3% 16 4%

27 100% 65 97% 103 98%

thou –

7

you 4

Total you 11 100% 56 100% 80 91% 274 97% 421 96%

Table 5.11 Thou and you in period 3 Trials (1640–1679) according to age of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic)*


Youth/Adult thou you – – – –

Adult thou you – – – 6

Adult/Old Old thou you thou you – 2 – – – 12 – – 100% 54 – 6 – 4 4 119 3 61 Adult 1 2% 98% 3% 97% 5% 95% Adult/Old 4 44 – – – 9 – 103 – 21 8% 92% 100% 100% Old – 28 – 4 – 39 – 62 – 14 100% 100% 100% 100% Total 5 126 – 10 – 58 4 298 3 96 4% 96% 100% 100% 1% 99% 3% 97% * Examples of you (51x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable age are omitted from this table


Youth thou you – – – –

Table 5.12 Thou and you in period 4 Trials (1680–1719) according to age of speaker and addressee*

12 2%

8 3% 4 2% –

thou – –

Total you 2 18 100% 244 97% 177 98% 147 100% 588 98%

Appendix 299

you

Old

37 2 195 54 289

1

you

Total

Total

Gentry Professionals

Sirs


– 9 (9) 3% 9 (9) 3%

–

thou –

Nobles

– 248 97% 266 97%

you 13 100% 5

9

–

–

you 2

4 3

Sirs

– –

–

thou –

2 2%

– –

thou 2 5% –

Gentry you 41 95% 36 100% – 10 100% 87 98%

112 (6) 65%

60 35%

Professionals thou you 41 24 63% 37% 65 34 66% 34% – – 2 6 (6)

thou 43 35% 65 46% – 15 (15) 5% 123 (15) 23%

Total you 80 65% 75 54% 4 263 95% 422 77%

Table 5.14 Thou and you in period 1 Trials (1560–1599) according to rank of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic)

– – 12 – 12

you

Adult/Old

Youth/Adult 12 12 – 13 Adult – – – 2 Adult/Old 43 32 29 79 Old 10 6 1 37 Total 65 51 30 131 * Examples of you (24x) where the addressee is of indeterminable age are omitted from this table

–

you

Adult –

1

you

Youth/Adult –

–

you

Speaker ↓

Youth

Youth

Hearer →

Table 5.13 You in period 5 Trials (1720–1760) according to age of speaker and addressee*


–

thou 5 (5)

Nobles

8

you 9

Professionals thou you – 59 100% – 8

Commoners thou you 4 52 7% 93% – 11 100% 8 17% 17 8%

thou 9 7% –

Total

39 83% 186 92%

you 120 93% 27 100%

Sirs

Gentry

Professionals thou you – 73 100% – – 2 2

Commoners Total thou you thou you thou you thou you – 31 – – 4 150 4 254 100% 3% 97% 2% 98% Gentry – – – 6 – – – 6 16 – 27 10 (8) 57 Professionals – 12 8 (8) 33% 67% 100% 15% 85% 100% Commoners – 1 – 1 – 3 – 4 – 9 23 2 78 4 181 14 (8) 326 Total – 44 8 (8) 26% 74% 2% 98% 2% 98% 4% 96% 100% * Examples of thou (2x) and you (125x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable rank are omitted from this table

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Sirs

Table 5.16 Thou and you in period 3 Trials (1640–1679) according to rank of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic)*

Professionals

10 – 5 – 24 8 (8) 44% 56% 100% 27 – 72 4 87 Total 13 (13) 32% 68% 100% 4% 96% * Examples of you (8x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable rank are omitted from this table

Sirs


Table 5.15 Thou and you in period 2 Trials (1600–1639) according to rank of speaker and addressee (numbers in parentheses indicate how many of the thou examples are formulaic)*

Appendix 301

Sirs

you –

thou –

Gentry

you 21 100% – 10 100% 7

Professionals thou you – 52 100% – – – 24 100% – 7

Hearer → Sirs Gentry Professionals Commoners Speaker ↓ you you you you Sirs – 25 1 26 Gentry 2 5 – 56 Professionals – 44 5 27 Commoners 2 3 4 12 Total 4 77 10 121 * Examples of you (101x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable rank are omitted from this table

Table 5.18 You in period 5 Trials (1720–1760) according to rank of speaker and addressee*

thou –

Total you 52 63 76 21 212

Commoners Total thou you thou you 5 142 5 215 3% 97% 2% 98% Gentry – – – – 3 – 3 Professionals – 9 – – 75 – 118 100% 100% Commoners – 13 – – 14 – 41 100% 100% 100% Total – 22 – 38 – 83 5 234 5 377 100% 100% 100% 2% 98% 1% 99% * Examples of thou (7x) and you (262x) involving a speaker and/or addressee of indeterminable rank are omitted from this table

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Sirs

Table 5.17 Thou and you in period 4 Trials (1680–1719) according to rank of speaker and addressee*


Essex Record Office, Chelmsford. Essex Quarter Sessions Depositions (SE) National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions (NE)

3 1640– 1679

National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions (NE) A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against Three Witches (SW) National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions (NW) The Several Depositions Concerning the Late Riot in Oxford (S)

National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions (NE) The Tryal of the Memorable Jonathan Wilde (SE) National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions (NW) National Archives, London. Henley upon Thames, Oxon Sessions Examinations: Rex v Mary Blandy (S)

4 1680– 1719

5 1720– 1760

Essex Record Office, Colchester. Borough of Colchester Informations (SE) A True Account of the Late Bloody and Inhumane Conspiracy against His Highness the Lord Protector (SE)

see above Pendle, Lancashire (Map 2) Durham diocese (Map 1) see above

Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions (S) The Wonderfvll Discoverie of Witches in the Covntie of Lancaster (NW) Longstaffe ed., The Acts of the High Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham (NE) Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions (S)

2 1600– 1639

see above London (Map 2) see above Henley, Oxfordshire (Map 2)

see above Bideford, Devon (Map 2) Lancashire (Map 2) Oxford, Oxfordshire (Map 2)

Essex (Map 2) Yorkshire, Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmorland (Map 2) Colchester, Essex (Map 2) London (Map 2)

Administrative area represented Durham diocese (Map 1) Chester diocese (Map 1) Winchester diocese (Map 1) St Osyths, Essex (Map 2)

Period Deposition collection (Region) 1 Raine ed., Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham (NE) 1560– Furnivall ed., Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester (NW) Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions (S) 1599 A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex (SE)

Table 6.11 Regions and administrative areas represented by the Deposition collections

Appendix 303

–

2

4

1

–

–

–

1

Child thou you – –

15 88% 2

5

46 46% 4

2 12% 2

–

54 54% 1


–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Youth/Adult thou you – –

– 31 69% 12 63% 3

14 31% 7 37% 2

–

2

–

Adult thou you – 2

10 100% 1

–

3

–

–

Adult/Old thou you – –

3

–

–

thou –

Old

4

–

6

you –

33 28 4 17 54% 46% 19% 81% 47 4 23 2 – 3 3 8 15% 85% 15% 85% Total 8 2 72 59 3 3 25 48 52 78 11 50 55% 45% 34% 66% 40% 60% 18% 82% * Examples of thou (80x) and you (19x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable age are omitted from this table.

Adult/ Old Old

Youth/ Adult Adult

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Child/ Youth Youth

Table 6.12 Thou and you in period 1 Depositions (1560–1599) according to age of speaker and addressee*

47 44% 16 94% 27 40% 60 50% 21 21% 171 42%

60 56% 1 6% 40 60% 59 50% 78 79% 240 58%

Total thou you – 2


Youth thou you 3 2


Adult thou you 4 1

Adult/Old thou you – 3

thou 3

Old

you 3

Total thou you 10 9 53% 47% Youth/ 1 4 – 4 – 1 1 12 – – 2 21 Adult 8% 92% 9% 91% Adult 2 2 – – – 10 – 8 – 4 2 24 100% 8% 92% Adult/ 1 4 18 8 6 11 23 35 2 4 50 62 Old 69% 31% 35% 65% 40% 60% 45% 55% Old 11 7 – – 27 11 – 3 – – 38 21 61% 39% 71% 29% 64% 36% Total 18 19 18 12 37 34 24 61 5 11 102 137 49% 51% 60% 40% 52% 38% 28% 72% 31% 69% 43% 57% * Examples of thou (3x) and you (3x) to a ‘Child/Youth’ by ‘Adult/Old’, and examples of thou (90x) and you (49x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable age, are omitted from this table.


Table 6.13 Thou and you in period 2 and 3 Depositions (1600–1679) according to age of speaker and addressee*

Appendix 305

Youth thou you – 5


Adult thou you – 12 100% – –


thou –

Old you 18 100% –

thou –

Total

you 37 100% Youth/ – – 11 2 – – – 11 2 Adult 85% 15% 85% 15% Adult – 30 – – – 34 – 5 – 22 – 91 100% 100% 100% 100% Adult/ 5 14 1 1 – 6 5 10 8 7 19 38 Old 26% 74% 33% 67% 33% 67% Old 3 1 – – 13 7 4 7 5 – 25 15 65% 35% 62% 38% 50 12 3 13 59 9 24 13 47 55 183 Total 8 14% 86% 80% 20% 18% 82% 27% 73% 22% 78% 23% 77% * Examples of thou (52x) and you (88x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable age, and examples of thou (2x) to a child by a youth, are omitted from this table.


Table 6.14 Thou and you in period 4 and 5 Depositions (1680–1760) according to age of speaker and addressee*


–

Upper Comms. Lower Comms. ‘NonGentry’ Total

–

1

2

–

Gentry thou you – 2 6 14 30% 70% – 4 6

–

20 100% 1

Professionals thou you – 1 – – 2

8

5

9

Upper Commoners Lower Commoners thou you thou you – – – – 2 – 4 – –

2

‘Non-Gentry’ thou you – – 8 3

50 81 8 7 6 5 38% 62% – – – 7 3 5 3 17 35 15 – 2 15% 85% 70% 30% – – – 4 10 3 12 9 3 2 17 9 77% 23% 57% 43% 65% 35% – 9 8 31 19 30 69 115 55 33 31 21 21% 79% 39% 61% 38% 62% 62% 38% 60% 40% * Examples of thou (69x) and you (20x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable rank are omitted from this table.

–

Sirs thou you – – – 8

Profs.

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Sirs Gentry

Table 6.15 Thou and you in period 1 Depositions (1560–1599) according to rank of speaker and addressee* thou – 20 44% 7 14% 72 43% 41 47% 42 61% 182 43%

Total you 3 25 56% 44 86% 94 57% 46 53% 27 39% 239 57%

Appendix 307

2

–

8 26% 6 30% –

23 74% 14 70% –

Professionals thou you – 7

47 66% 2

–

10 100% 24 34% 6

Upper Commoners thou you 4 2

1

– 6

–

Lower Commoners thou you 6 5

–

1

7

–

‘Non-Gentry’ thou you – –

6 10 – – 38% 62% – – 5 1 24 15 24 2 36 16 62% 38% 92% 8% 69% 31% – 7 19 45 77 57 37 23 37 23 30% 70% 57% 43% 62% 38% 62% 38% * Examples of thou (25x) and you (34x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable rank are omitted from this table.

–

–

Upper Comms. Lower Comms. ‘NonGentry’ Total

1

Gentry you 4

–

thou –

Profs.

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Gentry

Table 6.16 Thou and you in period 2 and 3 Depositions (1600–1679) according to rank of speaker and addressee* thou 10 36% 9 21% 54 51% 8 31% 89 72% 170 52%

Total you 18 64% 34 79% 51 49% 18 69% 34 28% 155 48%


Gentry thou you – 7 1 7 – 1

Professionals thou you – – – – 63 13 17% 83% – 1

Upper Commoners thou you – – – – – 5

Lower Commoners thou you – – 3 – 3 31 9% 91% 4 3

‘Non-Gentry’ thou you – – 5 – – 17 100% 5 –

Total thou you – 7 9 7 16 117 12% 88% Upper – 4 11 23 20 31 Comms. 32% 68% 39% 61% Lower – 11 – 27 2 7 8 7 14 3 24 55 Comms. 100% 100% 82% 18% 30% 70% ‘Non– 6 – – – 5 11 10 27 3 38 24 Gentry’ 52% 48% 90% 10% 61% 39% Total 1 36 13 91 13 40 29 51 51 23 107 241 3% 97% 12% 88% 25% 75% 36% 64% 69% 31% 31% 69% * Examples of thou (2x) and you (27x) involving a speaker or addressee of indeterminable rank, examples of you (2x) by a professional addressing a knight, and an example of you by a gentleman to a nobleman, are omitted from this table.

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Nobles Gentry Profs.

Table 6.17 Thou and you in period 4 and 5 Depositions (1680–1760) according to rank of speaker and addressee*

Appendix 309

Youth thou you 1 4


Adult thou you – 2


thou 9 39% 3 7% –

Old

you 14 61% 41 93% –

Total thou you 15 21 42% 58% Youth 1 4 114 229 2 29 2 151 – 27 122 481 33% 67% 6% 94% 1% 99% 100% 20% 80% 1 – 6 118 Youth/Adult – – 5 4 – 2 – 112 100% 5% 95% Adult 1 – 51 16 33 28 13 74 – 7 11 16 109 141 76% 24% 54% 46% 15% 85% 41% 59% 44% 56% Adult/Old – – 5 21 – – 1 4 – – – 6 6 31 19% 81% 16% 84% 24 – 5 9 38 – 1 – 14 18 82 Old 2 – 7 23% 77% 19% 81% 100% 18% 82% Total 9 4 183 298 35 64 25 381 1 36 23 91 276 874 38% 62% 35% 65% 6% 94% 3% 97% 20% 80% 24% 76% * There are 47 examples omitted from this table (16 thou and 31 you) in which the speaker and/or addressee is pretending to be older or younger than he/she actually is.

Hearer → Child/Youth Speaker ↓ thou you Child/Youth 5 –

Table 7.12 Thou and you in period 1 Drama Comedy (1560–1599) according to age of speaker and addressee*


–

Adult/Old

–

–

–

Youth thou you – – 126 205 38% 62% – 8 Youth/Adult thou you – – 18 13 58% 42% – –

Adult/Old thou you – – 6 23 21% 79% – 1

49 – 1 34 35 100% 49% 51% Old – 1 37 288 1 5 12 58 11% 89% 17% 83% Total 1 1 163 550 19 19 52 117 23% 77% 50% 50% 31% 69% * There is 1 example of you omitted from this table, as the age of the addressee (offstage) is unknown.

–

Child/Youth thou you – – 1 –

Youth/Adult


18 26% 10 14% 84 28%

thou – 56 37% –

Old


52 74% 61 86% 214 72%

you 1 97 63% 3

52 28% 60 13% 319 26%

thou – 207 38% –

Total you 1 338 62% 12 100% 137 72% 413 87% 901 74%

Appendix 311

thou 54 10% –

Youth/Adult Adult Old you thou you thou you thou you 508 – 63 – 45 10 121 90% 100% 100% 8% 92% Youth/Adult 124 – – – 14 – 7 100% 100% 76 8 5 – 31 – 4 Adult 2 3% 97% 100% Old 62 208 3 21 – 7 – 14 23% 77% 12% 88% 100% Total 118 916 11 89 – 97 10 146 11% 89% 11% 89% 100% 6% 94% * There is 1 example of you omitted from this table, as the age of the character addressed is unknown.


Youth


10 8% 65 21% 139 10%

thou 64 8% –

Total you 737 92% 145 100% 116 92% 250 79% 1248 90%


Total

Old

Adult/Old

Adult


thou – 75 10% 1 1% 1 5% 17 18% 94 10%

Youth

you – 643 90% 84 99% 20 95% 75 82% 822 90% –

–

–

–

thou – –

Adult

146 100%

5

you – 60 100% 78 100% 3 3 25% 3 9%

– 12 75% 29 91%

–

Adult/Old thou you – – – 15 100% – 2

5 6%

–

–

thou – 5 8% –

Old

85 94%

19 100% 3

you 1 61 92% 1

Table 7.15 Thou and you in period 4 Drama Comedy (1680–1719) according to age of speaker and addressee thou – 80 9% 1 1% 1 2% 20 17% 102 9%

Total you 1 779 91% 165 99% 42 98% 95 83% 1082 91%

Appendix 313

–

–

Child thou you – –


Adult thou you – – Adult/Old thou you – – thou –

Old you 8

thou –

Total you 8

24 622 – 35 – 5 16 53 40 715 4% 96% 100% 23% 77% 5% 95% Adult – – 3 59 – – – 1 1 71 4 131 5% 95% 1% 99% 3% 97% Adult/Old – – – 5 – 4 – – – – – 9 Old – 23 6 33 – 26 – – – 20 6 102 100% 15% 85% 100% 100% 6% 94% Total – 23 33 719 – 65 – 6 17 152 50 965 100% 4% 96% 100% 10% 90% 5% 95% * There are 82 examples of you omitted from this table in which the speaker and/or addressee is pretending to be older or younger than he/she actually is.

Youth

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Child



Nobles & Sirs Gentry Professionals Upper Commoners Lower Commoners Total thou you thou you thou you thou you thou you thou you 37 58 15 20 6 12 1 11 30 3 89 104 39% 61% 43% 57% 33% 67% 8% 92% 91% 9% 46% 54% 11 109 21 33 – 5 12 26 6 7 50 180 9% 91% 39% 61% 32% 68% 22% 78% – 1 36 220 – – 76 13 112 244 Profs. – 10 100% 14% 86% 85% 15% 31% 69% Upper – 14 4 7 – – 1 2 4 9 9 32 Comms. 100% 22% 78% Lower 1 84 – 6 – 194 – 15 13 15 14 314 Comms. 1% 99% 100% 100% 46% 54% 4% 96% Total 49 275 40 67 42 431 14 54 129 47 274 874 15% 85% 37% 63% 9% 91% 21% 79% 73% 27% 24% 76% * There are 49 examples omitted from this table, of which 28 examples involve a speaker or addressee who has assumed a false rank (6 thou and 22 you), and 21 examples (12 thou and 9 you) involve a speaker or addressee of unknown rank (these latter examples relate to one character who is also pretending to be younger than he really is).

Hearer → Speaker ↓ Nobles & Sirs Gentry

Table 7.17 Thou and you in period 1 Drama Comedy (1560–1599) according to rank of speaker and addressee*

Appendix 315

Nobles & Sirs thou you 36 41 47% 53% 15 24 38% 62% – 37 100% 1 –

Gentry thou you 9 30 23% 77% 66 70 49% 51% – 146 100% – –

Professionals Upper Commoners Lower Commoners Total thou you thou you thou you thou you 3 27 – – 27 26 75 124 10% 90% 51% 49% 38% 62% 12 54 – 1 42 54 135 203 18% 82% 44% 56% 40% 60% Profs. 9 31 – 7 – 29 9 250 22% 78% 100% 3% 97% Upper 25 – – 5 1 1 27 6 Comms. 100% 82% 18% Lower 7 106 15 114 7 17 9 – 31 57 69 294 Comms. 6% 94% 12% 88% 29% 71% 35% 65% 19% 81% Total 59 208 90 360 56 129 9 13 101 167 315 877 22% 78% 20% 80% 30% 70% 41% 59% 38% 62% 26% 74% * There are 29 examples omitted from this table, of which 28 examples involve a speaker or addressee who has assumed a false rank (4 thou and 24 you), and 1 example of you involves an addressee (approaching from off-stage) of unknown rank.




Nobles & Sirs Gentry Professionals Lower Commoners Total thou you thou you thou you thou you thou you 8 144 10 152 – 51 24 19 42 366 5% 95% 6% 94% 100% 56% 44% 10% 90% Gentry – 57 38 318 – 48 9 25 47 448 100% 11% 89% 100% 26% 74% 9% 91% Professionals – 40 2 136 8 50 – 6 10 232 100% 1% 99% 14% 86% 4% 96% Lower – 70 – 61 – 10 34 37 34 178 Commoners 100% 100% 100% 48% 52% 16% 84% Total 8 311 50 667 8 159 67 87 133 1224 3% 97% 7% 93% 5% 95% 44% 56% 10% 90% * There are 29 examples omitted from this table, involving a speaker or addressee who has assumed a false rank (6 thou and 23 you).



Appendix 317

Nobles & Sirs thou you – 29 100% 3 75 4% 96% – –

Gentry Professionals Upper Commoners Lower Commoners thou you thou you thou you thou you 15 40 – – – – – – 27% 73% 60 614 13 24 – 28 – 14 9% 91% 35% 65% 100% 100% 28 6 41 3 12 – 1 Profs. 1 3% 97% 13% 87% 20% 80% Upper – – – 31 – 21 – 7 1 2 Comms. 100% 100% Lower – – – 10 – – – – – – Comms. 100% Total 3 104 76 723 19 86 3 47 1 17 3% 97% 10% 90% 18% 82% 6% 94% 6% 94% * There are 105 examples of you omitted from this table, involving a speaker and/or addressee who has assumed a false rank.



102 9%

thou 15 18% 76 9% 10 11% 1 2% –

Total you 69 82% 155 91% 82 89% 61 98% 10 100% 977 91%


Nobles & Sirs Gentry Professionals Lower Commoners Total thou you thou you thou you thou you thou you 16 30 3 80 – 1 9 11 28 122 35% 65% 4% 96% 45% 55% 19% 81% Gentry 2 105 8 243 – 42 4 49 14 439 2% 98% 3% 97% 100% 8% 92% 3% 97% 1 28 3 66 1 16 5 129 Professionals – 19 100% 3% 97% 4% 96% 6% 94% 4% 96% Lower – 29 2 85 – 18 1 60 3 192 Commoners 100% 2% 98% 100% 2% 98% 2% 98% Total 18 183 14 436 3 127 15 136 50 882 9% 91% 3% 97% 2% 98% 10% 90% 5% 95% * There are 165 examples of you omitted from this table, 150 examples involve a speaker and/or addressee who has assumed a false rank, and a further 15 examples involve speakers or addressees of unclear rank.



Appendix 319

thou you Total thou you Total thou you Total you Total Grand total

Subjective

Possessive pronoun

Possessive determiner

Objective

Pronoun

Syntactic function

1 1560–1599 140 (24%) 453 (76%) 593 (100%) 93 (29%) 233 (71%) 326 (100%) 59 (22%) 214 (78%) 273 (100%) 5 (100%) 5 (100%) 1197 (100%)

3 1640–1679 52 (8%) 583 (92%) 635 (100%) 50 (13%) 347 (87%) 397 (100%) 37 (11%) 308 (89%) 345 (100%) 11 (100%) 11 (100%) 1388 (100%)

5 1720–1760 26 (5%) 511 (95%) 537 (100%) 20 (7%) 264 (93%) 284 (100%) 4 (1%) 268 (99%) 272 (100%) 4 (100%) 4 (100%) 1097 (100%)

Table 8.15a The distribution of thou and you by syntactic function in Drama Comedy in periods 1, 3, and 5

218 (12%) 1547 (88%) 1765 (100%) 163 (16%) 844 (84%) 1007 (100%) 100 (11%) 790 (89%) 890 (100%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) 3682 (100%)

Total


thou you Total thou you Total thou you Total you Total Grand total

Subjective

Possessive pronoun


Objective

Pronoun

Syntactic function

1 1560–1599 80 (26%) 233 (74%) 313 (100%) 15 (16%) 81 (84%) 96 (100%) 28 (21%) 107 (79%) 135 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 545 (100%)

2 1600–1639 10 (9%) 106 (91%) 116 (100%) 3 (10%) 26 (90%) 29 (100%) 4 (6%) 61 (94%) 65 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 211 (100%)

3 1640–1679 6 (2%) 326 (98%) 332 (100%) 8 (12%) 56 (88%) 64 (100%) 2 (3%) 69 (97%) 71 (100%) – – 467 (100%)

4 1680–1719 6 (1%) 435 (99%) 441 (100%) 3 (3%) 108 (97%) 111 (100%) 3 (3%) 95 (97%) 98 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 651 (100%)

Table 8.15b The distribution of thou and you by syntactic function in Trials in the five 40-year periods 5 1720–1760 – 201 (100%) 201 (100%) – 76 (100%) 76 (100%) – 36 (100%) 36 (100%) – – 313 (100%)

102 (7%) 1301 (93%) 1403 (100%) 29 (8%) 347 (92%) 376 (100%) 37 (9%) 368 (91%) 405 (100%) 3 (100%) 3 (100%) 2187 (100%)

Total

Appendix 321

thou you Total thou you Total thou you Total thou you Total Grand total

Subjective

Possessive pronoun


Objective

Pronoun

Syntactic function

1 1560–1599 142 (53%) 125 (47%) 267 (100%) 65 (43%) 87 (57%) 152 (100%) 43 (49%) 45 (51%) 88 (100%) 1 (33%) 2 (67%) 3 (100%) 510 (100%)

2 1600–1639 66 (57%) 50 (43%) 116 (100%) 24 (53%) 21 (47%) 45 (100%) 48 (75%) 16 (25%) 64 (100%) 6 (100%) – 6 (100%) 231 (100%)

3 1640–1679 28 (35%) 53 (65%) 81 (100%) 10 (29%) 25 (71%) 35 (100%) 11 (31%) 24 (69%) 35 (100%) 2 (100%) – 2 (100%) 153 (100%)

4 1680–1719 34 (51%) 33 (49%) 67 (100%) 13 (34%) 25 (66%) 38 (100%) 8 (47%) 9 (53%) 17 (100%) – – – 122 (100%)

Table 8.15c The distribution of thou and you by syntactic function in Depositions in the five 40-year periods 5 1720–1760 29 (22%) 102 (78%) 131 (100%) 16 (20%) 66 (80%) 82 (100%) 9 (20%) 36 (80%) 45 (100%) – – – 258 (100%)

299 (45%) 363 (55%) 662 (100%) 128 (36%) 224 (64%) 352 (100%) 119 (48%) 130 (52%) 249 (100%) 9 (82%) 2 (18%) 11 (100%) 1274 (100%)

Total


thou thee thyself you y’ ye yourself Total thee prithee thyself you ye yourself Total thy thine your Total yours Total Grand total

Subjective

Possessive pronoun


Objective

Pronoun form

Syntactic function

1 1560–1599 136 (23%) 3 (1%) 1 (0%) 325 (55%) – 127 (21%) 1 (0%) 593 (100%) 79 (24%) 9 (3%) 5 (2%) 156 (48%) 66 (20%) 11 (3%) 326 (100%) 57 (21%) 2 (1%) 214 (78%) 273 (100%) 5 (100%) 5 (100%) 1197 (100%)

3 1640–1679 52 (8%) – – 556 (88%) 7 (1%) 12 (2%) 8 (1%) 635 (100%) 34 (9%) 14 (4%) 2 (1%) 318 (80%) 2 (1%) 27 (7%) 397 (100%) 32 (9%) 5 (1%) 308 (89%) 345 (100%) 11 (100%) 11 (100%) 1388 (100%)

5 1720–1760 24 (4%) 2 (0%) – 491 (91%) – 18 (3%) 2 (0%) 537 (100%) 12 (4%) 6 (2%) 2 (1%) 230 (81%) 9 (3%) 25 (9%) 284 (100%) 4 (1%) – 268 (99%) 272 (100%) 4 (100%) 4 (100%) 1097 (100%)

Table 8.16a The distribution of pronoun forms in their syntactic function in Drama Comedy in periods 1, 3, and 5

212 (12%) 5 (0%) 1 (0%) 1372 (78%) 7 (0%) 157 (9%) 11 (1%) 1765 (100%) 125 (12%) 29 (3%) 9 (1%) 704 (70%) 77 (8%) 63 (6%) 1007 (100%) 93 (10%) 7 (1%) 790 (89%) 890 (100%) 20 (100%) 20 (100%) 3682 (100%)

Total

Appendix 323

Pronoun form

Subjective

thou thyself you ye yourself Total Objective thee prithee thyself you yourself Total Possessive determiner thy thine your Total Possessive pronoun yours Total Grand total

Syntactic function

1 1560–1599 79 (25%) 1 (0%) 224 (72%) – 9 (3%) 313 (100%) 11 (11%) – 4 (4%) 73 (76%) 8 (8%) 96 (100%) 23 (17%) 5 (4%) 107 (79%) 135 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 545 (100%)

2 1600–1639 10 (9%) – 104 (90%) – 2 (2%) 116 (100%) 1 (3%) – 2 (7%) 24 (83%) 2 (7%) 29 (100%) 4 (6%) – 61 (94%) 65 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 211 (100%)

3 1640–1679 6 (2%) – 323 (97%) – 3 (1%) 332 (100%) 3 (5%) 5 (8%) – 52 (81%) 4 (6%) 64 (100%) 2 (3%) – 69 (97%) 71 (100%) – – 467 (100%)

4 1680–1719 6 (1%) – 431 (98%) 2 (0%) 2 (0%) 441 (100%) 3 (3%) – – 106 (95%) 2 (2%) 111 (100%) 3 (3%) – 95 (97%) 98 (100%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%) 651 (100%)

Table 8.16b The distribution of pronoun forms in their syntactic function in Trials in the five 40-year periods 5 1720–1760 – – 201 (100%) – – 201 (100%) – – – 72 (95%) 4 (5%) 76 (100%) – – 36 (100%) 36 (100%) – – 313 (100%)

101 (7%) 1 (0%) 1283 (91%) 2 (0%) 16 (1%) 1403 (100%) 18 (5%) 5 (1%) 6 (2%) 327 (87%) 20 (5%) 376 (100%) 32 (8%) 5 (1%) 368 (91%) 405 (100%) 3 (100%) 3 (100%) 2187 (100%)

Total


Pronoun form

1 2 3 1560–1599 1600–1639 1640–1679 66 (57%) 28 (35%) Subjective thou 141 (53%) thee – – – – – thyself 1 (0%) you 103 (39%) 50 (43%) 53 (65%) – – ye 22 (8%) yourself – – – 116 (100%) 81 (100%) Total 267 (100%) 23 (51%) 10 (29%) Objective thee 59 (39%) 1 (2%) – thyself 6 (4%) 21 (47%) 25 (71%) you 78 (51%) – – yourself 9 (6%) 45 (100%) 35 (100%) Total 152 (100%) 41 (64%) 11 (31%) Possessive determiner thy 43 (49%) – thine – 7 (11%) 16 (25%) 24* (69%) your 45 (51%) Total 88 (100%) 64 (100%) 35 (100%) 6 (100%) 2 (100%) Possessive pronoun thine 1 (33%) – – yours 2 (67%) 6 (100%) 2 (100%) Total 3 (100%) Grand total 510 (100%) 231 (100%) 153 (100%) * This raw figure includes 3 examples of your in vocative expressions (see discussion in 8.3.1).

Syntactic function

5 1720–1760 22 (17%) 7 (5%) – 101 (77%) 1 (1%) – 131 (100%) 13 (16%) 3 (4%) 62 (76%) 4 (5%) 82 (100%) 8 (18%) 1 (2%) 36 (80%) 45 (100%) – – 258 (100%)

4 1680–1719 31 (46%) 2 (3%) 1 (1%) 32 (48%) – 1 (1%) 67 (100%) 13 (34%) – 24 (63%) 1 (3%) 38 (100%) 8 (47%) – 9 (53%) 17 (100%) – – 122 (100%)

Table 8.16c The distribution of pronoun forms in their syntactic function in Depositions in the five 40-year periods

288 (44%) 9 (1%) 2 (0%) 339 (51%) 23 (3%) 1 (0%) 662 (100%) 118 (34%) 10 (3%) 210 (60%) 14 (4%) 352 (100%) 111 (45%) 8 (3%) 130 (52%) 249 (100%) 9 (82%) 2 (18%) 11 (100%) 1274 (100%)

Total

Appendix 325

References

Primary sources CED = A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. 2005. Compiled by Merja Kytö (Uppsala University, Sweden) and Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University, England).

Manuscripts Names of deponents are given for Deposition collections with no pagination/foliation. Bodleian Library, Oxford. MS Rawlinson A128, f. 27r–45r. British Library, London. MS Sloane 1427, f. 32r–81v, 82r–86r. British Library, London. MS Stowe 401, A rellation of the arraignmt of the [...] Ladie of Somerset [...] 1616, f. 48r–53v. Essex Record Office, Chelmsford. Essex Quarter Sessions Depositions, 1645–1656. MS Q/ SBa2/60, Tewer Wade, Debora Nailer, William Cattlin, William Moseley, John Clayton; MS Q/SBa2/61, Sara Tybold, Francis Smith, Edward Wenden, Mary Norman, Henry Tanner; MS Q/SBa2/71, John Fowler; MS Q/SBa2/78, Anne Spencer; MS Q/SBa2/79, Joseph Allen, Ruben Barker; MS Q/SBa2/80, Mary Playle, An Palmer, Elizabeth Smith; MS Q/ SBa2/82, Roger Smyth, Richard Parsons; MS Q/SBa2/85, Elizabeth Browne/Judith Knight; MS Q/SBa2/96, Brian Dentry, Ralph Leister, William Cannon, Edward Thornhill; MS Q/ SBa2/97, Thomas Wayford, Robert Bowen, George Ridle, John Harris, Joseph Crowe, William Stubbs, Thomas Keighly. Essex Record Office, Colchester. Borough of Colchester Informations, 1647–1675. MS D/B5/ Sb2/9, John Maslyn, Thomas Lawrence, Ralphe Harrison, Elizabeth Anger, Nicholas Gillibrowne, John Wiley, John Clarke, John Lynne, John Mouninge, Susan Newman, Robert Snelling, Katheryne Perry, Elizabeth Jenison, Anne White, George Searles, John Casketer, Thomas Smith, John Horrell. Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1566–1573. MS 21M65/C3/4, pp. 41–42, 84–85, 92–93, 98–99, 102–103, 260, 269–271, 335–336, 447–449, 499–504, 580–581, 618–621, 698, 703–704, 713–714, 843; MS 21M65/C3/5, pp. 22–24, 27–28, 47–48, 61, 72, 88–89, 95–97, 214–218, 234–235, 242, 272–275. Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1600–1602. MS 21M65/C3/11, pp. 322–323, 336–344, 361–362, 372–373, 393–395, 400–401, 412, 414–415, 436–439, 445–451.


Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Winchester Consistory Court Depositions, 1631–1632. MS 21M65/C3/12, pp. 17–19, 61, 85, 107–108, 127–128, 190, 198, 201. London Metropolitan Archives, London. Consistory Court of London Depositions Book, 1714–1715. MS DL/C/255, f. 1r–6r, 23r–26v, 35r–36r, 37r, 39r, 49r–52r, 53r–56v. National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1646–1664. MS ASSI45/2/1, f. 32r, 50r, 181r–v, 227r, 282r, 282Ar; MS ASSI45/3/1, f. 84r, 85r, 127r–128r, 145r; MS ASSI45/5/1, f. 33r, 34r, 51r, 66r, 79r; MS ASSI45/5/2, f. 21r; MS ASSI45/5/3, f. 10r, 133v; MS ASSI45/5/7, f. 17r; MS ASSI45/6/1, f. 75r, 88r; MS ASSI45/6/3, f. 102r, 138r, 173r; MS ASSI45/7/1, f. 135r, 160r, 186r–188r; MS ASSI44/7, indictment of Thomas Taylor. National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1680–1699. MS ASSI45/13/1, f. 78r–79v; MS ASSI45/14/1, f. 6r–v; MS ASSI45/14/2, f. 10r, 37r, 64r, 102r–v; MS ASSI45/14/3, f. 3r; MS ASSI45/15/3, f. 42r–v; MS ASSI45/16/1, f. 53r; MS ASSI45/16/3, f. 5r, 55r, 56r, 73r; MS ASSI45/16/4, f. 2r; MS ASSI45/16/5, f. 15r; MS ASSI45/17/2, f. 17r, 19r, 138r; MS ASSI45/17/4, f. 42r. National Archives, London. Assizes, Northern Circuit, Criminal Depositions, 1724–1758. MS ASSI45/18/2, Elizabeth Benton; MS ASSI45/20/2, Margret Calvert; MS ASSI45/22/1, Elkanah Smith, Isabell Marshall; MS ASSI45/24/1, Cristopher Hawksworth; MS ASSI45/23/2, William Barker; MS ASSI45/24/1, Thomas Grave, Anne Jibb, Thomas Wharton; MS ASSI45/26/1, Alice Sadler, Thomas Wilson, John Hardaker, George Anderson; MS ASSI45/26/2, Mary Jack, Anne Jack, Margaret Scott, Elizabeth Hall; MS ASSI45/26/3, Anne Aram (14 August 1758), Anne Aram (18 August 1758), Peter Moor. National Archives, London. Henley upon Thames, Oxon Sessions Examinations: Rex v Mary Blandy for poisoning her father, 1751. MS TS11/864, Anne Emmett, Ben Norton, Richard Fisher, Richard Lyttleton, Susannah Gunnell, Elizabeth Binfield; Susannah Gunnell, Elizabeth Binfield (further examined). National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1696–1715. MS PL27/2, Edmond Calvert, Elizabeth Boulton, Samuel Baxtonden, Thomas Airton, Robert Emmott, Henry Farrer, Richard Willson, Thomas Hird, Thomas Duckworth, Thomas Walmsley, Joanna Leeming, Ellin Bell, Charles Ryley, John Boulton, Alexander Leviston/ John Drew/John Weston. National Archives, London. Palatinate of Lancaster, Crown Court Depositions, 1727–1746, 1758–1760. MS PL27/2, John Harrison, Isabell Rossall, John Taylor, Matthew Booth; MS PL27/3, Ellen Noblet, Catherine Hoghton, John Smith, Thomas Starkie, Joseph Dyer, James Parker, William Starkie. National Archives, London. MS State Papers 16/517 [Bradshaw’s Journal]. University Library, Durham. Book of Depositions 1565–1573. MS DDR/EJ/CCD/1/2, f. 79v– 80r.

Printed material Information in round brackets is according to ESTC (English Short Title Catalogue) or the British Library Online Catalogue. The Arraignment, Tryal and Condemnation of Stephen Colledge [...]. 1681. London: Printed for Thomas Basset, and John Fish.

References 329

The Arraignment, Tryal and Examination of Mary Moders [...]. 1663. London: Printed for N. Brook. A Breife Relation of [...] the Censure of [...] Dr. Bastvvicke, Mr. Burton, and Mr. Prynne [...]. 1638. (Amsterdam: Richt Right Press.) Brewer, A. 1647. The Covntrie Girle. London: Printed for A. R. Brome, R. 1653. A Mad Couple Well Match’d. In Five New Playes. London: Printed for Humphrey Moseley, Richard Marriot, and Thomas Dring. Chapman, G. 1599. An Humerous Dayes Myrth. London: Printed by Valentine Syms. Emlyn, S. (ed.). 1730. A Complete Collection of State-Trials [...]. 6 vols. 2nd ed. London: Printed for J. Walthoe Sen. et al. Farquhar, G. 1707. The Beaux Stratagem. London: Printed for Bernard Lintott. Furnivall, F. J. (ed.). 1897. Child-Marriages, Divorces, and Ratifications, &c. in the Diocese of Chester, A.D. 1561–6 [Early English Text Society Original Series 108]. London: Early English Text Society. Gardiner, S. R. (ed.). 1886. Reports of Cases in the Courts of [...] High Commission [Camden Society New Series 39]. London: Camden Society. Garrick, D. 1757. The Male-Coquette: Or, Seventeen Hundred Fifty-Seven. London: Printed for P. Vaillant. The Genuine and Authentick Trial of Mr. Bartholomew Greenwood [...]. 1740. 3rd ed. London: Printed for Thomas Robins. The Genuine Trial of John Swan and Elizabeth Jeffreys [...]. (1752.) London: Printed for C. Corbett. Jonson, B. 1631. Bartholmew Fayre. London: Printed by I. B. for Robert Allot. Killigrew, T. (1719.) Chit-Chat. London: Printed for Bernard Lintot. Longstaffe, W. H. D. (ed.). 1858. The Acts of the High Commission Court within the Diocese of Durham [Surtees Society 34]. Durham/London/Edinburgh: Surtees Society. Manley, M. 1696. The Lost Lover; Or the Jealous Husband. London: Printed for R. Bently, F. Saunders, J. Knapton, and R. Wellington. Miller, J. 1734. The Mother-in-Law: Or, the Doctor the Disease. 2nd ed. London: Printed for John Watts. Peele, G. 1595. The Old Wiues Tale. London: Printed by Iohn Danter. Raine, J. (ed.). 1845. Depositions and Other Ecclesiastical Proceedings from the Courts of Durham, Extending from 1311 to the Reign of Elizabeth [Surtees Society 21]. London/Edinburgh: Surtees Society. The Several Depositions Concerning the Late Riot in Oxford. 1716. London: Printed for John Morphew. Shakespeare, W. 1623. The Merry Wiues of Windsor. In Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies. London: Printed by Isaac Iaggard, and Ed. Blount. State-Trials, see Emlyn, S. (ed.). Steele, R. 1723. The Conscious Lovers. London: Printed for J. Tonson. The Trial of Mr. Robert Hickford. 1730. In A Complete Collection of State-Trials, Vol. I, 2nd ed., S. Emlyn (ed.), 117–121. London: Printed for J. Walthoe Sen. et al. The Trial of the Lady Alice Lisle. 1730. In A Complete Collection of State-Trials, Vol. IV, 2nd ed., S. Emlyn (ed.), 105–130. London: Printed for J. Walthoe Sen. et al. The Trial of Thomas Howard Duke of Norfolk. 1730. In A Complete Collection of State-Trials, Vol. I, 2nd ed., S. Emlyn (ed.), 82–117. London: Printed for J. Walthoe Sen. et al.


A True Account of the Late Bloody and Inhumane Conspiracy against His Highness the Lord Protector [...]. 1654. London: Printed by Thomas Newcomb. A True and Impartial Account of the Arraignment, Tryal, Examination, Confession and Condemnation of Col. Iames Turner [...]. 1663. London: Printed by William Godbid for Nath. Brook, and Henry Marsh. A True and Impartial Relation of the Informations against Three Witches [...].1682. London: Printed by Freeman Collins. A True and Iust Recorde, of the Information, Examination and Confession of all the Witches, Taken at S. Oses in the Countie of Essex [...]. 1582. London: Printed by Thomas Dawson. A Trve and Plaine Declaration of the Horrible Treasons, Practised by William Parry [...]. (1585.) London: Printed by C. B. The Tryal and Condemnation of Arundel Coke [...]. 1722. London: Printed for John Darby, and Daniel Midwinter. The Tryal of John Giles [...]. 1681. London: Printed by Thomas James for Randal Taylor. The Tryal of the Memorable Jonathan Wilde [...]. 1730. London: Printed for J. Wilford. The Tryals of Haagen Swendsen [...]. 1703. London: Printed for Isaac Cleave. The Tryals of Robert Green, Henry Berry, & Lawrence Hill [...]. 1679. London: Printed for Robert Pawlet. Warner, W. 1595. Menaecmi. London: Printed by Tho. Creede. Wilkins, G. 1607. The Miseries of Inforst Mariage. London: Printed for George Vincent. The Wonderfvll Discoverie of Witches in the Covntie of Lancaster [...]. 1613. London: Printed by W. Stansby for Iohn Barnes. Wycherley, W. 1675. The Country-Wife. London: Printed for Thomas Dring.

Secondary sources Aalberse, S. forthc. Second person and deflection: constraints on variation. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam. Abbott, E. A. 1870. A Shakespearian Grammar: An Attempt to Illustrate Some of the Differences between Elizabethan and Modern English. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan [Reprint. New York: Dover Publications, 2003]. Aickin, J. 1693. The English Grammar: Or, the English Tongue Reduced to Grammatical Rules. London: Printed for the Author. Akimoto, M. 2000. “The grammaticalisation of the verb ‘pray’.” In Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English [Studies in Language Companion Series 53], O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach and D. Stein (eds), 67–84. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Archer, D. and Culpeper, J. 2003. “Sociopragmatic annotation: new directions and possibilities in historical corpus linguistics.” In Corpus Linguistics by the Lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech [Łódź Studies in Language 8], A. Wilson, P. Rayson and T. McEnery (eds), 37–58. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Barber, C. 1981. “ ‘You’ and ‘Thou’ in Shakespeare’s Richard III.” Leeds Studies in English, New Series 12: 273–289. Barber, C. 1997. Early Modern English. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

References 331

Bauman, R. 1983. Let Your Words Be Few: Symbolism of Speaking and Silence among Seventeenth-Century Quakers [Cambridge Studies in Oral and Literate Culture 8]. Cambridge/ New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Ben-Amos, I. K. 1994. Adolescence and Youth in Early Modern England. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Bentivoglio, P. 2003. “Spanish forms of address in the sixteenth century.” In Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 107], I. Taavitsainen and A. H. Jucker (eds), 177–191. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D. 1993. “Representativeness in corpus design”. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8 (4): 243–257. Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Reppen, R. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use [Cambridge Approaches to Linguistics]. Cambridge/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Bock, M. 1938. Der Stilistische Gebrauch des Englischen Personalpronomens der 2. Person im Volkstümlichen Dialog der Älteren Englischen Komödie. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Innsbruck. Braun, F. 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures [Contributions to the Sociology of Language 50]. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. British Library Online. Treasures in Full. Shakespeare in Quarto: Background. Shakespeare Quartos: Merry Wives of Windsor. http://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/windsor.html. (As accessed November 21, 2004). Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4]. Cambridge/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Brown, R. and Gilman, A. 1960. “The pronouns of power and solidarity.” In Style in Language, T. A. Sebeok (ed.), 253–276. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT. Brown, R. and Gilman, A. 1989. “Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies.” Language in Society 18: 159–212. Bruti, S. 2000. “Address pronouns in Shakespeare’s English: a re-appraisal in terms of markedness.” In The History of English in a Social Context: A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 129], D. Kastovsky and A. Mettinger (eds), 25–51. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bullokar, W. 1586. Pamphlet for Grammar. London: Printed by Edmund Bollifant. Busse, U. 2002. Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-Syntactic Variability of Second Person Pronouns [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 106]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Byrne, Sister St. Geraldine. 1936. Shakespeare’s Use of the Pronoun of Address; its Significance in Characterization and Motivation. Washington: Catholic University of America. Calvo, C. 1992. “Pronouns of address and social negotiation in As you like it.” Language and Literature 1: 5–27. Chambers, J. K. 1995. Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance [Language in Society 22]. Oxford: Blackwell. Corfield, P. J. 1995. Power and the Professions in Britain 1700–1850. London/New York: Routledge.


Coward, B. 1988. Social Change and Continuity in Early Modern England 1550–1750 [Seminar Studies in History]. London/New York: Longman. Culpeper, J. 1996. “Towards an anatomy of impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349–367. Culpeper, J. and Kytö, M. 1997. “Towards a corpus of dialogues, 1550–1750.” In Language in Time and Space: Studies in Honour of Wolfgang Viereck on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, H. Ramisch and K. Wynne (eds), 60–73. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Cusack, B. (ed.). 1998. Everyday English 1500–1700: A Reader. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Duncan, D. 1731. A New English Grammar. London: Printed by Nicolas Prevost. Erickson, A. L. 1993. Women and Property in Early Modern England. London/New York: Routledge. Everitt, A. 1969. Change in the Provinces: The Seventeenth Century [Department of English Local History Occasional Papers, 2nd series, 1]. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Finkenstaedt, T. 1963. You und Thou: Studien zur Anrede im Englischen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Fletcher, A. 1995. Gender, Sex and Subordination in England, 1500–1800. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Fox, G., Stubs, J. and Furley, B. 1660. A Battle-Door for Teachers and Professors to Learn Singular & Plural; You to Many and Thou to One [...]. London: Printed for Robert Wilson. Franz, W. 1909. Shakespeare-Grammatik. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Winter. Friedrich, P. 1986. “Social context and semantic feature: the Russian pronominal usage.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics: the Ethnography of Communication, 2nd ed., J. J. Gumpertz and D. Hymes (eds), 270–300. Oxford: Blackwell. Gent, F. J. 2002. The Trial of the Bideford Witches. 2nd ed. Bideford: Edward Gaskell Publishers. Görlach, M. 1991. Introduction to Early Modern English. Cambridge/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Greaves, P. 1594. Grammatica Anglicana. Cambridge: Iohn Legatt. Greenwood, J. 1711. An Essay towards a Practical English Grammar. London: Printed by R. Tookey. Hope, J. 1993. “Second person singular pronouns in records of early modern ‘spoken’ English.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 94: 83–100. Johnson, A. C. 1959. The Pronoun of Direct Address in Seventeenth Century English. Unpublished PhD thesis, Columbia University. Johnson, A. C. 1966. “The pronoun of direct address in seventeenth-century English.” American Speech 41: 261–269. Johnson, S. 1755. A Dictionary of the English Language. Vol. II. London: Printed by W. Strahan, for J. and P. Knapton et al. Jonson, B. 1640. The English Grammar. (London.) Jucker, A. H. 2000. “Thou in the history of English: a case for historical semantics or pragmatics?” In Words: Structure, Meaning, Function. A Festschrift for Dieter Kastovsky [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 130], C. Dalton-Puffer and N. Ritt (eds), 153–163. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Keeton, G. W. 1965. Lord Chancellor Jeffreys and the Stuart Cause. London: Macdonald. Kennedy, A. G. 1915. The Pronoun of Address in English Literature of the Thirteenth Century [Leland Stanford Junior University Publications. University Series 19]. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

References 333

Kiełkiewicz-Janowiak, A. 1995. “Sociolinguistics and the computer: pronominal address in Shakespeare.” Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 29: 49–56. Kryk-Kastovsky, B. 1998. “Pragmatic particles in early modern English court trials.” In Anglistentag 1997 Giessen Proceedings, R. Borgmeier, H. Grabes and A. H. Jucker (eds), 47–56. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Kussmaul, A. 1981. Servants in Husbandry in Early Modern England [Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Modern History]. Cambridge/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Kytö, M. 1991. Variation and Diachrony, with Early American English in Focus: Studies on can/ may and shall/will [University of Bamberg Studies in English Linguistics 28]. Frankfurt/Bern/New York/Paris: Peter Lang. Kytö, M. 1993. “Third-person present singular verb inflection in early British and American English.” Language Variation and Change 5: 113–139. Kytö, M. and Walker, T. 2003. “The linguistic study of early modern English speech-related texts: how ‘bad’ can ‘bad’ data be?” Journal of English Linguistics 31: 221–248. Kytö, M. and Walker, T. 2006. Guide to A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 [Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 130]. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Kytö, M., Walker, T. and Grund, P. 2007. “English witness depositions 1560–1760: an electronic text edition.” ICAME Journal 31: 65–85. Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Laslett, P. 1983. The World We Have Lost Further Explored. 3rd ed. London: Routledge. Lass, R. 1999. “Phonology and morphology.” In The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III: 1476–1776, R. Lass (ed.), 56–186. Cambridge/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics [Longman Linguistics Library 30]. London/New York: Longman. Lowth, R. 1762. A Short Introduction to English Grammar. London: Printed by J. Hughs; for A. Millar; and R. & J. Dodsley. McEnery, T. and Wilson, A. 1996. Corpus Linguistics [Edinburgh Textbooks in Empirical Linguistics]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mazzon, G. 2003. “Pronouns and nominal address in Shakespearean English: a socio-affective marking system in transition.” In Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 107], I. Taavitsainen and A. H. Jucker (eds), 223–249. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Miege, G. 1688. The English Grammar; Or, the Grounds, and Genius of the English Tongue. London: Printed by J. Redmayne, for the Author. Millward, C. 1966. “Pronominal case in Shakespearean Imperatives.” Language 42: 10–17. Mitchell, E. R. 1971. Pronouns of Address in English, 1580–1780: A Study of Form Changes as Reflected in British Drama. Unpublished PhD thesis, Texas A&M University. Mossé, F. 1968. A Handbook of Middle English. Translated by James A. Walker. 5th printing. Baltimore: John Hopkins. Mulholland, J. 1967. “ ‘Thou’ and ‘You’ in Shakespeare: a study in the second person pronoun.” English Studies 48: 34–43. Mustanoja, T. F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Part I: Parts of Speech [Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, XXIII]. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.


Nevala, M. 2004. Address in Early English Correspondence: Its Forms and Socio-Pragmatic Functions [Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, LXIV]. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Nevalainen, T. 1996. “Social stratification.” In Sociolinguistics and Language History: Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence [Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 15], T. Nevalainen and H. Raumolin-Brunberg (eds), 57–76. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. Nevalainen, T. 1999. “Early modern English lexis and semantics.” In The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III: 1476–1776, R. Lass (ed.), 332–458. Cambridge/New York/ Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England [Longman Linguistics Library]. London: Longman Pearson. OED = The Oxford English Dictionary. Online ed. http://dictionary.oed.com. (As accessed 2004). Oliphant, T. L. K. 1886. The New English. 2 vols. London/New York: Macmillan. Paulston, C. B. 2005. “Pronouns of address in Swedish: social class semantics and a changing system.” In Intercultural Discourse and Communiation: the Essential Readings, S. F. Kiesling and C. B. Paulston (eds), 198–216. Oxford: Blackwell. Pfeffer, F. 1877. Die Anredepronomina bei Shakespeare. Halle. Prest, W. R. 1972. The Inns of Court under Elizabeth I and the Early Stuarts 1590–1640. London: Longman. Prest, W. 1987. “Introduction: the professions and society in early modern England.” In The Professions in Early Modern England, W. Prest (ed.), 1–24. London/New York/Sydney: Croom Helm. Quirk, R. 1974. The Linguist and the English Language. London: Edward Arnold. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London/New York: Longman. Rand, D. and Sankoff, D. 1990. GoldVarb Version 2: A Variable Rule Application for the Macintosh. Montreal: Centre de Recherches Mathématiques, University of Montreal. Raumolin-Brunberg, H. 1996. “Historical sociolinguistics.” In Sociolinguistics and Language History: Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence [Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 15], T. Nevalainen and H. Raumolin-Brunberg (eds), 11–38. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. Rissanen, M. 1999. “Syntax.” In The Cambridge History of the English Language. Vol. III: 1476– 1776, R. Lass (ed.), 187–331. Cambridge/New York/Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Romaine, S. 1982. Socio-Historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rudanko, J. 1993. Pragmatic Approaches to Shakespeare: Essays on Othello, Coriolanus and Timon of Athens. Lanham/New York/London: University Press of America. Shapiro, M. 1983. The Sense of Grammar: Language as Semeiotic [Advances in Semiotics]. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Sharpe, J. A. 1987. Early Modern England: A Social History 1550–1760. London/New York/Melbourne/Auckland: Edward Arnold. Shoemaker, R. B. 1998. Gender in English Society, 1650–1850: The Emergence of Separate Spheres? London/New York: Longman.

References 335

Simon, H. 2003. “From pragmatics to grammar: tracing the development of respect in the history of the German pronouns of address.” In Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 107], I. Taavitsainen and A. H. Jucker (eds), 85–123. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Spies, H. 1897. Studien zur Geschichte des Englischen Pronomens im XV und XVI Jahrhundert [Studien zur Englischen Philologie 1]. Halle: Niemeyer. Spove, S. H. 1979. A Critical Old-Spelling Edition of Richard Brome’s A Mad Couple Well Match’d [Renaissance Drama]. New York/London: Garland. Stein, D. 2003. “Pronominal usage in Shakespeare: between sociolinguistics and conversational analysis.” In Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 107], I. Taavitsainen and A. H. Jucker (eds), 251–307. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Stidston, R. O. 1917. The Use of Ye in the Function of Thou in Middle English Literature from MS. Auchinleck to MS. Vernon: A Study of Grammar and Social Intercourse in FourteenthCentury England [Leland Stanford Junior University Publications. University Series 28]. Revised for publication by Arther G. Kennedy. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Stone, L. 1990. Road to Divorce: England 1530–1987. Oxford/New York/Toronto: Oxford University Press. Sweet, H. 1892. A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical. Part I: Introduction, Phonology, and Accidence. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Taavitsainen, I. 1997. “Genre conventions: personal affect in fiction and non-fiction in early modern English.” In English in Transition: Corpus-based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles [Topics in English Linguistics 23], M. Rissanen, M. Kytö and K. Heikkonen (eds), 185–266. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Taavitsainen, I. and Jucker, A. H. 2003. “Diachronic perspectives on address term systems: Introduction.” In Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 107], I. Taavitsainen and A. H. Jucker (eds), 1–25. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Traugott, E. C. 2000. “Promise and pray-parentheticals.” Paper presented at the Eleventh International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 7–11 September, 2000. Trudgill, P. 1972. “Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich.” Language in Society 1: 179–195. Trudgill, P. 1995. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. 3rd ed. London: Penguin. Upton, C. and Widdowson, J. D. A. 1996. An Atlas of English Dialects. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Wales, K. M. 1983. “Thou and you in early modern English: Brown and Gilman re-appraised.” Studia Linguistica 37: 107–125. Walker, T. 2000. “The choice of second person singular pronouns in authentic and constructed dialogue in late sixteenth century English.” In Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20) Freiburg im Breisgau 1999 [Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 33], C. Mair and M. Hundt (eds), 375–384. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.


Walker, T. 2003. “You and thou in early modern English dialogues: patterns of usage.” In Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 107], I. Taavitsainen and A. H. Jucker (eds), 309–342. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wallis, J. 1653. Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae. Oxford: Printed by Leon. Lichfield. Widmark, G. 1994. “ ‘Ers höggrevliga höga härlighet!’ Svenskt tilltalskick genom tiderna.” In Från Stormakt till Smånation: Sveriges Plats i Europa från 1600-tal till 1900-tal, S. Dahlgren, T. Jansson and H. Norman (eds), 212–224. Stockholm: Tidens Förlag. Wrightson, K. 1982. English Society 1580–1680. London/Melbourne/Sydney/Auckland: Hutchinson.

Index

A

Akimoto, Minoji 270, 272 apostrophe 171, 191–196, 227, 231, 232 Archer, Dawn 26, 28 aside 171, 191–196, 224–225, 227, 230, 231, 232

B

Barber, Charles 1, 30, 31, 46, 101, 185, 238–239, 245, 263, 265, 270 Biber, Douglas 4, 256 Biber et al. 4 Bock, Martin 2, 51–53, 55, 58, 101, 174, 176–177, 180, 182, 183, 185, 187, 194, 203, 206, 207, 208, 214–215, 222, 226, 231, 234, 262, 265, 266–267, 289 Brown, Penelope 44–45 Brown, Roger 3, 40–43, 44, 45, 46, 55, 62, 276–277, 278 Bullokar, William 59, 263 Busse, Ulrich 2, 4, 46, 172, 192, 238, 239–240, 245, 261, 263, 268, 271, 278, 279, 281 Byrne, Sister St. Geraldine 39– 40, 49–50, 58, 183, 207, 209, 211, 212, 213

C

CED see A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 CEEC see Corpus of Early English Correspondence Chambers, J. K. 6, 109 closed-class verbs 237–256, 259, 293

corpus linguistics 4, 6 Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC) 27–28, 57 A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (CED) 1, 4, 6, 9–12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 28, 66–68, 69, 94–95, 172, 273 covert prestige 6, 233 Culpeper, Jonathan 9, 26, 28, 44–45, 277 Cusack, Bridget 13, 122

D

Depositions genre, definition of 13–14, 19, 93–94 Drama Comedy genre, definition of 18–19 Dutch, address terms in 61–62

E

editions electronic 101, 295 of manuscript material 9, 17–18, 20, 54, 55, 56, 66–68, 81, 85, 94, 101, 103, 122, 123, 127, 273, 295 of printed material 9, 17, 19, 20 editorial principles 6–7 English Witness Depositions 1560–1760: An Electronic Text Edition see editions, electronic extra-linguistic factors 2, 3, 21, 93, 141, 237, 238, 250–256, 259, 269, 287–288, 292–293, 294

F

face, negative/positive 44–45, 227–228 Finkenstaedt, Thomas 1, 43, 54, 57, 58, 59, 69, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83, 92, 212 fixed expressions see formulaic forms formulaic forms 54, 68, 69–72, 73, 77, 79, 81, 83, 91, 133, 166, 168, 170, 192–193, 278–284, 285, 289, 291, 293, 294 Fox et al. 59 Fox, George 59, 77 Franz, Wilhelm 50, 51 French, address terms in 41, 43, 60, 61, 62

G

gender behaviour associated with 200 definition of 21–22 German, address terms in 41, 43, 61, 62, 63 Gilman, Albert 3, 40–43, 44, 45, 46, 55, 62, 276–277, 278 grammaticalisation 270–271, 278 Greenwood, James 60, 233, 263 greeting formulae 281–283, 285, 291, 293 Grund, Peter 101, 295

H

hark ye/you 240, 261, 266–267, 268, 270, 279, 284, 293


Helsinki Corpus of English Texts 58, 273 historical pragmatics 4–5, 6, 287 historical sociolinguistics 5–6 see also sociolinguistic theory honorific styles 57, 69–70, 276, 281–283, 284, 285, 289, 291, 293 Hope, Jonathan 46, 48, 55–56, 58, 122, 127–128, 167 hypercorrection 5–6, 187

I

imperatives, thou and you in 239–240, 261–262, 266–269, 272–274, 277, 278, 279, 284 impoliteness theory 44–45, 277–278 see also politeness theory

J

Jeffreys, George see Judge Jeffreys Johnson, Anne Carvey 53, 176–177, 180, 183, 185, 187–190, 210, 211, 212, 215, 216, 218, 221, 222, 223, 232, 233, 234–235 Jucker, Andreas H. 5, 48, 63 Judge Jeffreys 15, 54, 81, 88–89, 273, 274

K

Keeton, George W. 15, 88, 273 Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara 272– 274 Kytö, Merja 5, 9, 10, 14–18, 55, 56, 101, 128, 256, 295

L

Labov, William 5–6, 109, 187 language universals 42, 62–63 Laslett, Peter 22, 24–25, 29, 30 Lass, Roger 57 Levinson, Stephen C. 44–45

lexical verbs 237–245, 256–259, 293 look ye/you 240, 261, 265, 266–267, 270, 279 Lord and Lady 30

M

manuscript records 6, 9, 11–12, 15, 17–18, 19, 20, 55, 56, 66–68, 94–96, 103–104, 122–123, 128 markedness 43, 46–48, 55–56, 192–193 micro-pragmatics 5, 48 Mitchell, Eleanor Rettig 171– 172, 261–263, 266, 268, 279 Mr and Mrs 30–31 Mulholland, Joan 237, 238–239, 280, 283

N

Nevala, Minna 57 Nevalainen, Terttu 5, 24, 27–28, 30–31, 268

O

objective forms of thou and you 61, 237, 260–262, 265–268, 284, 293 Oliphant, Thomas L. Kington 39, 40, 265

P

politeness theory 44–46, 57, 276–278 possessive determiners (thine, thy, your) 177, 237–238, 260–264, 283, 284, 293 see also greeting formulae see also honorific styles possessive pronouns (thine, yours) 177, 237, 260, 262, 293 power and solidarity semantics 40–43, 48, 55, 56 pray 261, 270–278, 280, 284– 285, 293 Prest, Wilfred 26, 74

prithee 1, 52, 86, 222, 261, 270–278, 284–285

Q

questions, thou and you in 239–249, 256–259, 268–270, 272–273, 293 Quirk et al. 256–257, 277 Quirk, Randolf 46

R

Raine, James 18, 55, 103, 122, 123 Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 5, 24, 27–28, 268 reliability of records 9, 12, 14–18, 19–20, 54, 274 Rissanen, Matti 252–253, 254, 256 Russian, address terms in 62

S

Sharpe, James A. 22, 27, 34 sociolinguistic theory 5–6, 43 see also Chambers, J. K. see also Labov, William see also Trudgill, Peter Spanish, address terms in 41, 61, 62 statements, thou and you in 239–259, 268–270, 293 Stein, Dieter 46–47, 192–193, 212 subjective forms of thou and you 237, 260–262, 265–268, 279, 284, 293 Swedish, address terms in 61, 62

T

Taavitsainen, Irma 58–59, 63 text formats 9, 17–18, 19, 20, 54 text versions see text formats Trials genre, definition of 12, 19, 65–66

troth-plighting 131, 133–134, 136, 138, 140, 141, 166, 168, 170, 283, 289, 293 Trudgill, Peter 5–6, 42, 233

U

Upton, Clive 96, 100, 117

Index 339 V

vocatives 160, 164, 261–262, 267, 269

W

Wales, Kathleen M. 39, 42–43, 46, 62, 215

Walker, Terry 10, 14–18, 55, 56, 101, 103, 120, 128, 201, 295 Widdowson, J. D. A. 96, 100, 117 Wrightson, Keith 24, 25, 26

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 163 Lytra, Vally: Play Frames and Social Identities. Contact encounters in a Greek primary school. 2007. 162 Fetzer, anita (ed.): Context and Appropriateness. Micro meets macro. vi, 260 pp. + index. Expected September 2007 161 CeLLe, agnès and ruth Huart (eds.): Connectives as Discourse Landmarks. viii, 210 pp. + index. Expected August 2007 160 Fetzer, anita and Gerda eva LauerbaCH (eds.): Political Discourse in the Media. Cross-cultural perspectives. viii, 376 pp. + index. Expected July 2007 159 Maynard, Senko K.: Linguistic Creativity in Japanese Discourse. Exploring the multiplicity of self, perspective, and voice. xiv, 354 pp. + index. Expected July 2007 158 WaLKer, terry: Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues. Trials, depositions, and drama comedy. 2007. xx, 339 pp. 157 CraWFord CaMiCiottoLi, belinda: The Language of Business Studies Lectures. A corpus-assisted analysis. xv, 236 pp. Expected May 2007 156 VeGa Moreno, rosa e.: Creativity and Convention. The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. xii, 243 pp. + index. Expected July 2007 155 HedberG, nancy and ron zaCHarSKi (eds.): The Grammar–Pragmatics Interface. Essays in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel. viii, 435 pp. Expected May 2007 154 HübLer, axel: The Nonverbal Shift in Early Modern English Conversation. 2007. x, 281 pp. 153 arnoViCK, Leslie K.: Written Reliquaries. The resonance of orality in medieval English texts. 2006. xii, 292 pp. 152 Warren, Martin: Features of Naturalness in Conversation. 2006. x, 272 pp. 151 SuzuKi, Satoko (ed.): Emotive Communication in Japanese. 2006. x, 234 pp. 150 buSSe, beatrix: Vocative Constructions in the Language of Shakespeare. 2006. xviii, 525 pp. 149 LoCHer, Miriam a.: Advice Online. Advice-giving in an American Internet health column. 2006. xvi, 277 pp. 148 FLøttuM, Kjersti, trine daHL and torodd Kinn: Academic Voices. Across languages and disciplines. 2006. x, 309 pp. 147 HinriCHS, Lars: Codeswitching on the Web. English and Jamaican Creole in e-mail communication. 2006. x, 302 pp. 146 tanSKanen, Sanna-Kaisa: Collaborating towards Coherence. Lexical cohesion in English discourse. 2006. ix, 192 pp. 145 KurHiLa, Salla: Second Language Interaction. 2006. vii, 257 pp. 144 büHriG, Kristin and Jan d. ten tHiJe (eds.): Beyond Misunderstanding. Linguistic analyses of intercultural communication. 2006. vi, 339 pp. 143 baKer, Carolyn, Michael eMMiSon and alan FirtH (eds.): Calling for Help. Language and social interaction in telephone helplines. 2005. xviii, 352 pp. 142 SidneLL, Jack: Talk and Practical Epistemology. The social life of knowledge in a Caribbean community. 2005. xvi, 255 pp. 141 zHu, yunxia: Written Communication across Cultures. A sociocognitive perspective on business genres. 2005. xviii, 216 pp. 140 butLer, Christopher S., María de los Ángeles GóMez-GonzÁLez and Susana M. doVaL-SuÁrez (eds.): The Dynamics of Language Use. Functional and contrastive perspectives. 2005. xvi, 413 pp. 139 LaKoFF, robin t. and Sachiko ide (eds.): Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. 2005. xii, 342 pp. 138 MüLLer, Simone: Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse. 2005. xviii, 290 pp. 137 Morita, emi: Negotiation of Contingent Talk. The Japanese interactional particles ne and sa. 2005. xvi, 240 pp. 136 SaSSen, Claudia: Linguistic Dimensions of Crisis Talk. Formalising structures in a controlled language. 2005. ix, 230 pp. 135 arCHer, dawn: Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760). A sociopragmatic analysis. 2005. xiv, 374 pp.

134 SKaFFari, Janne, Matti PeiKoLa, ruth CarroLL, risto HiLtunen and brita WårViK (eds.): Opening Windows on Texts and Discourses of the Past. 2005. x, 418 pp. 133 Marnette, Sophie: Speech and Thought Presentation in French. Concepts and strategies. 2005. xiv, 379 pp. 132 onodera, noriko o.: Japanese Discourse Markers. Synchronic and diachronic discourse analysis. 2004. xiv, 253 pp. 131 JanoSCHKa, anja: Web Advertising. New forms of communication on the Internet. 2004. xiv, 230 pp. 130 HaLMari, Helena and tuija Virtanen (eds.): Persuasion Across Genres. A linguistic approach. 2005. x, 257 pp. 129 taboada, María teresa: Building Coherence and Cohesion. Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. 2004. xvii, 264 pp. 128 CordeLLa, Marisa: The Dynamic Consultation. A discourse analytical study of doctor–patient communication. 2004. xvi, 254 pp. 127 briSard, Frank, Michael MeeuWiS and bart VandenabeeLe (eds.): Seduction, Community, Speech. A Festschrift for Herman Parret. 2004. vi, 202 pp. 126 Wu, yi’an: Spatial Demonstratives in English and Chinese. Text and Cognition. 2004. xviii, 236 pp. 125 Lerner, Gene H. (ed.): Conversation Analysis. Studies from the first generation. 2004. x, 302 pp. 124 Vine, bernadette: Getting Things Done at Work. The discourse of power in workplace interaction. 2004. x, 278 pp. 123 MÁrquez reiter, rosina and María elena PLaCenCia (eds.): Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish. 2004. xvi, 383 pp. 122 GonzÁLez, Montserrat: Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative. The case of English and Catalan. 2004. xvi, 410 pp. 121 Fetzer, anita: Recontextualizing Context. Grammaticality meets appropriateness. 2004. x, 272 pp. 120 aiJMer, Karin and anna-brita StenStröM (eds.): Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. 2004. viii, 279 pp. 119 HiLtunen, risto and Janne SKaFFari (eds.): Discourse Perspectives on English. Medieval to modern. 2003. viii, 243 pp. 118 CHenG, Winnie: Intercultural Conversation. 2003. xii, 279 pp. 117 Wu, ruey-Jiuan regina: Stance in Talk. A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. 2004. xvi, 260 pp. 116 Grant, Colin b. (ed.): Rethinking Communicative Interaction. New interdisciplinary horizons. 2003. viii, 330 pp. 115 KärKKäinen, elise: Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. 2003. xii, 213 pp. 114 KüHnLein, Peter, Hannes rieSer and Henk zeeVat (eds.): Perspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium. 2003. xii, 400 pp. 113 PantHer, Klaus-uwe and Linda L. tHornburG (eds.): Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing. 2003. xii, 285 pp. 112 Lenz, Friedrich (ed.): Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person. 2003. xiv, 279 pp. 111 enSinK, titus and Christoph Sauer (eds.): Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse. 2003. viii, 227 pp. 110 androutSoPouLoS, Jannis K. and alexandra GeorGaKoPouLou (eds.): Discourse Constructions of Youth Identities. 2003. viii, 343 pp. 109 MayeS, Patricia: Language, Social Structure, and Culture. A genre analysis of cooking classes in Japan and America. 2003. xiv, 228 pp. 108 barron, anne: Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. 2003. xviii, 403 pp. 107 taaVitSainen, irma and andreas H. JuCKer (eds.): Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. 2003. viii, 446 pp. 106 buSSe, ulrich: Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus. Morpho-syntactic variability of second person pronouns. 2002. xiv, 344 pp. 105 bLaCKWeLL, Sarah e.: Implicatures in Discourse. The case of Spanish NP anaphora. 2003. xvi, 303 pp. 104 beeCHinG, Kate: Gender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French. 2002. x, 251 pp. 103 Fetzer, anita and Christiane MeierKord (eds.): Rethinking Sequentiality. Linguistics meets conversational interaction. 2002. vi, 300 pp.

102 LeaFGren, John: Degrees of Explicitness. Information structure and the packaging of Bulgarian subjects and objects. 2002. xii, 252 pp. 101 LuKe, K. K. and Theodossia-Soula PaVLidou (eds.): Telephone Calls. Unity and diversity in conversational structure across languages and cultures. 2002. x, 295 pp. 100 JaSzCzoLt, Katarzyna M. and Ken turner (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 2. 2003. viii, 496 pp. 99 JaSzCzoLt, Katarzyna M. and Ken turner (eds.): Meaning Through Language Contrast. Volume 1. 2003. xii, 388 pp. 98 duSzaK, anna (ed.): Us and Others. Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures. 2002. viii, 522 pp. 97 Maynard, Senko K.: Linguistic Emotivity. Centrality of place, the topic-comment dynamic, and an ideology of pathos in Japanese discourse. 2002. xiv, 481 pp. 96 HaVerKate, Henk: The Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Spanish Mood. 2002. vi, 241 pp. 95 FitzMauriCe, Susan M.: The Familiar Letter in Early Modern English. A pragmatic approach. 2002. viii, 263 pp. 94 MciLVenny, Paul (ed.): Talking Gender and Sexuality. 2002. x, 332 pp. 93 baron, bettina and Helga KottHoFF (eds.): Gender in Interaction. Perspectives on femininity and masculinity in ethnography and discourse. 2002. xxiv, 357 pp. 92 Gardner, rod: When Listeners Talk. Response tokens and listener stance. 2001. xxii, 281 pp. 91 GroSS, Joan: Speaking in Other Voices. An ethnography of Walloon puppet theaters. 2001. xxviii, 341 pp. 90 KeneSei, istván and robert M. HarniSH (eds.): Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. 2001. xxii, 352 pp. 89 itaKura, Hiroko: Conversational Dominance and Gender. A study of Japanese speakers in first and second language contexts. 2001. xviii, 231 pp. 88 bayraKtaroğLu, arın and Maria SiFianou (eds.): Linguistic Politeness Across Boundaries. The case of Greek and Turkish. 2001. xiv, 439 pp. 87 MuSHin, ilana: Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance. Narrative Retelling. 2001. xviii, 244 pp. 86 iFantidou, elly: Evidentials and Relevance. 2001. xii, 225 pp. 85 CoLLinS, daniel e.: Reanimated Voices. Speech reporting in a historical-pragmatic perspective. 2001. xx, 384 pp. 84 anderSen, Gisle: Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. 2001. ix, 352 pp. 83 MÁrquez reiter, rosina: Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay. A contrastive study of requests and apologies. 2000. xviii, 225 pp. 82 KHaLiL, esam n.: Grounding in English and Arabic News Discourse. 2000. x, 274 pp. 81 di Luzio, aldo, Susanne GüntHner and Franca orLetti (eds.): Culture in Communication. Analyses of intercultural situations. 2001. xvi, 341 pp. 80 unGerer, Friedrich (ed.): English Media Texts – Past and Present. Language and textual structure. 2000. xiv, 286 pp. 79 anderSen, Gisle and Thorstein FretHeiM (eds.): Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. 2000. viii, 273 pp. 78 SeLL, roger d.: Literature as Communication. The foundations of mediating criticism. 2000. xiv, 348 pp. 77 VanderVeKen, daniel and Susumu Kubo (eds.): Essays in Speech Act Theory. 2002. vi, 328 pp. 76 MatSui, tomoko: Bridging and Relevance. 2000. xii, 251 pp. 75 PiLKinGton, adrian: Poetic Effects. A relevance theory perspective. 2000. xiv, 214 pp. 74 troSborG, anna (ed.): Analysing Professional Genres. 2000. xvi, 256 pp. 73 HeSter, Stephen K. and david FranCiS (eds.): Local Educational Order. Ethnomethodological studies of knowledge in action. 2000. viii, 326 pp. 72 MarMaridou, Sophia S.a.: Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. 2000. xii, 322 pp. 71 GóMez-GonzÁLez, María de los Ángeles: The Theme–Topic Interface. Evidence from English. 2001. xxiv, 438 pp. 70 SorJonen, Marja-Leena: Responding in Conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish. 2001. x, 330 pp. 69 noH, eun-Ju: Metarepresentation. A relevance-theory approach. 2000. xii, 242 pp.

68 arnoViCK, Leslie K.: Diachronic Pragmatics. Seven case studies in English illocutionary development. 2000. xii, 196 pp. 67 taaVitSainen, irma, Gunnel MeLCHerS and Päivi PaHta (eds.): Writing in Nonstandard English. 2000. viii, 404 pp. 66 JuCKer, andreas H., Gerd Fritz and Franz LebSanFt (eds.): Historical Dialogue Analysis. 1999. viii, 478 pp. 65 Cooren, François: The Organizing Property of Communication. 2000. xvi, 272 pp. 64 SVenneViG, Jan: Getting Acquainted in Conversation. A study of initial interactions. 2000. x, 384 pp. 63 bubLitz, Wolfram, uta LenK and eija VentoLa (eds.): Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. How to create it and how to describe it. Selected papers from the International Workshop on Coherence, Augsburg, 24-27 April 1997. 1999. xiv, 300 pp. 62 tzanne, angeliki: Talking at Cross-Purposes. The dynamics of miscommunication. 2000. xiv, 263 pp. 61 MiLLS, Margaret H. (ed.): Slavic Gender Linguistics. 1999. xviii, 251 pp. 60 JaCobS, Geert: Preformulating the News. An analysis of the metapragmatics of press releases. 1999. xviii, 428 pp. 59 KaMio, akio and Ken-ichi taKaMi (eds.): Function and Structure. In honor of Susumu Kuno. 1999. x, 398 pp. 58 rouCHota, Villy and andreas H. JuCKer (eds.): Current Issues in Relevance Theory. 1998. xii, 368 pp. 57 JuCKer, andreas H. and yael ziV (eds.): Discourse Markers. Descriptions and theory. 1998. x, 363 pp. 56 tanaKa, Hiroko: Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation. A Study in Grammar and Interaction. 2000. xiv, 242 pp. 55 aLLWood, Jens and Peter GärdenForS (eds.): Cognitive Semantics. Meaning and cognition. 1999. x, 201 pp. 54 HyLand, Ken: Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. 1998. x, 308 pp. 53 MoSeGaard HanSen, Maj-britt: The Function of Discourse Particles. A study with special reference to spoken standard French. 1998. xii, 418 pp. 52 GiLLiS, Steven and annick de HouWer (eds.): The Acquisition of Dutch. With a Preface by Catherine E. Snow. 1998. xvi, 444 pp. 51 bouLiMa, Jamila: Negotiated Interaction in Target Language Classroom Discourse. 1999. xiv, 338 pp. 50 GrenobLe, Lenore a.: Deixis and Information Packaging in Russian Discourse. 1998. xviii, 338 pp. 49 Kurzon, dennis: Discourse of Silence. 1998. vi, 162 pp. 48 KaMio, akio: Territory of Information. 1997. xiv, 227 pp. 47 CHeSterMan, andrew: Contrastive Functional Analysis. 1998. viii, 230 pp. 46 GeorGaKoPouLou, alexandra: Narrative Performances. A study of Modern Greek storytelling. 1997. xvii, 282 pp. 45 PaLtridGe, brian: Genre, Frames and Writing in Research Settings. 1997. x, 192 pp. 44 barGieLa-CHiaPPini, Francesca and Sandra J. HarriS: Managing Language. The discourse of corporate meetings. 1997. ix, 295 pp. 43 JanSSen, Theo and Wim van der WurFF (eds.): Reported Speech. Forms and functions of the verb. 1996. x, 312 pp. 42 KottHoFF, Helga and ruth WodaK (eds.): Communicating Gender in Context. 1997. xxvi, 424 pp. 41 VentoLa, eija and anna Mauranen (eds.): Academic Writing. Intercultural and textual issues. 1996. xiv, 258 pp. 40 diaMond, Julie: Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. A study of discourse in a close-knit social network. 1996. viii, 184 pp. 39 HerrinG, Susan C. (ed.): Computer-Mediated Communication. Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. 1996. viii, 326 pp. 38 FretHeiM, Thorstein and Jeanette K. GundeL (eds.): Reference and Referent Accessibility. 1996. xii, 312 pp. 37 CarSton, robyn and Seiji uCHida (eds.): Relevance Theory. Applications and implications. 1998. x, 300 pp. 36 CHiLton, Paul, Mikhail V. iLyin and Jacob L. Mey (eds.): Political Discourse in Transition in Europe 1989–1991. 1998. xi, 272 pp.

35 JuCKer, andreas H. (ed.): Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English. 1995. xvi, 624 pp. 34 barbe, Katharina: Irony in Context. 1995. x, 208 pp. 33 GooSSenS, Louis, Paul PauWeLS, brygida rudzKa-oStyn, anne-Marie SiMonVandenberGen and Johan VanParyS: By Word of Mouth. Metaphor, metonymy and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. 1995. xii, 254 pp. 32 SHibatani, Masayoshi and Sandra a. tHoMPSon (eds.): Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics. In honor of Charles J. Fillmore. 1996. x, 322 pp. 31 WiLdGen, Wolfgang: Process, Image, and Meaning. A realistic model of the meaning of sentences and narrative texts. 1994. xii, 281 pp. 30 WortHaM, Stanton e.F.: Acting Out Participant Examples in the Classroom. 1994. xiv, 178 pp. 29 barSKy, robert F.: Constructing a Productive Other. Discourse theory and the Convention refugee hearing. 1994. x, 272 pp. 28 Van de WaLLe, Lieve: Pragmatics and Classical Sanskrit. A pilot study in linguistic politeness. 1993. xii, 454 pp. 27 Suter, Hans-Jürg: The Wedding Report. A prototypical approach to the study of traditional text types. 1993. xii, 314 pp. 26 StyGaLL, Gail: Trial Language. Differential discourse processing and discursive formation. 1994. xii, 226 pp. 25 CouPer-KuHLen, elizabeth: English Speech Rhythm. Form and function in everyday verbal interaction. 1993. x, 346 pp. 24 Maynard, Senko K.: Discourse Modality. Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. 1993. x, 315 pp. 23 ForteSCue, Michael, Peter Harder and Lars KriStoFFerSen (eds.): Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective. Papers from the Functional Grammar Conference, Copenhagen, 1990. 1992. xiii, 444 pp. 22 auer, Peter and aldo di Luzio (eds.): The Contextualization of Language. 1992. xvi, 402 pp. 21 SearLe, John r., Herman Parret and Jef VerSCHueren: (On) Searle on Conversation. Compiled and introduced by Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren. 1992. vi, 154 pp. 20 nuytS, Jan: Aspects of a Cognitive-Pragmatic Theory of Language. On cognition, functionalism, and grammar. 1991. xii, 399 pp. 19 baKer, Carolyn and allan LuKe (eds.): Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy. Papers of the XII World Congress on Reading. 1991. xxi, 287 pp. 18 JoHnStone, barbara: Repetition in Arabic Discourse. Paradigms, syntagms and the ecology of language. 1991. viii, 130 pp. 17 Piéraut-Le bonnieC, Gilberte and Marlene doLitSKy (eds.): Language Bases ... Discourse Bases. Some aspects of contemporary French-language psycholinguistics research. 1991. vi, 342 pp. 16 Mann, William C. and Sandra a. tHoMPSon (eds.): Discourse Description. Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text. 1992. xiii, 409 pp. 15 KoMter, Martha L.: Conflict and Cooperation in Job Interviews. A study of talks, tasks and ideas. 1991. viii, 252 pp. 14 SCHWartz, ursula V.: Young Children's Dyadic Pretend Play. A communication analysis of plot structure and plot generative strategies. 1991. vi, 151 pp. 13 nuytS, Jan, a. Machtelt boLKeStein and Co Vet (eds.): Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory. A functional view. 1990. xii, 348 pp. 12 abraHaM, Werner (ed.): Discourse Particles. Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. 1991. viii, 338 pp. 11 LuonG, Hy V.: Discursive Practices and Linguistic Meanings. The Vietnamese system of person reference. 1990. x, 213 pp. 10 Murray, denise e.: Conversation for Action. The computer terminal as medium of communication. 1991. xii, 176 pp. 9 LuKe, K. K.: Utterance Particles in Cantonese Conversation. 1990. xvi, 329 pp. 8 younG, Lynne: Language as Behaviour, Language as Code. A study of academic English. 1991. ix, 304 pp. 7 LindenFeLd, Jacqueline: Speech and Sociability at French Urban Marketplaces. 1990. viii, 173 pp.

6:3 bLoMMaert, Jan and Jef VerSCHueren (eds.): The Pragmatics of International and Intercultural Communication. Selected papers from the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 1987. Volume 3: The Pragmatics of International and Intercultural Communication. 1991. viii, 249 pp. 6:2 VerSCHueren, Jef (ed.): Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. Selected papers from the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 1987. Volume 2: Levels of Linguistic Adaptation. 1991. viii, 339 pp. 6:1 VerSCHueren, Jef (ed.): Pragmatics at Issue. Selected papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 17–22, 1987. Volume 1: Pragmatics at Issue. 1991. viii, 314 pp. 5 tHeLin, nils b. (ed.): Verbal Aspect in Discourse. 1990. xvi, 490 pp. 4 raFFLer-enGeL, Walburga von (ed.): Doctor–Patient Interaction. 1989. xxxviii, 294 pp. 3 oLeKSy, Wieslaw (ed.): Contrastive Pragmatics. 1988. xiv, 282 pp. 2 barton, ellen: Nonsentential Constituents. A theory of grammatical structure and pragmatic interpretation. 1990. xviii, 247 pp. 1 WaLter, bettyruth: The Jury Summation as Speech Genre. An ethnographic study of what it means to those who use it. 1988. xvii, 264 pp.

Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues: Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Early Modern English News Discourse: Newspapers, pamphlets and scientific news discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Working Subjects in Early Modern English Drama (Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama)

Interactive Dialogue Sequences in Middle English Drama (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Widows and Suitors in Early Modern English Comedy

Radical Comedy in Early Modern England (Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama)

Protestantism and Drama in Early Modern England

Spatial Demonstratives In English And Chinese: Text And Cognition (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Social Roles and Language Practices in Late Modern English (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Impoliteness in Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Humor in Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Style Shifting in Japanese (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Youngspeak in a Multilingual Perspective (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Constraints in Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 172)

Constraints in Discourse 2 (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Metapragmatics in Use (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative: The Case of English and Catalan (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Discourse Markers in Native And Non-native English Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Discourse Perspectives on English: Medieval to Modern (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Marian Moments in Early Modern British Drama (Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama)

South Slavic Discourse Particles (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Second Language Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Recontextualizing Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Connectives As Discourse Landmarks (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Creativity and Convention: The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Languages and Cultures in Contrast and Comparison (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues: Trials, Depositions, and Drama Comedy (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Early Modern English News Discourse: Newspapers, pamphlets and scientific news discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Working Subjects in Early Modern English Drama (Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama)

Interactive Dialogue Sequences in Middle English Drama (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Widows and Suitors in Early Modern English Comedy

Radical Comedy in Early Modern England (Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama)

Protestantism and Drama in Early Modern England

Spatial Demonstratives In English And Chinese: Text And Cognition (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Social Roles and Language Practices in Late Modern English (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Impoliteness in Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Humor in Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Style Shifting in Japanese (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Youngspeak in a Multilingual Perspective (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Constraints in Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 172)

Constraints in Discourse 2 (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Metapragmatics in Use (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Pragmatic Markers in Oral Narrative: The Case of English and Catalan (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Discourse Markers in Native And Non-native English Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Discourse Perspectives on English: Medieval to Modern (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Marian Moments in Early Modern British Drama (Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama)

South Slavic Discourse Particles (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series)

Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series)

Second Language Interaction (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Recontextualizing Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Connectives As Discourse Landmarks (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Creativity and Convention: The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics and Discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Languages and Cultures in Contrast and Comparison (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series)

Recommend Documents