Talk:T–V distinction: Difference between revisions
StartledFish (talk | contribs) →Academic development of T-V distinction: new section |
StartledFish (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
There's a section missing on academic discussion and debate after Brown and Gilman (1960), although I'm not sure where best it would go. It could go after the first paragraph of History and Usage, or as a new section at the end. |
There's a section missing on academic discussion and debate after Brown and Gilman (1960), although I'm not sure where best it would go. It could go after the first paragraph of History and Usage, or as a new section at the end. |
||
There's a good summary in this review paper: |
There's a good summary in this review paper: |
||
https://benjamins.com/catalog/prag.26.4.05for/fulltext/prag.26.4.05for.pdf |
https://benjamins.com/catalog/prag.26.4.05for/fulltext/prag.26.4.05for.pdf |
||
"The status of the single second-person pronoun you in English is however controversial. For Cook (2014) the single second-person pronoun you epitomises neutrality (N) in address, hence the need for a tripartite N-V-T framework of analysis. Similarly, Clyne et al. maintain that you is a default neutral pronoun that “fulfils the functions of both T and V without being the equivalent of either.” (2009: 38). Wierzbicka, on the other hand, claims that “[t]he English you keeps everybody at a distance” (2003: 47), though not to the same extent as V pronouns in other languages." |
"The status of the single second-person pronoun you in English is however controversial. For Cook (2014) the single second-person pronoun you epitomises neutrality (N) in address, hence the need for a tripartite N-V-T framework of analysis. Similarly, Clyne et al. maintain that you is a default neutral pronoun that “fulfils the functions of both T and V without being the equivalent of either.” (2009: 38). Wierzbicka, on the other hand, claims that “[t]he English you keeps everybody at a distance” (2003: 47), though not to the same extent as V pronouns in other languages." |
||
Also, this only covers English. [[User:StartledFish|StartledFish]] ([[User talk:StartledFish|talk]]) 13:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC) |
Also, this only covers English. [[User:StartledFish|StartledFish]] ([[User talk:StartledFish|talk]]) 13:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 13:57, 8 October 2020
 | Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Start‑class | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Hindi informal plural
I'm pretty sure that the informal Hindi plural is tum rather than aap. Aside from that, plural informal tum and formal aap often get -log added to distinguish from singular forms, thus the Hindi paradigm would look like this: very informal singular: tū informal singular: tum formal singular: āp informal plural: tum(log) formal plural: āp(log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.44.34 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 29 March 2006
Catalan
There's some controversy regarding vostè/vostès, despite its widespread usage. Being a calque from Spanish, many consider it doesn't belong at all into Catalan. Also, vostè is more common in bigger, industrialised settlemens, with larger immigrated population, while vós is prevalent in the countryside, which would seem to support the notion that vós is the proper, original Catalan usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.197.99 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 30 March 2007
Merge
There is a longer, and more classically encyclopaedic, article at T–V distinction in the world's languages, which it would make good sense to merge this rather partial article into. I propose a redirect. Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet 74.73.230.173 (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
History of use in individual languages
We've got a bit of a mix in this section. The English and French subsections to cover evolution through history, and the Scandinavian subsection does a little, but the German and Hindi/Urdu are just usage. One option would be to make a new section called 'Usage in the world's languages' (or something like that), with a link to the 'T-V distinction in the world's languages' and then these sections on selected languages. StartledFish (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Academic development of T-V distinction
There's a section missing on academic discussion and debate after Brown and Gilman (1960), although I'm not sure where best it would go. It could go after the first paragraph of History and Usage, or as a new section at the end.
There's a good summary in this review paper: https://benjamins.com/catalog/prag.26.4.05for/fulltext/prag.26.4.05for.pdf
"The status of the single second-person pronoun you in English is however controversial. For Cook (2014) the single second-person pronoun you epitomises neutrality (N) in address, hence the need for a tripartite N-V-T framework of analysis. Similarly, Clyne et al. maintain that you is a default neutral pronoun that “fulfils the functions of both T and V without being the equivalent of either.” (2009: 38). Wierzbicka, on the other hand, claims that “[t]he English you keeps everybody at a distance” (2003: 47), though not to the same extent as V pronouns in other languages."
Also, this only covers English. StartledFish (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)