Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Linguistics

Editor-in-Chief: Ehrhart, Sabine

1 Issue per year


Covered by:
Elsevier - SCOPUS
Clarivate Analytics - Emerging Sources Citation Index
ERIH PLUS

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2300-9969
See all formats and pricing
More options …

When ‘You’ Means ‘I’: The German 2Nd Ps.Sg. Pronoun Du between Genericity and Subjectivity

Peter Auer / Anja Stukenbrock
Published Online: 2018-08-25 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0015

Abstract

In this paper, we first present a close analysis of conversational data, capturing the variety of non-addressee deictic usages of du in contemporary German. From its beginnings, it has been possible to use non-addressee deictic du not only for generic statements, but also for subjective utterances by a speaker who mainly refers to his or her own experiences. We will present some thoughts on the specific inferences leading to this interpretation, making reference to Buhler’s deixis at the phantasm. In the second part of the paper, we show that non-addressee deictic du (‘thou’) as found in present-day German is not an innovation but goes back at least to the 18th century. However, there is some evidence that this usage has been spreading over the last 50 years or so. We will link non-addressee deictic du back historically to the two types of “person-shift” for du discussed by Jakob Grimm in his 1856 article “Uber den Personenwechsel in der Rede” [On person shift in discourse]. Grimm distinguishes between person shift in formulations of “rules and law” on the one hand, and person shift in what he calls “thou-monologue” on the other. The subjective interpretation of non-addressee-deictic du in present-day German may have originated from these “thou-monologues”

Keywords: 2nd Ps.Sg. pronoun; genericity; subjectivity

References

  • Ashby, W. J. (1992): The variable use of on versus tu/vous for indefinite reference in Spoken French. In: French Language Studies 2, 135-157.Google Scholar

  • Auer, P. (2002): Die Verdichtung der konditionalen Hypotaxe im gesprochenen Deutsch. In: Jahrbuch der ungarischen Germanistik, 189-204.Google Scholar

  • Bolden, G. B. (2010): ‘Articulating the unsaid’ via and-prefaced formulations of others’ talk. In: Discourse Studies 12 (1), 5-32.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Bühler, K. (1965[1934]): Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. 2nd edition. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Clark, H. H. (1996): Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Coveney, A. (2003): ‘Anything you can do, tu can do better’: tu and vous as substitutes for indefinite on in French. In: Journal of Sociolinguistics 7 (2), 164-191.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Cock, B. (2014): Profiling discourse participants: Forms and functions in Spanish conversation and debates. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar

  • De Cock, B. (2016): Register, genre and referential ambiguity of personal pronouns: a cross-linguistic analysis. In: Pragmatics 26 (3), 361-378.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • De Hoop, H./Tarenskeen, S. (2015): It´s all about you in Dutch. In: Journal of Pragmatics 88, 163-175.Google Scholar

  • Deppermann, A./Blühdorn, H. (2013): Negation als Verfahren des Adressatenzuschnitts: Verstehenssteuerung durch Interpretationsrestriktionen. In: Deutsche Sprache 41, 6-30.Google Scholar

  • Deringer, L./Gast, V./Haas, F./Rudolf, O. (2015): Impersonal uses of the second person singular and generalized empathy: An exploratory corpus study of English, German and Russian. In: Gardelie, L./Sorlin, S.(eds.): The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns, 311-334.Google Scholar

  • Ehmer, O. (2011): Imagination und Animation. Die Herstellung mentaler Räume durch animierte Rede. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Gast, V./Deringer, L./Haas, F./Rudolf, O. (2015): Impersonal uses of the second person singular: A pragmatic analysis of generalization and empathy effects. In: Journal of Pragmatics 88, 148-162.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Gast, V./van der Auwera, J. (2013): Towards a typology of human impersonal pronouns based on data from European languages. In: Bakker, D./Haspelmath, M. (eds.): Languages Across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton 119-158.Google Scholar

  • Giacalone-Ramat, A./Sansò, A. (2007a): The indefinite usage of uomo (‘man’) in Early Italo-Romance: Grammaticalization and areality. In: Archivio Glottologico Italiono 92 (1), 65-111. http://exadmin.matita.net/uploads/pagine/215849545_AGI_Paper.pdf (accessed 29 Nov. 2013).Google Scholar

  • Giacalone-Ramat, A./Sansò, A. (2007b): The spread and decline of indefinite man-construction in European languages: An areal perspective. In: Ramat, P./Roma, E. (eds.): Europe and the Mediterranean as linguistic areas: Convergencies from a historical and typological perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 95-131.Google Scholar

  • Grimm, J. (1856): Über den Personenwechsel in der Rede. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Philosophische Klasse (1), 1-63. (Separatdruck Berlin, Dümmler’s Verlags-Buchhandlung.)Google Scholar

  • Heritage, J./Raymond, G. (2005): The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-ininteraction. In: Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1), 15-38.Google Scholar

  • Jensen, T. J. (2009): Generic variation? Developments in use of generic pronouns in late 20th century spoken Danish. In: Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 41, 83-115.Google Scholar

  • Jensen, T. J./Gregersen, F. (2016): What do(es) you mean? The Pragmatics of generic second person pronouns in modern spoken Danish. In: Pragmatics 26 (3), 417-446.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Jespersen, O. (1949): A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VII. Kopenhagen: E. Mungsgaard.Google Scholar

  • Kast, C. (2009): Wenn ich du sage, aber nicht dich meine: Der Gebrauch des generischen du in der gesprochenen Sprache. Staatsexamensarbeit, Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar

  • Kitagawa, C./Lehrer, A. (1990): Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. In: Journal of Pragmatics 14, 739-759.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kluge, B. (2011): Das verallgemeinernde du im Französischen, Spanischen und Deutschen. In: Lavric, E./Pöckl, W./Florian, S. (eds.): Comparatio delectat. Akten der VI. Internationalen Arbeitstagung zum romanisch-deutschen und innerromanischen Sprachvergleich. Inntrans. Vol. 3 und 4. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 713-727.Google Scholar

  • Kluge, B. (2016): Generic Uses of the Second Personal Singular: How Speakers Deal with Referential Ambiguity and Misunderstandings. In: Pragmatics 26 (3), 501-522.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Laberge, S. (1976): The changing distribution of indefinite pronouns in discourse. In: Shuy, R. W./Shnukal, A. (eds.): Language Use and the Use of Language. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 76-87.Google Scholar

  • Laberge, S. (1977): Etude de la variation des pronoms sujets définis et indefinis dans le français parlé à Montréal. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Université de Montréal.Google Scholar

  • Laberge, S./Sankoff, G. (1979): Anything you can do. In: Givón, T. (eds.): Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, 419-440.Google Scholar

  • Linthe, A. (2010): Exploring the function and distribution of generic pronouns: The example of German man and du. M.Phil., University of Sheffield. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/1045/2/MPhil_Linthe_Thesis_FINAL.pdfGoogle Scholar

  • Posio, Pekka (2016): You and we. Impersonal second person singular and other referential devices in Spanish sociolinguistic interviews. In: Journal of Pragmatics 99, 1-16.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Rossi, Giovanni/Zinken, Jörg (2016): Grammar and social agency: The pragmatics of impersonal deontic statements. In: Language 92(4), 296-325.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rubba, J. (1996): Alternate grounds in the interpretation of deictic expressions. In: Fauconnier, G./Seetser, E. (eds.): Spaces, worlds and grammars. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 227-261.Google Scholar

  • Sacks, H. (1972): On the analyzability of stories by children”, In: J.J. Gumperz, D. Hymes, (eds.) Directions in sociolinguistics: the ethnography of communication. New York, Rinehart & Winston, 325-45.Google Scholar

  • Schegloff, E. (1996): Confirming collusions. Toward an empirical account of actions. In: American Journal of Socioty 102 (1), 161-216.Google Scholar

  • Schmeller, J. A. (1821): Die Mundarten Bayerns. München: Thienemann Stirling, L./Manderson, L. (2011): About you: Empathy, objectivity and authority. In: Journal of Pragmatics 43, 1581-1602.Google Scholar

  • Stukenbrock, A. (2014): Pointing to an ‘empty’ space: Deixis am Phantasma in face-to-face interaction. In: Journal of Pragmatics 74, 70-93.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stukenbrock, A. (2015): Deixis in der face-to-face-Interaktion. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Stukenbrock, A./Bahr, C. (2017): Zur kommunikativen Leistung des generischen „du“-Gebrauchs in der sozialen Interaktion. In: Linke, A./Schröter, J. (eds.): Sprache und Beziehung. Impulse & Tendenzen 69. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter, 149-182.Google Scholar

  • Suomalainen, K. (2015): Kenenääni, kenenkokemus? Yksikön 2. persoonavuorovaikutuksenvälineenä. M.A. thesis, Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, University of Helsinki. (https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/156611).Google Scholar

  • Vahl-Seyfarth, E. (1987): Das unbestimmte Subjekt in gesprochener Sprache: Vorkommen, Funktionen u. Gebrauchsbedingungen unters. an Tonbandaufnahmen aus Baden-Württemberg, Bayr.-Schwaben u. Vorarlberg. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Winter-Froemel, E. (2014): Re(de)fining grammaticalization from a usage-based perspective: Discursive ambiguity in innovation scenarios. In: Folia Linguistica 48 (2), 503-556.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Zifonun, G. (2000): Man lebt nur einmal. Morphosyntax und Semantik des Pronomens man. In: Deutsche Sprache 3, 232-253.Google Scholar

  • Zinken, J./Ogiermann, E. (2011): How to propose an action as an objective necessity. The case of Polish trzeba x (‘one needs to x’). In: Research on Language and Social Interaction 11(1), 263-287.Google Scholar

  • Zobel, S. (2016): Pragmatic analysis of German impersonally used first person singular „ich“. In: Pragmatics 26:3, 379-416.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2018-11-01

Accepted: 2018-04-24

Published Online: 2018-08-25


Citation Information: Open Linguistics, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 280–309, ISSN (Online) 2300-9969, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2018-0015.

Export Citation

© by Peter Auer and Anja Stukenbrock, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in