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

Research in Language

The Journal of University of Lodz

4 Issues per year

CiteScore 2016: 0.27

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.271
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.453

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 15, Issue 2


A Multivariate Study of T/V Forms in European Languages Based on a Parallel Corpus of Film Subtitles

Natalia Levshina
Published Online: 2017-06-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2017-0010


The present study investigates the cross-linguistic differences in the use of so-called T/V forms (e.g. French tu and vous, German du and Sie, Russian ty and vy) in ten European languages from different language families and genera. These constraints represent an elusive object of investigation because they depend on a large number of subtle contextual features and social distinctions, which should be cross-linguistically matched. Film subtitles in different languages offer a convenient solution because the situations of communication between film characters can serve as comparative concepts. I selected more than two hundred contexts that contain the pronouns you and yourself in the original English versions, which are then coded for fifteen contextual variables that describe the Speaker and the Hearer, their relationships and different situational properties. The creators of subtitles in the other languages have to choose between T and V when translating from English, where the T/V distinction is not expressed grammatically. On the basis of these situations translated in ten languages, I perform multivariate analyses using the method of conditional inference trees in order to identify the most relevant contextual variables that constrain the T/V variation in each language.

Keywords: T/V pronouns; politeness; film subtitles; conditional inference trees


  • Baker, Mona. 1992. In Other Words - A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Bednarek, Monika. 2011, The Language of Fictional Television: A Case Study of the ‘Dramedy’ Gilmore Girls. English Text Construction 4(1). 54-84.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bell, Alan. 1984. Language Style as Audience Design. Language in Society 13. 145-204.Google Scholar

  • Braun, Friederike. 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman. 1960. The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity. In Thomas A. Sebeok. Style in Language, 253-276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Carter, Ronald and Michael McCarthy. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Deckert, Mikołaj. 2013. Meaning in Subtitling: Toward a Contrastive Cognitive Semantic Model. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

  • Diaz Cintas, Jorge and Aline Remael. 2007[2014]. Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Dose, Stefanie. 2014. Describing and Teaching Spoken English: An Educational-Linguistic Study of Scripted Speech. PhD Dissertation. Giessen: Justus-Liebig-Universitat Giessen.Google Scholar

  • Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Expression of Pronominal Subjects. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/101 [Accessed: 5 September 2016.]Google Scholar

  • Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1972. On Sociolinguistic Rules: Alternation and Co-occurrence. In John Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, 213-250. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

  • Friedrich, Paul. 1972. Social Context and Semantic Feature: The Russian Pronominal Usage. In John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, 270-300. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Crosslinguistic Studies. Language 86(3). 663-687.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London/New York: Routledge. Google Scholar

  • Hickley, Leo and Miranda Stewart (eds.). 2005. Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

  • Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2013. Politeness Distinctions in Pronouns. In Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available from: http://wals.info/chapter/45 [Accessed: 3 August 2016].Google Scholar

  • Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik and Achim Zeileis. 2006. Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3). 651-674.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Keuleers, Emmanuel, Marc Brysbaert and Boris New. 2010. SUBTLEX-NL: A New Frequency Measure for Dutch Words Based on Film Subtitles. Behavior Research Methods 42. 643-650.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kretzenbacher, Heinz L., Michael Clyne and Doris Schupbach. 2006. Pronominal Address in German: Rules, Anarchy and Embarrassment Potential. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 29(2). 17.1-17.8.Google Scholar

  • Łaziński, Marek. 2006. O Panach i Paniach. Polskie rzeczowniki tytularne i ich asymetria rodzajowo-płciowa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar

  • Levshina, Natalia. Forthcoming. Online Film Subtitles as a Corpus: an N-Gram Approach. To appear in Corpora.Google Scholar

  • Levshina, Natalia. 2016. Why We Need a Token-Based Typology: a Case Study of Analytic and Lexical Causatives in Fifteen European Languages. Folia Linguistica 50(2).507-542.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mittmann, Brigitta. 2006. With a Little Help From Friends (and others): Lexico-pragmatic Characteristics of Original and Dubbed Film Dialogue. In Christoph Houswitschka, Gabriele Knappe and Anja Muller (eds.), Anglistentag 2005 Bamberg. Proceedings of the Conference of the German Association of University Teachers of English, 573-585. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar

  • Molinelli, Piera. 2015. Polite Forms and Sociolinguistic Dynamics in Contacts Between Varieties of Italian. In Carlo Consani (ed.), Contatto interlinguistico fra presente e passato, 283-314. Milan: LED.Google Scholar

  • Odber de Baubeta, Patricia Anne. 1992. Modes of Address: Translation Strategies of the Black Hole. Ilha do Desterro 28. 87-107.Google Scholar

  • Quaglio, Paulo. 2008. Television Dialogue and Natural Conversation: Linguistic Similarities and Functional Differences. In Annelie Adel and Randi Reppen (eds.), Corpora and Discourse: The Challenges of Different Settings, 189-210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • R Core Team. 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/ [Accessed: 12 January 2015].Google Scholar

  • Schmid, Hans-Jorg. 2014. Lexico-grammatical Patterns, Pragmatic Associations and Discourse Frequency. In Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jorg Schmid and Susen Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions, Collocations, Patterns, 239-295. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Strobl, Carolin et al. 2008. Conditional Variable Importance for Random Forests. BMC Bioinformatics 9: 307. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/9/307 [Accessed: 17 March 2015].Google Scholar

  • Szarkowska, Agnieszka. 2013. Forms of Address in Polish-English Subtitling. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Google Scholar

  • Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt et al. 2016. Around the World in Three Alternations: Modeling Syntactic Variation in Varieties of English. English World-Wide 37(2). 109-137.Google Scholar

  • Tagliamonte, Sali and R. Harald Baayen. 2012. Models, Forests and Trees of York English: Was/were Variation as a Case Study for Statistical Practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135-178.Google Scholar

  • Warren, Jane. 2006. Address Pronouns in French: Variation Within and Outside the Workplace. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 29(2). 16.1-16.17.Google Scholar

  • Weiner, E. Judith and William Labov. 1983. Constraints on the Agentless Passive. Journal of Linguistics 19. 29-58.Google Scholar

  • Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Different Cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech Ccts: Polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics 9. 145-178.Google Scholar

  • Yli-Vakkuri, Valms. 2005. Politeness in Finland: Evasion at all Costs. In Leo Hickey and Miranda Stewart (eds.), Politeness in Europe, 189-202. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-06-27

Published in Print: 2017-06-27

Citation Information: Research in Language, Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages 153–172, ISSN (Online) 2083-4616, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/rela-2017-0010.

Export Citation

© Natalia Levshina. 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