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


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”

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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.)

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.pdf

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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


Journal + Issues

Open Linguistics is a new academic peer-reviewed journal covering all areas of linguistics. The objective of this journal is to foster free exchange of ideas and provide an appropriate platform for presenting, discussing and disseminating new concepts, current trends, theoretical developments and research findings related to a broad spectrum of topics: descriptive linguistics, theoretical linguistics and applied linguistics.