Accessing Politeness Axes

8/2/2019 Accessing Politeness Axes

1/36

Accessing politeness axes: forms of address andterms of reference in early English correspondence

Minna Nevala

Research Unit for Variation and Change in English, Department of English, P.O. Box 24 (Unioninkatu 40 B),University of Helsinki, Helsinki FIN-00014, Finland

Received 18 March 2003; received in revised form 16 January 2004; accepted 3 February 2004

Abstract

There are certain areas of study where present-day pragmatics can learn from history. This article

focuses on the socio-pragmatic aspects of forms of address and terms of reference in late 16th-century

English correspondence. The aim of the study is to explore the extent to which the use of forms of

address and reference, and the factors which influence their choice, can be seen to have any generaltrends. A further goal is to relate these trends in historical data to such contemporary views as Brown

and Levinsons [Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, 1987] politeness theory, Comries [Linguistic politeness axes: speakeraddressee,

speakerreferent, speakerbystander. Pragmatics Microfiche 1.7: A3, Department of Linguistics,

University of Cambridge, 1976] politeness axes, and Bells [Language style as audience design.

Language in Society 13, 145204] audience design. The material itself, the Corpus of Early English

Correspondence (CEEC), gives a unique opportunity to explore the influence of factors like relative

power and social distance on the use of forms of address and reference in the highly stratified society

of the Renaissance period. The study shows that referential terms are often derived from the range of

direct address formulae. In direct address, when the social status of either the addressee or the referent

is very high, it seems to override the influence of social distance. In reference, the reasons for the

choice of an appropriate term are more complex, and the parameters set for, e.g., positive and negative

politeness can no longer be seen as equally valid.

# 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Politeness; English; Socio-pragmatic aspect

1. Introduction

The way we address someone directly and the manner in which we refer to that same

person are not always the same. The use of direct address formulae is governed by a

Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160

0378-2166/$ see front matter # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.02.001

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Nevala).


2/36


3/36

from clothing to conventions in everyday contacts (Wrightson, 1982: 17; see also Briggs,

1999: 119120). The rank and degree of a person was an inseparable part of ones identity,

and there were many ways in which this could be acknowledged. One of the most obvious

was to use forms of address (for an overview on the use of titles, see e.g., Laslett, 1971: 2729). Correspondence proved to be an excellent forum for practising ones social skills,

among other purposes, and fluent letter-writers were also aware of the importance of

properly addressing their recipients. Letters were considered either public or personal, and

address formulae varied accordingly, especially during the 17th century. Conventions were

important, and although some writers became rather inventive, most people relied on the

various letter-writing customs which developed over the centuries (for the use of letter-

writing manuals, see Nevala, 2004). It must be remembered, however, that the Early

Modern English address system differed greatly from that of present-day English. As

Jucker and Taavitsainen (2003: 4) point out, choices made in the use of address forms are

always culturally dependent and change in the course of time as old criteria become

obsolete and come to be replaced by new criteria.

The fact that Early Modern letters could be, or actually were, seen and read by people

other than the person the letter was addressed to, introduced further complications. It was

common that private letters were circulated or read aloud among members of the family,

since they often contained news on important events: fathers of landed gentry families

wrote their report-like accounts of London and perhaps even the Court, and mothers sent

notes on how the family and household were getting along, not forgetting the ups and

downs of their neighbours. It could well happen that even though the writer had meant the

letter only for one person, the entire neighbourhood became aware of its contents sooner orlater.

Letters containing socially delicate information on matters of the state or eminent people

were of course meant for the addressees eyes only. The reliability of the post was a real

problem, and especially in the 16th century, letter-writers became most resourceful when it

came to securing the secrets in their letters. In extreme cases, one way of indicating that the

recipient should receive the letter intact was to draw the sign of the gallows alongside the

address. If one also wanted to make sure that the important message got to its recipient as

quickly as possible, the words for life, for life could be added in order to urge the

postman to make a speedy delivery (Beale, 1998: 142). This did not, however, help much:

especially letters from abroad were opened en route, and even the Privy Council orderedletters to be intercepted. Merchants, for example, used to send an additional copy of the

original letter by another messenger, thus making sure their message would get through in

one way or another. In addition to this, letters might be further secured by sealing them with

a thread, or a hair, in scarlet wax.

Direct address naturally changed according to its users. The formulae could be divided

into nominal and pronominal forms. Examples (1a) and (1b) show some variants of the

nominal usage.1 The first one, a letter from Arthur Ingram to Thomas Wentworth,

presents a deferential honorific, and the second one from Anne Howard to her son

1 The references after each example show the name of the letter collection in the corpus (for more

information, see footnote 9), the year when the letter was written, the name of the writer and the exact page

reference.

M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160 2127


4/36

Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, a more intimate use of a term of kinship and

endearment.

(1a) Worthi Sir, I hop now you ar gott home to your own howse and country ayrs,that you haue recouered your helth and ar becom a strong man, the which I shall

bee right glad to hear of. (WENTWORTH: 1623, Arthur Ingram, 185)

(1b) My good Sonne [. . .] Your opinion, sweete harte, for sending to my Lady

Lumley, I will follow by writing very shortly. But I besech yu consider well

consarning my entry of Hayling, for I doute the deferring of it may rather bring

harme than otherwise. (ARUNDEL: 1609, Anne Howard, 59)

The pronouns of direct address included the variants ofthou, as an equivalent to French tu,

and, more typically, ofyou, a counterpart to French vous (for a further analysis of their use

in correspondence, see Nevala, 2002). Both pronouns could also be mixed and used in

similar contexts, as in a letter from John Hoskyns to his wife Benedicta in Example (2):2

(2) when did I deal ungratefully wth thee? you must com Ben & refute them.

(HOSKYNS: 1615, John Hoskyns Sr, 72)

Terms of reference were also chosen carefully. Especially when referring to a member of

Royalty or a known figure, social status had to be made clear, as an extract from John

Chamberlains letter to Alice Carleton in Example (3a) shows. Last names (henceforth LN)

with titles were used of referents representing the gentry (Gabriel Harvey to John Young inExample 3b), and first names (henceforth FN) could be used either of referents with lower

status, such as servants, or of someone close to the writer or the addressee, as in a letter

from merchant Samuel Smith to Nathaniel Bacon (Example 3c).

(3a) but the worst of all was that the King was so wearied and sleepie with sitting up

almost two whole nights before, that he had no edge to yt, wherupon Sir Fra

Bacon adventured to intreat his Majestie, that by this disgrace he wold not as yt

were bury them quicke: (CHAMBERLAIN: 1613, John Chamberlain, I, 426)

(3b) I besout M. Nevil that he wuld not deale so hardly bi me in that whitch concernd

me so greatly: desiring him that he wuld not hinder me ani longer, but that I mihtbe nominatid that dai. (HARVEY: 1573, Gabriel Harvey, 3)

(3c) 2 of the sayd tenantes, being some whatt sayd to for the evell nes of the corn,

sayd that Thomas your baly would have had them to have browght {4 of sakes}

fower sakes in a loode of your foysty barly & they would nott, for in very dede

there owen was evell in Norfolk (BACON: 1580, Samuel Smith, II, 118)

2 In a recent study, Busse (2002: 287288) looks at the use of second-person pronouns in Shakespeare, and

concludes that this kind of variation in the use of address pronouns is not in any way intralinguistically

conditioned, i.e. no proper reasons can be found for switches between thou and you, besides the extralinguistic

ones which concern genre variation. Busse criticises Brown and Gilmans (1989) view that the choice of the

pronouns can always be predicted, and emphasises the fact that there is room for social negotiation even when

the power relationship is asymmetrical.

2128 M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 21252160


5/36

Possessive pronouns together with kinship terms (henceforth KT) were used, especially in

correspondence between members of the family, as in Example (4a) of a letter from

Elizabeth Hatton to her son Christopher. Kinship markers could often be followed by FN or

LN, or a combination of both, as an extract from Lettice Gawdys letter to her husbandFramlingham in Example (4b) shows.

(4a) I presume you were shewed ye fine things yr father brought me: farrender for a

gowne, and 6 pair of gloves, and a paire of stockens, wch is more yn I hoped for;

and so sensible I am of ye kindnes yt I desir you to help me to thank him for it.

(HATTON: 1666, Elizabeth Hatton, I, 50)

(4b) I gaue my cousen Cresnar the three boukes you sent him the which hee giueth

you many thankes for them I pray remembar my loue to my brouther Sr

Charles vaughan and to my Cousen Iohn Games my sister francis and mycousen dorothy retureneth ther loue to you (GAWDYL: 1620s?, Lettice Gawdy,

f. 143)

Pronouns were not, however, used only on the purely deictic level, but also as a

part of a conventionalised formula, as can be seen above in Example (3a) (his Majesty).

Other referential terms of this kind were, for example, the terms Your Honour and

my Lady. The differences in pronoun usage are further discussed in Sections 2.2 and

5.1.2.

2.2. Social and pragmatic models

2.2.1. Axes of address terms

The use of forms of address is one of the ways in which politeness is manifested in

speech and writing. Brown and Levinsons (1987) politeness theory is based on the

recognition of positive and negative politeness, and in their theory, address can be used to

show both. For example, when the speaker wishes to emphasise his/her close relationship

with the hearer or the referent, positively polite formulae like FNs are most often used.

Negative politeness is constructed as a means of avoiding face-threatening acts (FTAs), and

this can be done by using, e.g., LNs and titles.Previous historical research on politeness as a means of analysing address use (see e.g.,

Brown and Gilman, 1989; Hope, 1993; Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg, 1995) has

shown that Brown and Levinsons model is flexible and can be developed for historical

purposes. So far, few studies have made use of Wattss (1992, 2003) restrictive politeness

model which categorises address terms as politic behaviour instead of proper (linguistic)

politeness.3 Watts (1992: 6567; 2003: 19, 21, 133, 156, 169) repeatedly argues that since

forms of address are chosen according to what is usually expected in a social interaction,

they cannot be considered as conveying politeness, unless they are used in excess of what

3 Kopytko (1993: 116) separates address usage from other politeness strategies and leaves the door open for

different interpretations, according to whether one thinks that forms of address reflect the ethos of the society,

or whether address is seen as a ritualised form of discourse.



6/36

is necessary to maintain the politic behaviour of an interaction.4 Naturally, this raises a

whole new range of questions of what linguistic expressions can in the first place be

interpreted as being used in excess in each communicative situation. Moreover, Watts

(2003: 156) generalises the notion that in highly institutionalised forms of socialinteraction deferential expressions, such as forms of address, constitute politic rather

than properly polite behaviour to cover almost all use of address forms. This can hardly be

seen as valid in all forms of social interaction, institutionalised or not, and there are bound

to be differences, for example, between spoken and written communication.

Instead of thinking, as Watts does, that address forms are routinised manifestations of

social conventions that can be categorised as politic behaviour, I see that these conven-

tions may themselves be looked at from an opposite angle, so that they can be said to work

within, and for, politeness. This view allows us to describe diachronic change (which may

or may not result in conventionalisation) better than Wattss theory of politic behaviour.

Although Wattss model might be a practical way of describing (more static) present-day

address usage, it still seems too restrictive for analysing diachronic variation and change, as

opposed to Brown and Levinsons model, especially in the use of address. Brown and

Levinsons strategies of positive and negative politeness allow us to study not only

variation in the overall use of address terms, but also variation that occurs within the

terms themselves. Their original aim to produce a theory which combines polite

friendliness and polite formality in a single scheme makes it possible to see how address

can function in terms of both positive and negative politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1987:

283). Moreover, the use of address may result in a hybrid strategy, which includes features

that are both positively and negatively polite (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 230).Brown and Levinsons categorisation of the main axes of address usage has been

influenced by, e.g., Comries (1976) study of linguistic politeness.5 In his brief analysis of

address and reference systems in different languagesincluding Japanese, Javanese and

RomanianComrie (1976: 5) introduces a new point of view by arguing that the

traditional understanding of the tu/vous (T/V) opposition is in fact false: instead of

classifying the distinction as a system of addressee politeness, he sees it as a case of

referent politeness. In his opinion, when using the T/V distinction, it is possible to show

politeness to the addressee only if he/she is referred to in the sentence itself, i.e., when the

addressee is the referent.6 In some languages (e.g., Japanese, Javanese), it is possible to

show addressee politeness by using certain lexical items or grammatical particles which donot refer to the addressee at all. T/V opposition cannot, however, be used for addressee

4 This view seems to be shared by Thomas (1995: 152) who argues that address forms become

pragmatically interesting only when they involve a strategic choice on the part of the speaker, i.e., when the

speaker deliberately wants to use address terms to change the relationship he/she has with the addressee.5 By the term honorifics Brown and Levinson (1987: 179) mean the direct grammatical encodings of

relative social status between participants, or between participants and persons or things referred to in the

communicative event. As for participant roles, Murphy (1988: 324) criticises both Levinson (1979) and Comrie

(1976) for their inadequate discussion of addressee-referent relations: in Murphys opinion, speakers may have

to take the relationship between the addressee and the referent into account when avoiding an FTA against the

addressee in a reference situation.6 In his 1996 article, Lerner (1996) discusses the difficulties caused by the use of reference terms that are not

clear to the hearer(s) and the intended recipient. These forms include such recipient indicators as the pronoun

you which cause problems in communicative situations where the addressee the referent.



7/36

politeness, since, for example, sentences in French like Pierre attend Francoise (Pierre is

waiting for Francoise) cannot make use of the T/V opposition to convey the politeness

shown, or not shown, by the speaker to the addressee.

Furthermore, Comrie challenges the use of the performative hypothesis in the analysis ofpoliteness by showing that Sadocks (1974) claimthat expressions of politeness are

restricted to the speaker, the hearer and the overt referentis inadequate. In Comries

opinion, those persons who are not overtly referred to in the sentence, i.e., overhearers and

bystanders, could also have an influence on expressions of politeness (for further analysis

of this in audience design, see Section 2.2.2).

Based on this, Comrie proposes three separate axes of linguistic politeness: the speaker

addressee axis, which can be applied to what I call direct address; the speakerreferent axis,

which means the overt referential forms; and the speakerbystander axis, which presents

formulae of either direct address or reference that covertly express the relation of the

speaker to any bystanders or overhearers.7

As can be seen in Fig. 1, Brown and Levinson (1987: 181) have added a fourth axis, i.e.,

the speaker-setting axis, which they refer to as a socially deictic relation between social

roles assumed by the speaker and the audience. According to them, referent honorifics, e.g

in linguistic systems like Japanese (and this could be extended to referential terms in

general), are sensitive to in-group membership. In reference, as well as in direct address,

the relationships between the speaker, hearer, referent, overhearer and bystander, etc., can

be said to be influenced not only by social distance, but also by relative power.

Brown and Levinson (1987: 77, 178ff.) connect great power difference with giving

deference, which in turn is categorised as a strategy of negative politeness. They note thatdeference can be shown in two different ways: the speaker may either humble him/herself

or raise the hearer to show that he/she is not in a position to coerce H[earer]s compliance

in any way (for a discussion of politeness maxims of approbation and modesty, see Leech,

1983: 135138). Watts (2003: 80, 176) simply classifies deference as politic behaviour

which the speaker learns as a child through a process of socialisation. Also Thomas (1995:

150) separates deference from politeness proper, and sees the difference between deference

and politeness as a matter of showing respect vs. showing consideration towards other

people. Interestingly enough, showing consideration and respect to the hearer are rather

near to Brown and Levinsons view of humbling the self and raising the hearer, and Watts

definition of deference as a form of politic behaviour tells us nothing else of deference thanthat it is a fundamentally social phenomenon.

7 Comrie (1976: 11, footnotes 4 and 7) shows an explicit example of bystander politeness by explaining the

use of the verbs perspire and sweat in discussing the consequences of hot weather during a royal parade.

Watchers of the show may agree that the soldiers sweated but the queen perspired (referent politeness, since the

queen is not present at the time of utterance, but her royal status must still be taken into account). But if they met

the queen herself, they might comment on the event by saying to her that the soldiers perspired. The latter use of

the verb perspire would be an example of addressee politeness, since the watchers would both address the queen

directly and take her status into account. Furthermore, if the two watchers thought the queen was likely to

overhear them or otherwise be in the vicinity, they would most probably say that the soldiers perspired in this

case as well (bystander politeness; the queen is not addressed or referred to directly, but since she is likely to

hear what is said, the speakers have to take her status into consideration).



8/36

Referential terms involve the communication of the speakerreferent relation, which

means that the hearer or the addressee may calculate what the relation is between him/

herself and the speaker by looking at both the speakerreferent and the speakeraddressee

relations. This is shown especially with such deictic pronouns as my, your and his/her,

which work differently when used as a part of a direct address form. For example in direct

address in correspondence, if the writer uses the form your worship, the pronoun youris of

course used, in a way, to make the recipient a deictic centre, but since the entire formula is

conventionalised as a highly deferential address term, I would argue that it cannot be used

on the same concrete level of deixis as it would when used as a part of a referential formula

like your husband.8

Dickey (1997: 260) claims that when referring to a person who is unknown to theaddressee, the speakers use of reference terms is dictated by the need to convey certain

information about the referent. Deictic pronouns appear to be one way of pinpointing the

exact referent to the addressee. It may be argued, however, whether this usage is limited to

the existent addresseereferent relationship. It seems more probable that pronouns may

vary according to the addressee: basically, pronouns such as my function in the same way

whether the referent is known to the addressee or not.

2.2.2. Audience design

Bells (1984) sociolinguistic study of language variation is based on the notion that style

means speakers response to their audience. Bell draws a preliminary dichotomy betweenlinguistic and extralinguistic variation, of which the latter is further divided into inter-

speaker (social) and intraspeaker (stylistic) variation. The social factors include, e.g.,

class and age of different speakers, whereas the stylistic factors range from topic of

discussion to addressee design within the speech of a single person. The two categories are

interdependent so that variation in the stylistic dimension derives from variation in the

Referent

Speaker Addressee

Bystander

Setting

Fig. 1. Politeness axes (taken from Brown and Levinson, 1987: 181).

8 Levinson (1992: 91) notes that this kind of address, which conveys socially deictic, absolute,

information, includes formulae reserved for authorized recipients. These forms are solely dependent on and

restricted by the status of the referent. Moreover, in the process of establishing the socially deictic centre, other

honorifics, humble expressions, relational designations (father, boss) and intimate forms of address (daddy)

are used, as Fludernik (1993: 43) points out (for more on kinship terms used for situationally defined reference,

see Section 2.2.2; Allerton, 1987: 80; Braun, 1998: 254256).



9/36

social dimension (the so-called Style Axiom; see Bell, 1984: 151). Therefore, a variable

cannot be seen to have intraspeaker variation if it has no interspeaker variation.

This correlation between the social and stylistic dimensions is the basis of what Bell

(1984: 159) calls audience design. It means that people respond to other people so that theydesign their speech at all linguistic levels (including address and reference) according to

their hearers. Audience roles are then ranked on the basis of whether the hearers are known,

ratified or addressed by the speaker (i.e., whether they are addressees, auditors, overhearers

or eavesdroppers).

The so-called responsive dimension of audience design includes both addressee design

and auditor effect. Bell (1984: 161ff.) links style variation on this level to the accom-

modation model, which hypothesises that a person accommodates his/her speech to the

addressee in order to be approved (on accommodation theory, see also e.g., Giles and

Smith, 1979; Coupland and Giles, 1988).

As already stated in Section 2.2.1, the relationship between the speaker and the

addressee is governed by distance and status (power), which can most visibly be seen

in the use of address. Moreover, direct address can work as a marker of style variation,

showing the social mechanisms present in audience design. When writing a letter, for

instance, there is usually one intended recipient, sometimes several, and this can be

indicated by the choice of address formulae. The writer may choose a form by which he/she

shows that there is only one possible addressee, especially in intimate relationships, by

using a term of endearment or a nickname, as Queen Elizabeth I does in her letter to Robert

Dudley in Example (5). The two os she uses correspond to two eyes, originating most

probably from the fact that Dudley acted as her eyes and ears at the Court.

(5) Now will I end that to imagine I talk still with you, and therefore loathly say

farewell, O O, though ever I pray God bless you from all harm and save you

from all foes, with my million and legion of thanks for all your pains and cares.

(Beale, 1998: 197)

The writer may also use address to indicate that the letter is intended to be seen by more

than one reader. This is usually done by using, for example, KTs or other nominal forms in

the plural, as in Examples (6a) and (6b) (from the same letter), where Winifrid Thimelby

writes to her nephews and nieces first addressing them collectively and later in the letter,each one in turn. This strategy makes it possible for the recipients to choose themselves

whether to let one person read the letter to everyone or let the letter circulate, as was often

done in the Early Modern period.

(6a) My dear Children, Girls and Boys, Ever since my jubily, I have longd for

opportunity to convay thes little things wear given me then; because I expect

none so fine agen. (TIXALL: 1670s, Winifrid Thimelby, 96)

(6b) God bless sweet Mall, Wat, and Hab, and all of you. I forgot to tell thee Gatt,

I never had that letter yr father tells me you ritt; but Franck I had both of

yours, and sent a little purs, and christall, to thee, by one Mr. Digby; but Idoubt he ner delivered it, tho he promised fare. (TIXALL: 1670s, Winifrid

Thimelby, 97)



10/36

The so-called second addressees include auditors, overhearers, bystanders and eaves-

droppers (for more discussion on conversational roles, see e.g., Goffman, 1981: 131ff.;

Levinson, 1992: 7273; Wilson and Zeitlyn, 1995: 7275). Also in this case, these third

persons are present in the speech situation: auditors are ratified participants but over-hearers are not. In correspondence, it could be argued that certain reference terms may be

used instead of direct address formulae in order to indicate that the writer knows there

are other possible readers than the intended addressee (sometimes even the person

referred to). This may be overt (ratified auditors) or covert (unratified eavesdrop-

pers), depending on whether the writer wishes to present the addressee with the

possibility of passing the news to others or not. The writer may express the permission to

speak to a third person about the matter in question by straightforwardly saying, e.g.,

tell this to your father or read this to my wife. In this case the referents could be

seen as auditors, as in Example (7):

(7) Speak yoe mynde to the Lady of Bedford in my behalf, and tell her that the

weather hath bin very vnfauorable to the proceedinges of her picture.

(CORNWALLIS: 1614, Nathaniel Bacon Jr., 20)

In the case where the writer knows, or even fears, that there may be other people reading

the letter, although it is not so intended, he/she may use, for example, a cipher to try to

prevent possible overhearers and eavesdroppers from finding out who is referred to.

Whereas open expressions are often used in letters between intimates, these kinds of

attempts to keep a referent secret are used in correspondence handling, e.g., matters ofstate, as can be seen in Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemias letter to Sir Thomas Rowe (Example

8; the name in brackets added by the editor):

(8) As of there envoyes heere confessed plainlie the other day in privat to

128.219.130 [the Prince of Orange] who expostulated the matter with him, that

the Cardinall finding the Duke of Weimars army desired my sonne he stayed

him to hinder it, which plaine enough to be seene. (ROYAL2: 1639, Elizabeth of

Bohemia, SP 81/48, f. 190)

In addition to responsive design, Bell distinguishes an initiative axis of style whichincludes what he calls referees (1984: 186).9 These are third persons who are not

physically present in a communicative situation but nevertheless influence the language the

speakers or writers use. The result is that the speaker shifts from addressee-oriented to

referee-oriented style. Referee design can then be further divided into in-group design

(identifying with the speakers own group) and out-group design (oriented towards an

outside reference group).

The use of reference terms may of course be taken as an example of a certain type of

referee design. In letters, the writer may wish to express whether he/she is a member of the

9 Bell (2001: 165) has revised his earlier view of treating referee design as a secondary dimension to

audience design, and now thinks that the two aspects may instead operate as complementary and co-existent in

all speech events.



11/36

in-group or the out-group by referring to a third person with a term which can be easily

interpreted. Writers socially superior or equal to their addressee and/or referent may want

to stress either their superiority or in-group properties by using intimate terms of reference

of someone in their own in-group (but not of the addressees).10

On the other hand, there are situations in which a writer is socially inferior to the

addressee and/or the referent. The writer may wish to give the impression that he is a

close member of the referents in-group, although it is clear from the context that he is

not. If the referent were his close friend, it would be more probable that he used, e.g.,

title LN, or perhaps even FN, when referring to the referent. In Example (9), Daniel

Defoe in his letter to Robert Harley emphasises his relationship with the referent(s)

by using a qualifying formula my particular friend and a referential term all my

friends:

(9) But the Mayor being Out of Town, the Next principle Magistrate, whom they

Call a Justice as having been Mayor The year before, was my perticular

Friend, And here was the first and Onely Time I showd your Pass, Takeing the

hint from your Letter of useing it with Caution.

This So Encouragd the Magistrate and all my Friends That I might

have assurd my self here of Protection, and the Measures of the Other

party in the Town Seemd Entirely broke. (DEFOE: 1705, Daniel Defoe,

99)

In addition to Bell, Dickey (1997) and Allerton (1996) have compared the use of addressforms and terms of reference in present-day material. One purpose in both studies is to

establish common rules for the derivation, or predicting, of reference terms from direct

address forms. In Dickeys (1997: 256) opinion, the choice and use of both direct address

and reference is socially rather than lexically determined, a view also shared by Allerton

(1996: 622).11 Direct address has been found to be more consistent than reference; it

could therefore be considered the normal form from which reference may be seen to

deviate.

Both Dickey and Allerton acknowledge the centrality of shifting between different

viewpoints, especially in reference, and it is clear, as Allerton (1996: 623624) notes,

that both sociolinguistic conventions and compromises become even more crucial insuch communicative situations where there are more than two participants. Choosing a

mode of reference means adopting another standpoint, whether that of the addressee or

the overhearer. Dickey and Allerton conclude that the reference term used is usually

chosen according to the direct address form which the addressee uses of the referent. For

example, if a university lecturer knows that a student addresses his/her fellow lecturer as

10 Murphy (1988: 328) uses the term name-dropping when talking about this kind of flaunting of social

advantage. In his opinion it could be socially awkward to use, for example, FN as a reference term if the

addressee did not enjoy an equally intimate relationship with the referent as the speaker.11 Dickey (1997: 256) suggests that the term literal meaning could be replaced by lexical meaning, which

could in turn be distinguished from social meaning. Therefore, a choice like the one between using Jane and

Mrs. Smith when addressing or referring to a woman named Jane Smith would be socially determined.



12/36

Dr. Smith, it is likely that the lecturer also refers to the colleague as Dr. Smith when

talking to the student. Moreover, Dickey (1997: 268) notes that the addressees

inferiority/superiority influences the choice of reference terms in a particular way: in

general, when talking to a person who is either younger or inferior to the referent, thespeaker uses the term the addressee would use in direct address to the referent. For

example, a wife may refer to her husband by using the term daddy when talking to their

child, a term she would not herself normally use in direct address to him (see also

footnote 17). Correspondingly, she claims that when talking to a superior, the speaker

may sometimes choose that superiors forms of address (e.g., students may refer to their

teacher by using FN instead of the normally used title LN when in conversation with

another teacher).

Allerton goes further than Dickey in his analysis of reference usage. By relating

his findings to Grices (1975) conversational maxims, he introduces a maxim of his

own, avoid variation in form for the same meaning (Allerton, 1996: 623). This

means that speakers should choose the same term to refer to the same referent where

possible.12 In reality, this creates what Allerton calls tension between the speakers,

since speakers cannot always use the same term for a certain referent. The situation can

only be resolved by making compromises: if, for example, the speaker uses FN to refer

to his close colleague and the addressee uses title LN when referring to the same

person, they can both compromise and call the referent by FN LN. The notion of

compromise is particularly evident in communication between people who are distant

to each other in some way. In conversation between family members, on the other hand,

the choice of reference term is more a question of convention, which means that oneparticipants form is adopted as a reference term for a shared relative. This adopted

term then usually corresponds to the term used in direct address to the referent by the

addressee.

3. Method and material

In order to illustrate the use of direct address and reference in the present study, I have

chosen to present two members of a prestigious Norfolk family from the turn of the 17th

century, the Bacons: Sir Nicholas Bacon and his son Nathaniel Bacon. These informantswere chosen mainly because there are many letters written directly to them, and, moreover,

because they are constantly referred to in letters written by various people, from nuclear

family members to correspondents outside kin relations.

12 Clark and Marshall (1981) discuss the importance of mutual knowledge in determining the referent.

Murphy (1988: 340) mentions mutual information as the basis of cooperativeness in his Rule of Polite Reference.

Hanks (1992: 59, 67ff.) also writes about the sufficient background knowledge, a common framework, the

speaker and the addressee must have for the reference to be successful. Evans (1982: 379) uses the term

common knowledge, Clark and Murphy (1982: 288) talk about common ground. Schegloff (1996: 459)

makes a distinction between recognitional reference and non-recognitional reference. When using the

former, both the speaker and the addressee know who the referent is; in the latter, only the speaker may be able

to identify the referent.



13/36

My material is drawn from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC), a

database which, in its extended version, consists of personal letters from 1410 to 1800. 13

For the analysis, I searched for every address form and term of reference both in the letters

written directly to my two informants and in those letters in which either Sir Nicholas or

Nathaniel Bacon were referred to by name, kinship term or title. In those cases where I

could not be sure of which male member of the Bacon family was referred to (the forms my

lord, Mr. Bacon or Bacon), I first relied on contextual evidence and finally left out the

instances in which it was absolutely impossible to determine the referent. The names of all

who either directly wrote of referred to Sir Nicholas and Nathaniel, together with the

quantitative information of the material used, are listed in Appendices A to E.

The data was then organised according to the determiners of distance and power

(including age), as seen in Fig. 2. By distance, I mean the symmetric notions of social

similarity as well as familiarity, scaling from close to distant. For example, a familymember may be close in terms of both social similarity and familiarity, but a friend may be

close in terms of familiarity, though not in terms of social similarity (rank), which leads us

to differences in relative power. Power is about asymmetric differences in social rank, on

the one hand, and relative power of control, on the other, i.e., it ranges from superior to

inferior. For example, a member of the nobility may be superior to a member of the gentry

both in terms of social rank and control, whereas a member of a nuclear family may be

equal in terms of social rank but superior in control, as e.g., a father is to a child. I see these

two concepts as interactive elements which may alter either on a social or situational

level.14

F (close) TC T (distant)

FNr FO inferior equal superior

older + older older + older

Fig. 2. The organisation of the data.

13 The 1998 version of the CEEC has been compiled by the Sociolinguistics and Language History team at

the Department of English, University of Helsinki (compilers: Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg,

Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, Jukka Keranen and myself). It consists of 2.7 million words in 96 letter

collections from around 14101681. An extension consisting of letter material covering the 18th century is

currently under compilation (at present adding up to a total of over one million words). More information on the

project and the corpus can be found from the website http://www.eng.helsinki.fi/varieng/team2 and Laitinen

(2002). A sampler corpus (CEECS) is available on the second ICAME CD-ROM. The references to the

collections primarily used in this study, BACON and PARKHURST, as well as other collections in the corpus

can be found in, e.g., Nurmi (1999).14 Spencer-Oatey (1996: 21) discusses the concepts of both power and distance in depth in her article, and

concludes that there is great inconsistency between the different meanings of the terms used by researchers. She

further points out that connotations on power and distance may vary according to cultural differences. For

example, power may be seen as a negative dominance, as it is usually understood in English.

http://http//WWW.ENG.HELSINKI.FI/VARIENG/TEAM2http://http//WWW.ENG.HELSINKI.FI/VARIENG/TEAM2


14/36

Abbreviations in the figures, as well as in Appendices A to E, are as follows: FNr

(nuclear family members), FO (other members of kin), FS (family servants), TC (close

friends)15 and T (other writers). My purpose with this classification was to find factors

governing the choice of the formulae and to facilitate the prediction of their usageaccording to politeness variables.

4. The case study: the Bacons

4.1. Sir Nicholas Bacon (1510?1579)

Sir Nicholas became the Lord Keeper to Elizabeth I in 1558. By that time, his marriage

to Jane, daughter of merchant Thomas Ferneley, had produced seven children: Nicholas,

Nathaniel, Edward, John, Elizabeth, Anne, and another Elizabeth. After the death of his

first wife in 1552, Sir Nicholas married Anne, daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke, with whom

he had four more children: Anthony, Francis, Susan and Mary.

Sir Nicholas has been characterised as vigorous and idiosyncratic (Hassell Smith

et al., 1978: xviii). He was very keen on knowing everything that happened at home while

he was attending his duties at Court, which also included dealing with every aspect of his

childrens lives. His critical instructions affected especially his sons, and so they soon

learned to be precise in every detail from business to estate management. Thanks to his

useful position as the Lord Keeper, many of his children soon established connections with

the Court: Anthony became Secretary to the Earl of Essex and Francis became Lord

Chancellor, whereas the two Elizabeths found their husbands among courtiers.

As expected, the material shows many instances of the recognition of Sir Nicholass high

social status as a knight and the Lord Keeper, as seen in Fig. 3. In general, the manner in

which Sir Nicholas is directly addressed can be analysed as denoting extreme negative

politeness, regardless of the distance between the writer and the recipient.

There is only one nuclear family member writing to Sir Nicholas, namely his son

Nathaniel, who uses the forms Your (good) Lordship and Sir in his letters, as seen in

Example (10). Nathaniels use of deferential forms of address remains the same during the

9 years of correspondence with his father.

(10) Fearinge that your Lordship wolde thinke some slaknes in me, I thought best to

writ this letter, though it be litle to the aunsweringe of the chefest of the

remembrances which your Lordship at my comminge from yow gave unto me.

(BACON: 1572, Nathaniel Bacon, I,32)

Similar types of negatively polite formulae can be found in letters written by other than kin.

The form Your Honour is used by inferior writers, especially John Mounford, a family

15 These categories follow the ones set for the writeraddressee relationship in the CEEC. Especially when

determining the parameters for a close friendship, the compilers have relied on extensive external material,

including the Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) and each editors background knowledge of the

correspondents.



15/36

servant (Example 11). Unfortunately, there is only one letter from Mounford to Sir

Nicholas in the CEEC, but the use of your honour and your worship can also be

seen in Mounfords letters to Nathaniel (for more on letters of servants to Nathaniel,

see Section 4.2).

(11) My dewtye remembred unto your honor, thes shalbe to lette your honor

undrestond that I have troden owt the felde. Accordyng unto your honors

appoyntment I have fownd owt that there belonggythe to Mr. Corbettes lease &

John Calthroppes in eryable londes & medowes as apperythe by a particuler

byll that I send unto your honor herin enclosed, & all other profyghtesbelonggyng unto the sayd manors mensyonyd in the byll aforsayd. (BACON:

1572, John Mounford, I, 28)

The next excerpts show the use of direct address in letters written by more distant writers,

both inferior and equal. In Examples (12) and (13) the writers, Edmund Banyard and

George Gascoigne, are socially inferior to Sir Nicholas, whereas in Examples (14) and (15)

the address formulae used are from the letters of social equals, Edward Fiennes, Lord

Admiral, and Sir Francis Walsingham, Secretary of State.

(12) Right honnorable, my bounden duetie remembred. That wheras I have madesoundrye and dyverse meanes unto your honnour, as well by gyvinge out of

quitaunces as by the mocione of my frindes, for the monye in your honnors

handes. (BACON: 1574, Edmund Banyard, I, 135)

(13) My verie favorable good Lorde, beinge latelye receavede into Her Majesties

service (wherin I hope to recover my decayede estate) I devisede to presente all

my lordes and good frendes in Cowrte with certayne [Emblems] for their

Newyeres gyftes, an exercyes (as I judge) neyther unplesante nor unproffitable.

(BACON: 1578, George Gascoigne, II, 3)

(14) My verie good Lord, yt maie pleas you to understand that this daie Hoobbard

and the rest which have committed offencys appon the cost of Norffolke andSuffolke have ben before my Lordes of the Councell. (BACON: 1576, Edward

Fiennes, I,220)




Sir,Your

(good)

Lordship

no

examples

no

examplesno

examples

no

examples

Your

Honour,YourLordship

my Lord,

Your

Lordship

noexamples

Fig. 3. Sir Nicholas Bacon: direct address.



16/36

(15) Ryght honorable and my verry good Lord, I sende your Lordship a coppye

of my Lords letters by the which you may perceyve what order is taken by them

for the shypps and goodes stayed by your Lordships sonne Mr. Nathanaell

Bacon. (BACON: 1576, Francis Walsingham, I, 223)

If we then turn to the terms used to refer to Sir Nicholas in Fig. 4, we notice that regardless

of social distance between the writer and the recipient, forms such as my Lord (Keeper),

or when in a letter to a member of Sir Nicholas s kin, my lord your father, are mostly

used.In letters written by family members, Sir Nicholas is referred to with the term my father

by his sons Nathaniel and Nicholas Jr. They also use my lord, which appears in other

relatives letters as well, including Edward, one of Sir Nicholass younger sons. In

Examples (16) and (17) we can see extracts from Nicholas Jr.s letter to Sir William

Cecil and Robert Bacons (Sir Nicholass nephew) letter to Nathaniel.

(16) Whereas I have received your honores letters understandynge thereby that there

hathe greate speeches paste betwen my brother and your Lordship concernynge

the matters in question betwen my brother Anthoney and my selfe touchynge

my fatheres will. (BACON: 1579, Nicholas Bacon Jr., II, 77)(17) thirdly yf he were justly to answhere uppon his conscience I thinke he canne but

affirme that notwithstanding [the havinge] my Lord your fathers good

cowntenance he had hardlie obtayned his wyf withowt my helpe whicch was as

foloweth (BACON: 1584, Robert Bacon, II, 283)

More distant writers, such as family servants and acquaintances, refer to Sir Nicholas alike:

if the letter is intended for a family member, my lord your fatheris common (Example 18);

if the letter is exchanged between people who are both distant to Sir Nicholas, my Lord

Keeper is used, as can be seen in Example (19). Example (20) shows a passage from a

formal letter from the Privy Council to Nathaniel, hence the obligation to refer to SirNicholas in a strictly official manner, regardless of the close relationship between the

addressee and the referent.




my

father,

my

Lord

no

examplesyour

father,

my

Lord

no

examples

no

examples

my Lord,

Sir

Nicholas

your

father, my

Lord

Keeper,

his

Lordship

your

father,

my Lord

your

father

no

examples

Fig. 4. Sir Nicholas Bacon: reference.



17/36

(18) I have spoken with my cousyn Stubbes and by my int[reaty] he is contented

the matter for the purchase to ha[ve] in suspence untyll my Lord your

fathers comyng in to the countrye. (BACON: 1578, Christopher Heydon, II,

17)(19) These shalbe tadvertise yowe that, as I am enformed, my Lord Keper of the

Great Seall hath bowght the lordship of Stifkey alias Stewkey of Mr.

Banyard, and I for mye owne parte mean not to deall in sewttes of law with

any thinge that apperteineth unto his honour. (BACON: 1570, Stephen

Nevinson, I, 13)

(20) After our hartie commendacions. We have bene made acquainted with your

letters written to our verie good Lord the Lord Keper, your father, towchinge

suche spoiles as have bene committed uppon that coaste by certeine

Englishemen pretendinge to serve under forreyne commission, contrarie to

Her Majestes proclamacion in that case sett forthe. (BACON: 1576, Privy

Council, I, 208)

The material indicates that in direct address Sir Nicholass superior social status, as well as

his social role as the father of the family, overrules whatever influence distance may have

on the use of formulae. The use of referential terms, however, is more governed by the

nature of the relationship between Sir Nicholas and the writer/the addressee. Kinship is

recognised, and in many cases even emphasised, by using a KT alone, or together with a

title, in letters written to Sir Nicholass family members.

4.2. Nathaniel Bacon (1546?1622)

The second son of Sir Nicholas and Jane Bacon, Nathaniel, was educated at Trinity

College, Cambridge, and Grays Inn. In spite of his fathers eminent position at Court,

Nathaniel stayed in Norfolk, and after his marriage to Anne, daughter of Sir Thomas

Gresham, and acquiring five children, he was content to keep office as a local J.P. for almost

50 years. He became a valued member of many commissions and twice Sheriff of Norfolk

before being knighted in 1604.

Nathaniel was an earnest, severe and rather self-righteous man (Hassell Smith et al.,

1978: xvii). He was a true puritan, and his letters consisted more of facts of business andpolitics than of ordinary life and everyday gossip. His interests lie in finding ways in which

legislation could be used to reduce the ills of society, and his puritan heart was set on social

and moral reform. In his opinion, the church and its bishops should do what they did best:

preach and teach, not administrate.

If we look at the direct address used in letters to Nathaniel in Fig. 5, we can

see a clear division between the letters that are written by those who are close to

Nathaniel, i.e., family, kin and friends, and those that are written by more distant

correspondents.

Nuclear family members use FN, LN, KT, as well as combinations of all of them. Sir

Nicholas addresses Nathaniel with the forms son Nathaniel, son Bacon or plain FN,brothers and sisters use terms like brother Nathaniel or good brother, but Nathaniels half-

brother Anthony addresses him also as brother Bacon. Nathaniels daughter Anne Town-



18/36

shend begins her letter with most dear father. Example (21) shows direct address in a letter

from Edward Bacon, Nathaniels younger brother.

(21) Brother, I somewhat dout yow have not received all [the letters] I have

sent yow. Thome Hawtyn telleth me of [a] letter [that] shold not be delivered,

beinge inclosed in a letter from hym [to] yow. (BACON: 1572, Edward Bacon,

I, 42)

More examples of similar type of positively polite address formulae can be found when

looking at letters written by other relatives, such as in-laws: cousin Nath, son Nathaniel,

brother Nathaniel and son Bacon are common. Example (22) is a passage from Nathaniels

cousin Robert Blackman, showing a typical term of address in a relatives letter. KT is an

inseparable part of an address form here, especially in letters from Nathaniels in-laws

(Example 23; from Nathaniels father-in-law Sir Thomas Gresham).

(22) Cosen Nath, yow shall understande that I thancke Gode that I am well

recowered, thanckes be to God, and I troste to se yow at Cockethrope shortelyafter Newerstyde [New-years tide]. (BACON: 1573? Robert Blackman, I, 99)

(23) Sonne Bacon, I thanke you for the paines you have taken about my busines.

And wheras [you] writt me that Mr Sydnie claymeth mor land bie 7 or 8 acrs

then was ment should be passed unto him and therfore desier to have the

counterpaine of his conveyance, I would have sent you the same but I cannot

presentlie come bie yt, but at the terme I will take advise therin. (BACON: 1579,

Thomas Gresham, II, 108)

Negative politeness is used when social distance varies: family servants

address Nathaniel with the highly deferential right worshipful, your worship or yourhonour (Example 24), whereas friends use sir and the more neutral good Mr Bacon

(Example 25).




brother,brother

Bacon,

brotherNathaniel,

most dear

father

son,Nathaniel,

brother

brotherBacon,

brother

Nathaniel,cousin

Nath

son,cousin,

son

Bacon

my good

friend, Sir,

MrNathaniel,

Mr Bacon

Sir, Your

Worship,

Right

Worshipful,

your

Lordship,

Mr Bacon,

Mr

Nathaniel

Sir, Mr

Nathaniel,

cousin

Bacon,

Mr

Sheriff

Sir, Mr

Bacon

Fig. 5. Nathaniel Bacon: direct address.



19/36

(24) Syr, my dewtye remembryd thys ys to lett your worchype understand that I have

talked with Mr Bosom for a thowsand wod and he sayth that you shall have of the

best & better chepe than he wyll sell to any man, but I could not gett hym to name

anye pryce how he wold sell ytt; (BACON: 1576, John Mounford, I, 77)(25) I perceve by your letter, good Mr Bacon, that Mr Sidnay with other lessees

enter apon courts leets and manreds of men to the great prejudice, and almost

overthrowe, of my hole office wherof you have the deputation with some charge

which you bestowed on me. (BACON: 1591, Roger North, III, 117)

More distant writers may alter their address by using formulae ranging from the neutral

cousin Bacon to the negatively polite siror right worshipful, as seen in Example (26). The

form Master Bacon is commonly used in this category (Example 27; a letter of John

Saunders, a servant of Nathaniels father-in-law), and forms like good Mr Sheriff, Mr

Nathaniel and mine loving friend Mr Bacon also appear.16

(26) Right worshipfull, my duetie remembred. Yt may please you to understand that

this day the constables of Aylesham showed your letter sent to theim yesterday

to Sir Edward Clere who demaunded of theim where the first warrant was,

which they told him was with the chief constables as the tr[u]th was. (BACON:

1583, Stephen Drury, II, 270)

(27) Mr Bacon, my dewtie of humble commendations remembred. The opportunitie

of this [the] bringer, with the remembraunce of the manifolde benefites

from you received, woulde not suffer me to let slipe this occasion but that

I must troble you with these rude lines. (BACON: 1576, John Saunders, I,

183184)

Referential terms used by nuclear family members, presented in Fig. 6, do not differ much

from the direct address. My brother FN or LN is used, and Sir Nicholas refers to his son

with my son Nathaniel. Nathaniels wife Anne uses, on the other hand, only the term my

husband in letters to her relatives (Example 28).

(28) My husbande hetherto hath provided nothinge towardes our goinge to house. I

thinke the let be because he is not able. It were a hard matter by our one yeare ssavinge to spare so mutch as wolde serve to provide us stuff for our house but in

the meanest sort. (BACON: 1572, Anne Bacon 3, I, 25)

The form Mr Bacon is used by other writers. What clearly differs from the formulae used by

distant writers in direct address is the fact that the positively polite form your brother

Nathaniel appears alongside of more negatively polite forms like your lordships son Mr

Nathaniel Bacon, as seen in Example (29). These terms are all used in letters to either

16 Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1995) have also used Nathaniel for a case study on address forms in

letter salutations. They point out (1995: 582) that letters to Nathaniel included a strategy called no-naming which

was a convention often used in official correspondence. However, in letters written to Nathaniel, those who use

no-naming also include members of his immediate kin, for which reason Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg

conclude that no-naming itself does not mean distance or lack of familiarity.



20/36

Nathaniels father or brother, which naturally explains their use in this context. It clearly is a

mixed form which may be seen as a compromise between a respectful term towards the

addressee ( your Lordship), the term the writer suspects the addressee would use of the

referent (sonne), and the term he would himself use of the referent ( Maister Nathaniell

Bacon).

(29) I have received your letter and the coppie of a letter from your Lordships sonne

Maister Nathaniell Bacon, wherin he declarethe of the spoyle that ys don apponthe coast of Norffolke and Suffolke by certeyne shippes under the cooloure of the

Kynge of Spayne his lycence. (BACON: 1576, Edward Fiennes, I, 204)

The overall use of direct address in letters written to Nathaniel seems to be more varied

than address in letters to his father. Social distance between the correspondents is

recognised, in that more positively polite formulae are used within the family and more

negatively polite terms when the writer comes from outside Nathaniels kin. Referential

terms clearly vary according to the addressee of the letter and his/her relationship with

Nathaniel: in reference to his father, KTs are present, but this time also plain KT FN

(without a title) is usedsomething that in Sir Nicholass case would seem inappropriateat the time.

5. Discussion

5.1. General observations

5.1.1. Address and reference: structure and forms

When we look at the letters written to Sir Nicholas, we can see that the addressees social

status as the Lord Keeper and his role as the father of the Bacon family shows very clearly inthe use of direct address formulae. Your Lordship, Sir,your HonourandRight Honourable are

used regardless of the distance between thewriter and the addressee. Also in referencehis title




my

husband

my son

Nathaniel,

my

brother

Nathaniel,

my

brother

no

examples

no

examples

no

examples

Mr Bacon Mr Bacon,

Mr

Nathaniel

Bacon

your

brother

Nathaniel,

your son Mr

Nathaniel

Bacon,

Mr Bacon

Fig. 6. Nathaniel Bacon: reference.



21/36

(Sir) is frequently mentioned, as are the terms my lord, his Lordship and the Lord Keeper. KT

is another obligatory part of reference when either the writer or the addressee is related to Sir

Nicholas. It is also used together with title in such cases where the term chosen could

otherwise refer to many referents (e.g., my lord). When the term my lord is used alone,especially in letters written to Nathaniel, it is taken to mean Sir Nicholas only. This is

supported by the fact that when referring to some other referent entitled to be called my lord,

writers almost always use an additional reference-specifier, as in my Lord Coke, my Lord

Treasurer, my Lord of Oxford and my Lord his Grace of Canterbury.

The direct address that Nathaniel Bacon receives from his correspondents clearly varies

according to the writer in question. FN and KTs are used by close correspondents, whereas

more distant writers often use titles and LN. The use of reference terms follows that of Sir

Nicholas, in that KTs are used in most cases. Only when both the writer and the addressee

are distant to Nathaniel, is title LN used without a KT. In order for the referent of the KT

to be understood, FN or LN is mentioned in most cases.

Wilson and Zeitlyn (1995: 81) have argued that, especially in regard to KTs, people tend

to use basic expressions (Mommy) in direct address, whereas compound expressions

(Tommys Dad) are used when referring to a third party.17 Whether this applies to my

material depends on what counts as a compound expression in the Early Modern period.

If we understand a combined phrase as including reference to both the addressee and the

referent (instead of only the proposed reference to two separate referents, as in Tommys

Dad), the answer is in the affirmative. In both Sir Nicholass and Nathaniels case such

referential terms as my lord your father or your son Mr Nathaniel Bacon may count as

combined entities in which KTs deictically modify the main address forms (my lord, MrNathaniel Bacon), but I would argue that both in reference and direct address different

degrees of basicness and compoundness should be distinguished. For these purposes the

idea of a politeness scale (as proposed and used, e.g., in Nevala, 2003) might be applicable,

although it does cause problems in comparing the use of direct address to that of reference

termsthe main reason it is not used in this study.

If we take a look at the plain structure of both the direct address and reference, we may

draw conclusions about which forms can be used as reference terms without any

modifications. When referring to Sir Nicholas, there is only one address form, my (very

good) lord, that can be used in this way. In the case of other titles/honorifics, at least the

modifying pronouns must be changed according to the point of view of the writer/addressee, and most often FN is added to the title Sir.

In reference to Nathaniel, direct address forms such as my brotherand my cousin can be

used as such, although in direct address they often appear without the defining pronoun, or

the pronoun is changed as in Sir Nicholass case. In addition to the use of KTs, title LN

(Mr Bacon) can also be used in both direct address and reference. There are not, however,

any cases of title FN LN in address, as there are in reference.

FN in reference seems to be restricted to a certain use. As we saw in Fig. 4, when

referring to Sir Nicholas, FN cannot be used alone, but must be used in the form Sir

17 Schegloff (1996: 443, 447) notes that KTs like daddy and mom are third-person terms which may often be

used for referring either to the speaker him/herself or to the addressee in situations ofsimplified register (e.g.

when talking to children).



22/36

Nicholas. In Nathaniels case (Fig. 6) the FN usage is frequent also in reference, and FN is

used both by immediate family as well as more distant writers. In my opinion, this shows

another difference between direct address forms and referential terms: whereas in direct

address FN can be considered a marker of positive politeness, for referential purposes bothFN and LN may be used as what I have called referent specifiers, i.e., as markers that

separate the referent from, for example, other family members. Naturally then, if there are

several possible referents for, e.g., the term your son, adding FN makes it clear to the

addressee which of his/her sons is in fact referred to.

5.1.2. Deictic pronouns and modifying adjectives

As I noted earlier (in Section 2.2.1), the pronouns my and your appear both in direct

address and in reference, but it seems that in direct address they are mostly a conventio-

nalised part of the address form, as for example in your worship, your honour, your

Lordship or my very good lord. The pronoun my is also most often used together with a KT,

as in my brother or my good cousin. From the latter cases the pronoun has later been

excluded or replaced by dear.

In reference, however, these pronouns seem to have a clearer deictic function, which can

be seen for example in the term your father or in my brother Nathaniel. There is some

evidence of the opposite as well: when used by writers who are socially distant either to the

addressee or to the referent, pronouns in terms like my lordor my Lord Keeperare used as

part of a conventionalised whole.18 Probably due to its more restricted use also as a

positively polite address pronoun, thou is not used with titles (e.g., the form *thy lord).19

Formulae including thou

KT, e.g., thy father, do not appear in this material either, whichpoints to the marginal use of the pronoun in a context like this.

Modifying adjectives used in direct address and reference are few in the material. Forms

such as right worshipful and very favourable can be used only in direct address, whereas the

adjective (very) good appears also in referential terms. The fact that the adjective dear is

not used for either of the informants is most probably due to the selection of the material.

Nevertheless, the modifiers present seem to be quite conventionalised in nature, as is also

most often the case where pronouns are used.20

5.2. Designing axes

5.2.1. Typical use of address and reference in the material

On the basis of my material it is possible to construct simplified charts of the typical

use of both direct address and reference for both informants. Due to the nature of my

18 The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989) gives several occurences for the

combination my lord, the first one dated as early as c. 1440. It can be assumed, therefore, that by the time the

Bacon letters were written, my lord was already a conventionalised formula.19 For one, Busse (2002: 286) has found that in Shakespeare there is a clear connection between the use of

thou and terms of endearment. In addition to its use alongside with terms of abuse, it often functions as a marker

of extreme intimacy. This is also corroborated by Nevala (2002).20 Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1995: 567) point out that forms such as worshipful sir and my very

good lord were gradually semantically bleached. Also Braun (1988: 256) discusses what she calls faded

literal meaning in reference to the nominal form mister, originating from master.



23/36

written and historical material, the following figures are only indicative of the usage in

general, which is the case especially with reference.

In Fig. 7 we can see that somebody in Sir Nicholass position would be addressed

directly with a title/honorific regardless of the distance between the writer and theaddressee. When he is referred to, however, a more complicated picture appears (see

below). Fig. 7 shows, secondly, the direct address model used in letters to Nathaniel. The

general trend seems to be one in which FN is used when the writer is close (family) to the

addressee, whereas at the opposite end of the scale titles and honorifics ( LN) are

mostly used. KTs appear on the scale, mostly combined with FN or LN.

Fig. 8 shows that when either the writer or the addressee is close to the referent, the most

typical reference term is KT (in the close addresseereferent relationship, title KT is also

used). When the referent is equally close to the writer as to the addressee, the title is

connected to either plain FN or FN LN. The same pattern can be seen when the writer

and the addressee are both distant to the referent: the terms most often used are title FN,title FN LN and plain title/honorific. In Nathaniels case, FN is used as an identifier in

the letters written to his father. Naturally, this is redundant when referring to Sir Nicholas in

letters written to Nathaniel.

5.2.2. The two poles of politeness

The use of positive and negative politeness in Brown and Levinsons terms seems clear

when we look at direct address. Titles and honorifics are used as conveying negative

politeness, whereas FNs and KTs are used as positively polite address forms. In regard to

reference terms, the two sides of politeness become, however, more difficult to define or

categorise. In Sir Nicholass case, referential terms seem to be more mixed and lesspoliteness-specific than direct forms, meaning that also the non-kin writers who are

equal in power to the referent use what could in direct address be called positively polite

NEGATIVELY

polite

Writer

Addressee

CLOSE

Writer

Addressee

DISTANT

Sir Nicholas

Bacon

honorific honorific honorific honorific

Nathaniel Bacon

POSITIVELY

polite

title + LN

KT + LN

KT

KT + FNFN

title

title + LN

title + FN

friendship term

honorific

honorific + title +

LN

title

honorific

honorific + title +

LN

title

title + LN

friendship term +

title + LN

Fig. 7. Direct address.



24/36

forms (i.e., KTs). Also, judged by the distance factor, socially inferior writers, such as

family servants, use negatively polite forms throughout in both direct address and

reference, although there are also examples of the use of KTs (e.g., your father) in their

referential usage. In general, socially superior writers are allowed more variation in theaddress and reference they use of others. This can be used to either emphasise, e.g., by

using the term my friendor other forms like FNs, or down-grade a relationship with the

addressee or referent by using either negatively polite forms or a positive form when a

negative one would be expected.

However, when the distance between the writer and the addressee, or the referent, is

very close, as in nuclear family relationships, there seem to be no decisive differences

between the direct address and the referential terms: what could be called positively

polite forms appear in both categories. If we look at Sir Nicholas and Nathaniel alone,

the direct forms of address that Sir Nicholas receives from his immediate family are

naturally more formal and negatively polite than the ones his son receives. This must bedue to the ideal power balance within families in the Early Modern period: a father was

considered to be superior to his wife and children.

5.2.3. Conventions or compromises?

When the use of direct address and reference is looked at from the point of view of

compromises and conventions, the results of my analysis form a relatively clear pattern.

The reference terms used to define a third party in letters between mutually close

writers and addressees seem to be more conventionalised in the sense that KTs are used

in most cases in the material. In family relations, it is not only clear who my father

or your husband is, but both the writer and the addressee know that leaving outthe referents title (and so emphasising the referents status) will not constitute an

FTA.

Add

Wr

Reftitle +

N

RefKT +

N

Reftitle +

KT +

N

Fig. 8. Reference.



25/36

In more distant relations, the situation is somewhat different. In many cases the writer

has to make a compromise between the term he would himself use of the referent and the

term he knows or suspects the addressee would use, at indicating a sense of respect for

the addressee the same time. As noted in Section 4.2, in such cases mixed formulae likeyour lordships son Mr Nathaniel Bacon may be used, by which the writer simulta-

neously expresses the status of the addressee, the family relationship between the

addressee and the referent, and the status and identity of the referent.21

We may then ask whether using reference terms in general means making compro-

mises. If, for example, there is a possibility that some outsiders may see the letter, and

thus the terms of reference used, is it probable that the reference is chosen on a more

conscious level than usual? At least when the relationship between the writer and the

addressee is distant, this seems to be the case: the writer often accommodates to the term

used by the addressee and other bystanders and over-readers. This may also be the

case in public or formal letters by multiple senders, such as those from the Privy

Council to Nathaniel. As we have already seen in Example (20), Sir Nicholas is referred

to by using a term our very good Lord the Lord Keeper, your father, despite the fact

that the privy councillors were relatively familiar to the addressee. We may of course

wonder if in this case Sir Nicholas can be considered as a ratified auditor, and how

much the choice of such a term is a product of the auditor effect as compared to the

influence of the referents social status in general. Furthermore, the formal register of

the letter in general must have had an influence on the formulation of respect towards Sir

Nicholas as a referent, which more rarely is the case with letters of a more personal

nature.It appears that the referent is the most influential, although it is difficult to choose

a term of reference without taking all the three main participants into account. What

is needed in reference, therefore, is an additional addresseereferent axis which

complements the triangle in which the referent is in the central role instead of the

speaker.

6. Conclusion

This study shows that the factors influencing the choice of both forms of direct addressand terms of reference in a historical material can be measured using present-day

theoretical tools. In a society as hierarchical as Early Modern England, recognition of

social status and the ways in which this could be materialised were an integral part of

peoples everyday relationships.

As for the questions asked at the beginning of this article, if we first consider the

central participant role which most influences the choice of forms in letters, we may

conclude that naturally in direct address it is the addressee, and in reference it is the

referent. If the usage is looked at from the comparative point of view, we may say that

direct address may be considered a norm governing reference in two separate ways.

21 Wilson and Zeitlyn (1995: 71) call this kind of referring via reference to others as using oblique PREs

(person-referring expressions).



26/36

Firstly, referential terms are often chosen and derived from the range of direct address

formulae used of the referent either by the writer or the addressee. Secondly, if address

is taken to be a norm in the sense that Dickey (1997: 271) understands it, i.e., in that

direct address usage is more consistent, reference may be said to derive from it in thiscase as well.

When it comes to the choice of positively and negatively polite forms in address and

reference, either the addressees or the referents very high social status clearly overrides

the distance between the participants, as is the case with Sir Nicholas and the negatively

polite terms he receives. In those cases, however, in which the recognition of status is of

less importance, as we can see from Nathaniels nuclear family relations, positive

politeness becomes the main strategy, at least in the use of direct address. In reference,

the overall situation is more complex, since especially positive politeness cannot be defined

by similar parameters as is the case for direct address. It seems that in reference, the need to

identify the referent neutralises the forms which could be considered most positively

polite in direct address (e.g., FNs), and as a result the politeness scale is in this case only of

secondary importance.

Acknowledgements

My work during the writing of this article was funded by the Research Unit for

Variation and Change in English, a Centre of Excellence funded by the Academy of

Finland.



27/36

Appendix A

Statistics of the material used

Letter collection Number of words Number of letters

BACON 139,004 383

PARKHURST 34,797 93

Recipient/referent Forms of address Total Terms of reference

Sir Nicholas Bacon Sir 1 My/your (late/own) father

Your (good) Lordship 232 My/his (good) Lord

Your Honour 50 Sir Nicholas

Right Honourable 2 (3) My Lord Keeper (of the Gre

My (very good/favourable)Lord

6 His Lordship

My Lord your father

Our very good Lord the Lor

Nathaniel Bacon ((My very) good) brother 52 My son Nathaniel

Brother Bacon 3 My/your brother (Nathaniel)

(Good) brother Nathaniel 8 My husband

Nathaniel 3 Mr (Nathaniel) Bacon

Son (Nathaniel) 6 Your (Lordships) son (Mr N

Son Bacon 3

Most dear father 1

(Good) Sir 70

((My very) good) cousin

(Bacon)

9


28/36

Appendix A. (Continued )

Recipient/Referent Forms of address Total Terms of reference

Cousin Nath/Bacon 2/1

(Good) Mr Bacon 12

My very good/loving friend (Mr Bacon) 2

(Good) Mr Nathaniel 4Your (honour/good) Worship 103

(Your) Right Worshipful (Mr Bacon) 8

Worshipful Sir 5

You, the Sheriff/Good Mr Sheriff 2


29/36

Appendix B.

Sir Nicholas Bacon: direct address

Writer Writer

addressee

Date Number

of letters

Terms used

FN

Nathaniel Bacon Son 15719 29 Sir, Your (good) Lordship,

Your Honour

FS

John Mounford Servant 1572 1 Your Honour

T

Edmund Banyard Gentleman 1574 2 Your (good) Lordship,

Right Honourable, Your

Honour, good my Lord

John Banyard Gentleman 15745 2 Your Honour

Edward Fiennes Lord Admiral 1576 4 Your (good) Lordship, my

very good Lord

George Gascoigne Client 1578 1 my (very (favourable))

good Lord, Your (good)

Lordship

Sir Francis

Walsingham

Secretary

of State

1576 1 Right Honourable and

my very good Lord,

Your LordshipJohn Parkhurst Bishop of

Norwich

15713 4 Your Honour, Your

Lordship

Appendix C.

Sir Nicholas Bacon: reference terms

Writer Writer

referent

Addressee Date Number

of letters

Terms used

FN

Nathaniel Bacon Son Edward Bacon 1583 1 My (late/own)

father, my Lord

Sir William Cecil 157983 3

Anthony Stringer 1570s 1

Lady Anne Gresham 1572 1

Lady Anne Bacon I 1573 1

Sir Thomas Gresham 1572

1573

2

Edward Paston 1575 1

Clement Paston 1575 1



30/36

Appendix C. (Continued )

Writer Writer

referent

Addressee Date Number

of letters

Terms used

Nicholas Bacon II Son Sir William Cecil 1579 3 My father, myLord

Edward Bacon Son Nathaniel Bacon 1572

1576

12 My father, my

Lord

Lady Anne Bacon 1 Wife Nathaniel Bacon 1573 1 My Lord

FO

Robert Bacon Nephew Nathaniel Bacon 1584 1 Your father, my

Lord your father

Robert Blackman Nephew Nathaniel Bacon 1572 1 M y L o rd , y o urfather

FS

John Baker Servant Nathaniel Bacon 1579 1 Sir Nicholas

John Mounford Servant Nathaniel Bacon 1573 3 My Lord

Richard Manser Servant Nathaniel Bacon 1576 1 My Lord, his good

Lord

T

Sir William Cecil Lord High

Treasurer

Nicholas Bacon II 1579 2 Your (late good)

father, my Lordyour father

Stephen Nevinson Rector of

Stiffkey

Reginald Wolfe 1570 1 My Lord Keeper

(of the Great Seal),

his Lordship

Edmund Banyard Gentleman Nathaniel Bacon 1579 2 My Lord your father

Edward Stanhawe Tenant Nathaniel Bacon 1573 1 My Lord your father

Edward Grimstone Attorney Nathaniel Bacon 1573 1 My Lord your father

John Saunders Servant

of TG

Nathaniel Bacon 1576 1 My Lord your father

Sir Christopher

Heydon

Magistrate Nathaniel Bacon 1578 1 My Lord your father

Philip Scudamore Servant of

TG

Nathaniel Bacon 1578 1 His Lordship, my

Lord Keeper

Privy Council Nathaniel Bacon 1576 1 Our very good Lord

the Lord Keeper

your father

Francis Wyndham Nathaniels

brother-

in-law

Nathaniel Bacon 1572

1577

8 My Lord, my Lord

Keeper

Charles Calthorpe Steward of

Yarmouth

Nathaniel Bacon 1573? 1 My Lord

George Powes Clerk of

NBI

Nathaniel Bacon 1581 1 My Lord



31/36

Appendix D.

Nathaniel Bacon: direct address

Writer Writeraddressee Date Number of letters

Terms used

FN

Anthony Bacon Half-brother 1578/1591 2 (My very good)

brother

Edward Bacon Brother 15721587 33 (My) brother,

brother Nathaniel,

brother Bacon

Sir Nicholas Bacon Father 15721578 31 Son, Nathaniel,

son Nathaniel

Nicholas Bacon II Brother 15691592 4 (Good) brotherElizabeth DOyly Sister 15761594 12 (My very(good))

brother

Elizabeth Mansell Sister 1594 1 Brother

Anne Townshend Daughter 1594 1 Most dear father

FO

Lady Anne Bacon I Step-mother 1573 1 Son

Lady Anne Bacon II Sister-in-law 1583 1 Brother Bacon

Robert Bacon Cousin 15761584 3 Sir, my very good

cousin

Robert Blackman Cousin 15721577 3 Cousin NathSir Robert DOyly Brother-in-law 1576 1 Good brother

Winefrid Dutton Mother-in-law 1578 1 NO ADDRESS

Lady Anne Gresham Step-mother-in-law 1582 2 (Good) cousin

Sir Thomas Gresham Father-in-law 15771579 7 (Good) son, son

Bacon

Sir Henry Neville Brother-in-law 15831590 3 Good brother, good

brother Nathaniel

Lady Jane Townshend Fut

Accessing Politeness Axes

Documents

Transcript of Accessing Politeness Axes