Cover not available
Article published In:
Dialogues in Diachrony: Celebrating Historical Corpora of Speech-related Texts
Edited by Merja Kytö and Terry Walker
[Journal of Historical Pragmatics 19:2] 2018
► pp. 186–204

“Heav’n bess you, my Dear”

Using the ESDD corpus to investigate address terms in historical drama dialogue

| Uppsala University
The English and Swedish Drama Dialogue (ESDD) corpus is a sociopragmatically tagged corpus of English and Swedish drama texts from the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Using this corpus, I investigated the use of the address terms Fool, Dear, Sir and Brother. The study focused on the contexts where these terms were found and traced diachronic usage patterns. The main questions asked in the investigation concerned, first, the speaker’s attitude towards the addressees when using the address phrases and whether attitudes connected with particular phrases changed over time; second, whether the phrases could be said to signal intimacy or distance between the interlocutors.
Keywords: address terms, drama dialogue, English, sociopragmatics, Swedish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Drama dialogue
    • 1.2Address terms
    • 1.3Aim and scope
  • 2.The ESDD corpus
    • 2.1Sociopragmatic tagging
    • 2.2Corpus makeup
  • 3.Method
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1 Sir
    • 4.2 Dear
    • 4.3 Brother / Bror
    • 4.4 Fool
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Corpora
  • References
Published online: 1 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.00018.ang
References (29)
Corpora
A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (CED). 2006. Compiled under the supervision of Merja Kytö (Uppsala University) and Jonathan Culpeper (Lancaster University).Google Scholar
English and Swedish Drama Dialogue (ESDD). Compiled by Linnéa Anglemark, Merja Kytö, Ulla Melander Marttala and Mats Thelander (Uppsala University), and Sofia Gustafson Capková (Stockholm University).
References
Archer, Dawn and Jonathan Culpeper. 2003. “Sociopragmatic Annotation: New Directions and Possibilities in Historical Corpus Linguistics”. In Andrew Wilson, Paul Rayson and Tony McEnery (eds), Corpus Linguistics by the Lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech, 37–58. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Braun, Friedrike. 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of Pattern and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calvo, Clara. 1990. Power Relations and Fool-Master Discourse in Shakespeare: A Discourse Stylistics Approach to Dramatic Dialogue. PhD thesis. University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Merja Kytö. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Mick Short and Peter Verdonk (eds). 1998. Exploring the Language of Drama: From Text to Context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dunkling, Leslie. 1990. A Dictionary of Epithets and Terms of Address. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 1972. “Sociolinguistic Rules of Address”. In John B. Pride and Janet Holmes (eds), Sociolinguistics, 225–240. Hammondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gustafson Capková, Sofia, Linnéa Anglemark, Merja Kytö, Ulla Melander Marttala and Mats Thelander. 2016. English and Swedish Drama Dialogue/Engelsk och svensk dramadialog 1725–1950. ESDD. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Herman, Vimala. 1995. Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue as Interaction in Plays. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Andreas and Andreas H. Jucker. 1995. “The Historical Perspective in Pragmatics”. In Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 3–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja and Terry Walker. 2006. Guide to A Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, Juhani Rudanko and Erik Smitterberg. 2000. “Building a Bridge between the Present and the Past: A Corpus of 19th-Century English”. ICAME Journal 241: 85–98.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1999. “The Distribution and Function of Vocatives in American and British English Conversation”. In Hilde Hasselgård and Signe Oksefjell (eds), Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson, 107–118. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Liesenfeld, Vincent J. 1984. The Licensing Act of 1737. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Melander Marttala, Ulla and Carin Östman. 2000. Svensk dramadialog under tre sekler – en projektbeskrivning [FUMS Rapport 200]. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Nevala, Minna. 2004. Address in Early English Correspondence: Its Forms and Socio-Pragmatic Functions. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1996. “Forms of Address in Early English Correspondence”. In Terttu Nevalainen and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg (eds), Sociolinguistics and Language History: Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 168–181. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Sennefelt, Karin. 2014. “Wine, Corruption, and the Politics of Intoxication in Eighteenth-Century Stockholm”. Past & Present 2221 (suppl 9): 277–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spitz, Alice. 2005. Power Plays: The Representation of Mother-Daughter Disputes in Contemporary Plays by Women: A Study in Discourse Analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis. Philosophische Fakultät, Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 1995. “Interjections in Early Modern English. From Imitations of Spoken to Conventions of Written Language”. In Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 439–465. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teleman, Ulf. 2003. Tradis och funkis – Svensk språkvård och språkpolitik efter 1800 (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska språknämnden 87). Stockholm: Nordstedts.Google Scholar
Thelander, Kerstin. 2007. “Tilltal och tilltalsväxling i svensk dramadialog”. Språk och Stil 171: 49–85.Google Scholar
Toolan, Michael. 1988. “Compromising Positions: Systemic Linguistics and the Locally Managed Semiotics of Dialogue”. In David Birch and Michael O’Toole (eds), Functions of Style, 249–260. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria
2024. ‘My dearest Clara … my dear friend’ – Personal Names and direct address in Mary Hamilton’s private correspondence. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 10:1 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Ryś, Aleksandra
2023. Jak frazeologizmy funkcjonują w różnych wariantach i kontekstach? Funkcjonalna analiza materiału historycznojęzykowego na podstawie jednostki jak Boga kocham. LingVaria 18:2(36) ► pp. 323 ff. DOI logo
Buyle, Anouk
2021. Dear, my dear, my lady, your ladyship. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 31:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.