Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Pragmatics
Vol. 25:3 (2024) ► pp.355–391

Modal may in requests

A comparison of regional pragmatic variation in Early Modern Scottish and English correspondence

ORCID logo | LMU Munich
This study applies House’s (1996, 2005) dimensions of cross-cultural differences as a diagnostic tool to investigate regional variation regarding two pragmalinguistic requestive patterns with may in Scottish and English non-private letters (1500 to 1700). The dimensional scheme proves a useful tool for explaining similarities and differences in the requestive behaviour in the two varieties. It is shown that, in the sixteenth century, grounders with may are part of a set of downgrading devices employed by letter-writers to counteract the directness and self-orientation particularly of performative requests in both the Scottish and the English correspondence. Moreover, the dimensional analysis explicates the cross-varietal differences regarding may in the seventeenth century correspondence by linking the rise of mitigating may in performative requests in the Scottish letters to the increased self-orientation towards the letter-writer, which is not counter-balanced by other downgraders.
Keywords: Early Modern English, letter-writing, may , Middle Scots, regional pragmatic variation, requests
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Scottish and English non-private correspondence (1500 to 1700)
  • 3.Classification of request strategies
  • 4.The dimensions of cross-cultural differences
    • 4.1Theoretical foundation
    • 4.2Application of the dimensions to Early Modern correspondence data
      • 4.2.1First dimension (directness versus indirectness)
      • 4.2.2Second dimension (orientation towards self versus orientation towards other)
      • 4.2.3Third dimension (orientation towards content versus orientation towards addressee)
      • 4.2.4Fourth dimension (ad hoc formulation versus verbal routines)
  • 5.The dimensions of cross-varietal differences as a diagnostic tool for request strategies in Scottish and English Early Modern letters
    • 5.1Cross-varietal differences – 1500 to 1570
      • 5.1.1Analysis of the four dimensions
      • 5.1.2Shared use of grounders involving modal may
    • 5.2Cross-varietal differences – 1570 to 1640
      • 5.2.1Analysis of the four dimensions
      • 5.2.2Regional variation regarding grounders with may
    • 5.3Cross-varietal differences – 1640 to 1700
      • 5.3.1Analysis of the four dimensions
      • 5.3.2Regional variation regarding mitigating may in performative requests
  • 6.Conclusion: Cross-varietal dimensions of difference as a diagnostic tool for pragmatic variation?
  • Notes
  • Sources
  • References
Published online: 7 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.20013.els
References (42)
Sources
ceecs = The Corpus of Early English Correspondence Sampler. 1998. (Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi and Minna Palander-Collin.) Helsinki: Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
hc = The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. 1991. (Compiled by Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö, Lena Kahlas-Tarkka, Matti Kilpiö, Saara Nevanlinna, Irma Taavitsainen, Terttu Nevalainen and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg.) Helsinki: Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
hcos = The Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots. 1995. (Compiled by Anneli Meurman-Solin.) Helsinki: Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
pceec = Parsed Corpus of Early English Correspondence, text version. 2006. (Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi and Minna Palander-Collin, with additional annotation by Ann Taylor.) Helsinki: University of Helsinki and York: University of York. Distributed through the Oxford Text Archive.Google Scholar
ScotsCorr = The Helsinki Corpus of Scottish Correspondence 1540–1750. 2017. (Compiled by Anneli Meurman-Solin.) Helsinki: Research Unit for the Study of Variation, Contacts and Change in English (varieng), Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. Last accessed 12 June 2023 at: [URL]
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1996. Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Archer, Dawn. 2010. “Speech Acts”. In Andreas Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Historical Pragmatics, 379–417. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barron, Anne. 2008. “The Structure of Requests in Irish English and English English”. In Klaus Schneider and Anne Barron (eds), Variational Pragmatics, 35–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johannsson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1987. “Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different?” Journal of Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Monthly of Language Studies 11 (1): 131–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Juliane House. 1989. “Cross-Cultural and Situational Variation in Requesting Behaviour”. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper (eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, 123–154. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper (eds). 1989a. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
. 1989b. “The CCSARP Coding Manual”. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper (eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, 273–294. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Dawn Archer. 2008. “Requests and Directness in Early Modern English Trial Proceedings and Play Texts, 1640–1760”. In Andreas Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Speech Acts in the History of English, 45–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan and Jane Demmen. 2011. “Nineteenth-Century English Politeness: Negative Politeness, Conventional Indirect Requests and the Rise of the Individual Self”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 12 (1–2): 49–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daybell, James. 2012. The Material Letter in Early Modern England: Manuscript Letters and the Culture and Practices of Letter-Writing, 1512–1635. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
dost = A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue. 1931–2002. (Edited by William Craigie, Adam J. Aitken, James A. C. Stevenson and Marace Dareau.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. Last accessed 13 June 2023 at: [URL]
Elsweiler, Christine. 2019. “Pragmatic and Formulaic Uses of Shall and Will in Older Scots and Early Modern English Official Letter Writing”. In Birte Bös and Claudia Claridge (eds), Norms and Conventions in the History of English, 167–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “Convergence and Divergence in Two Historical Varieties of English: Pragmalinguistic Strategies in Commissive and Directive Speech Acts in Scottish and English Letters (1500–1700)”. Special Issue, “Focus on English Linguistics: Varieties Meet Histories”. Anglistik (32.1 Spring 2021): 109–132.Google Scholar
. 2022. “Gender Variation in the Requestive Behaviour of Early Modern Scottish and English Letter-Writers? A Study of Private Correspondence”. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics 8 (1): 55–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane. 1989a. “‘Oh Excuse Me Please…’: Apologizing in a Foreign Language”. In Bernhard Kettemann, Peter Bierbaumer, Alwin Fill and Annemarie Karpf (eds), Englisch Als Zweitsprache [‘ English as a Second Language ’], 303–327. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1989b. “Politeness in English and German: The Functions of Please and Bitte ”. In Shoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper (eds), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, 96–119. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Contrastive Discourse Analysis and Misunderstanding: The Case of German and English”. In Marlis Hellinger and Ulrich Ammon (eds), Contrastive Sociolinguistics, 345–361. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Politeness in Germany: Politeness in GERMANY?” In Leo Hickey and Miranda Stewart (eds), Politeness in Europe, 13–28. Bristol: Channel View Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane and Gabriele Kasper. 1981. “Politeness Markers in English and German”. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine, 157–185. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas. 2002. “Towards a History of English Directives”. In Andreas Fischer, Gunnel Tottie and Hans Martin Lehmann (eds), Text Types and Corpora: Studies in Honour of Udo Fries, 165–175. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Directives in Old English: Beyond Politeness?” In Andreas Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Speech Acts in the History of English, 27–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kranich, Svenja, Hanna Bruns and Elisabeth Hampel. 2021. “Requests across Varieties and Cultures: Norms are Changing (but not everywhere in the same way)”. Special issue, “Focus on English Linguistics: Varieties Meet Histories”. Anglistik (32.1 Spring 2021): 87–108.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mack, Peter. 2002. Elizabethan Rhetoric: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meurman-Solin, Anneli. 1993. Variation and Change in Early Scottish Prose: Studies Based on the Helsinki Corpus of Older Scots. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Millar, Robert McColl. 2018. Modern Scots: An Analytical Survey. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. A Sociolinguistic History of Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moessner, Lilo. 2010. “Directive Speech Acts: A Cross-Generic Diachronic Study”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 11 (2): 219–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 2004. “Letter Writing: Introduction”. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5 (2): 181–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 1995. “Constraints on Politeness: The Pragmatics of Address Formulae in Early English Correspondence”. In Andreas Jucker (ed.), Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English, 541–601. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Klaus. 2012. “Appropriate Behaviour across Varieties of English”. Journal of Pragmatics 441: 1022–1037. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Klaus and Anne Barron. 2008. “Where Pragmatics and Dialectology Meet: Introducing Variational Pragmatics”. In Klaus Schneider and Anne Barron (eds), Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages, 1–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Linguistic Politeness Research: Quo Vadis?” In Richard Watts, Sachiko Ide and Konrad Ehlich (eds), Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice, xi–xlvii. (Second revised and expanded edition.) Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Elsweiler, Christine
2023. The Influence of French Pragmalinguistic Patterns on the Requestive Style in 16th-Century Scottish Letters. Linguistica 63:1-2 ► pp. 63 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.