Cover not available
Part of
Politeness in Nineteenth-Century Europe
Edited by Annick Paternoster and Susan Fitzmaurice
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 299] 2019
► pp. 39–74

Chapter 1
Address forms in grammars and textbooks of West and South Slavic languages in the eighteenth and nineteenth century

| Independent scholar, Vienna
This contribution studies address forms in grammars and textbooks of several West and South Slavic languages of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, especially in the pedagogical dialogues that accompany these works. The languages in focus had been using several address forms borrowed from German (or Italian), and due to the efforts of linguistic purism, these borrowings were eliminated in the nineteenth century. The result is in all those languages a system of address pronouns consisting of the second person singular and plural. The purist efforts were motivated by the wish of restoring an older language form, or to approach an imagined ideal type of Slavic language; they are an effect of the national movements of these non-dominant ethnic groups (National Revival).
Keywords: address terms, linguistic purism, National Revival, Slavic languages, Czech language, Slovak language, Slovene language, BCS, dialogue collections
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Dialogue books
  • 3.Czech
  • 4.Slovak
  • 5.Slovene
  • 6.Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian
    • 6.1Bound address forms
      • 6.1.1Kajkavian
      • 6.1.2Slavenoserbian
      • 6.1.3Štokavian
    • 6.2Free address forms
    • 6.3Summary for BCS
  • 7.Summary
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 10 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.299.02bet
References (37)
References
Betsch, Michael. 1999. “Dialogsammlungen in tschechischen und polnischen Grammatiken des 18. Jahrhunderts.” In Beiträge der Europäischen Slavistischen Linguistik (Polyslav), Band 2, ed. by Katharina Böttger, Markus Giger, and Björn Wiemer, 33–40. München: Otto Sagner Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2000. Diskontinuität und Tradition im System der tschechischen Anredepronomina (1700–1850). München: Otto Sagner Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “The System of Czech Bound Address Forms until 1700.” In Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen, and Andreas Jucker, 125–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betsch, Michael, and Tilman Berger. 2009. “Anredesysteme.” In Die slavischen Sprachen. The Slavic Languages. Ein internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforschung [An International Handbook of their Structure, their History and their Investigation], Band 1 / Volume 1, ed. by Sebastian Kempgen, Peter Kosta, Tilman Berger, and Karl Gutschmidt, Chapter 76, 1019–1028. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Friederike. 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brehmer, Bernhard. 2005. “Titles as Forms of Address in South Slavonic Languages. A Case of Social Semantics or Pragmatics?” Slavica Gandensia 32: 9–33.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman. 1960. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity”. In Style in Language, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, 253–276. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, and Merja Kytö. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues. Spoken Interaction as Writing [Studies in English Language]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daiber, Thomas. 1997. “Zur Verbreitung der „Dialogues familiers“ von J. R. des Pepliers in einigen tschechischen, polnischen, russischen und kroatischen Grammatiken.” In Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik. V. JungslavistInnen-Treffen Bautzen 1996, ed. by Jana Schulze, and Eduard Werner, 67–91. München: Otto Sagner Verlag. Google Scholar
Ďurovič, Ľubomír. 1980. “Slovak.” In The Slavic Literary Languages: Formation and Development, ed. by Alexander M. Schenker, and Edward Stankiewicz, 211–228. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Robert D. 1996. The Balkan Slavic Appellative. München, Newcastle: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
2013. “Language, Religion, and Nationalism: The Case of the Former Serbo-Croatian.” In Typen slavischer Standardsprachen. Theoretische, methodische und empirische Zugänge, ed. by Daniel Müller, and Monika Wingender, 217–231. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz.Google Scholar
Head, Brian F. 1978. “Respect Degrees in Pronominal Reference.” In Universals of Human Language. Volume 3: Word Structure, ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, 151–211. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hroch, Miroslav. 1998. “The Social Interpretation of Linguistic Demands in European National Movements.” In Regional and National Identities in Europe in the XIXth and XXth Centuries. Les identités régionales et nationales en Europe aux XIXe et XXe siécles [Regional and National Identities in Europe in the XIXth and XXth Centuries], ed. by Heinz-Gerhard Haupt, Michael G. Müller, and Stuart Woolf, 67–96. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
. 2004. “From Ethnic Group toward the Modern Nation: The Czech Case.” Nations and Nationalism 10 (1–2): 95–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jelovšek, Alenka. 2011. “Razvoj zaimenskega ogovornega sistema v slovenskih pismenih virih do leta 1850 [The development of the pronominal address system in Slovene written sources up to 1850].” Slavistična revija 59 (2): 195–211.Google Scholar
Keipert, Helmut. 1991. “Die „Wiener Anleitung“ in der slavischen Grammatikographie des ausgehenden 18. Jahrhunderts.” Zeitschrift für slavische Philologie 51 (1): 23–59.Google Scholar
Klinčić, Ivana. 2011. “Opis tvorbe komparativa u gramatikama hrvatskoga kajkavskog književnog jezika [Description of the formation of the comparative in grammars of the Croatian Kajkavian literary language].” Rasprave instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikosvlovlje 37 (2): 423–442.Google Scholar
Lauterbach, Anastassija. 1999. Anredeformen im Serbischen um 1800. Die Schauspielbearbeitungen von Joakim Vujić (1772–1847). München: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehfeldt, Werner. 2014. “Herausbildung der Standardsprache bei Serben und Kroaten.” In Die slavischen Sprachen. The Slavic Languages. Ein internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforschung [An International Handbook of their Structure, their History and their Investigation], Band 2 / Volume 2, ed. by Karl Gutschmidt, Sebastian Kempgen, Tilman Berger, and Peter Kosta, Chapter 108, 1446–1469. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinger, Jasna. 1989. “Dihotomija u oslovljavanju: Upotreba zamjenica Vi i Ti u saraevskom regionu [Dichotomy in address. The use of the pronouns Vi and Ti in the Sarajevo region].” Književni jezik 18 (4): 187–206.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Listen, Paul. 1999. The Emergence of German Polite Sie. Cognitive and Sociolinguistic Parameters. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Moser, Michael. 2002. “Prüfsteine des Austroslawismus: Das „Allgemeine Reichs-Gesetz- und Regierungsblatt für das Kaiserthum Oesterreich“ und die „Juridisch-politische Terminologie für die slawischen Sprachen Oesterreichs“.” In Crossroads of cultures: Central Europe, ed. by Ivo Pospíšil, 75–129. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.Google Scholar
Naylor, Kenneth E. 1980. “Serbo-Croatian.” In The Slavic Literary Languages: Formation and Development, ed. by Alexander M. Schenker, and Edward Stankiewicz, 65–83. New Haven: Yale Concilium on International and Area Studies.Google Scholar
Radtke, Edgar. 1994. Gesprochenes Französisch und Sprachgeschichte. Zur Rekonstruktion der Gesprächskonstitution in Dialogen französischer Sprachlehrbücher des 17. Jahrhunderts unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der italienischen Adaptionen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reindl, Donald F. 2007. “Slovene Ultra-Formal Address: Borrowing, Innovation, and Analysis.” Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 6: 151–168.Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2015. “Responding to Pre-Requests: The Organisation of hai x ‘do you have x’ Sequences in Italian.” Journal of Pragmatics 82: 5–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlund, Katrin. 2009. Genese und Gebrauch von Höflichkeitsformeln im Serbischen und Deutschen. Ein funktionales Modell der Höflichkeit und seine Anwendung. Müchen: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Stankiewicz, Edward. 1984. Grammars and Dictionaries of the Slavic Languages from the Middle Ages up to 1850. An Annotated Bibliography. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, George. 1988. The Impact of the Illyrian Movement on the Croatian Lexicon. München: Otto Sagner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Linguistic Purism. London, New York: LongmanGoogle Scholar
. 1997a. “The Role of German Loanwords in the Slavic Languages of the Former Habsburg Empire.” Canadian Slavonic Papers 39 (3–4): 333–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997b. “The Impact of Purism on the Development of the Slovene Standard Language”. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 1 (1997): S. 133–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Žic-Fuchs, Milena. 1990. “Social Deixis in Contact and Contrast.” In Languages in Contact: Proceedings of the Symposium 16.1. of the 12th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, Zagreb, July 25–27, 1988, ed. by Rudolf Filipović, and Maja Bratanić, 274–279. Zagreb: Institute of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb.Google Scholar
Žigo, Pavol. 2014. “History of Standard Languages: Slovak.” In Die slavischen Sprachen. The Slavic Languages. Ein internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforschung [An International Handbook of their Structure, their History and their Investigation], Band 2 / Volume 2, ed. by Karl Gutschmidt, Sebastian Kempgen, Tilman Berger, and Peter Kosta, Chapter 106, 1423–1426. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar