Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 31:1 (2021) ► pp.87–113

Enacting ‘Being with You’

Vocative uses of du (“you”) in German everyday interaction

| University of Münster
| University of Münster
The German second person personal pronoun du is commonly described as a deictic “shifter” or a T-address term, which is incorporated as an argument of a predicate. Exploring the ways in which participants use pronouns in everyday interaction, however, shows that these are not the only uses of du. In this paper, we examine vocative uses of du in German everyday interaction. Drawing on methods of Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics, we will show that speakers use vocative du for the management of being ‘with’ the other in terms of alignment as well as affiliation. What du locally accomplishes, however, is sensitive to its positioning within the temporal unfolding of turns and sequences as well as to the sequential environments in which it is used. Our findings demonstrate the context-sensitivity of du and underscore the importance of linguistic resources for the interactional establishment and maintenance of social togetherness and sociability.
Keywords: address terms, pronoun, 2.ps.sg., turn design, sequencing, alignment, affiliation, social solidarity
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The collection
  • 3.Stand-alone du
  • 4.Du-prefacing
    • 4.1Prefacing turns that initiate a new action sequence
    • 4.2Prefacing responsive turns to questions
    • 4.3Prefacing turns that expand an action sequence
  • 5.Turn-final du
  • 6.Discussion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 2 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19030.dro
References (68)
References
Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 1998. Deutsche Jugendsprache. Untersuchungen zu ihren Strukturen und Funktionen. [German youth language. Investigations of its structures and functions.] Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Jan Lindström. 2016. “Left/right Asymmetries and the Grammar of Pre- vs. Post-positioning in German and Swedish Talk-in-interaction.” Language Sciences 561: 68–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter, and Anja Stukenbrock. 2018. “When ‘you’ means ‘I’: The German 2nd Ps.Sg. Pronoun du between Genericity and Subjectivity.” Open Linguistics 41: 280–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. [Problems in general linguistics]. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Jörg. 1990. “On the Local Sensitivity of Conversation.” In The Dynamics of Dialogue, ed. by Ivana Markovà, and Klaus Foppa, 201–226. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Biq, Yung-O. 1991. “The Multiple Uses of the Second Singular Pronoun ni in Conversational Mandarin.” Journal of Pragmatics 441: 929–957.Google Scholar
Bladas, Òscar, and Neus Nogué. 2016. “‘Que bé tu!’: An Emerging Emphatic Use of the Second Person Singular Pronoun tu (you) in Spoken Catalan.” Pragmatics 26 (3): 473–500. DOI logoGoogle 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, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1934/1965. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. [Language theory. The representational function of language.] Stuttgart: Fischer.Google Scholar
Butler, Carly W., Susan Danby, and Michael Emmison. 2011. “Address Terms in Turn Beginnings: Managing Disalignment and Disaffiliation in Telephone Counseling.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44 (4): 338–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven. 2010. “Address Terms in the Service of Other Actions: The Case of News Interview Talk.” Discourse & Communication 4 (2): 161–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Address Terms in the Organization of Turns at Talk: The Case of Pivotal Turn Extensions.” Journal of Pragmatics 441: 1853–1867. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Terms.” Journal of Pragmatics 571: 290–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, Michael, Catrin Norrby, and Jane Warren. 2009. Language and Human Relations. Styles of Address in Contemporary Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2004. “Prosody and Sequence Organization in English Conversation. The Case of New Beginnings.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford, 335–376. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Relatedness and Timing in Talk-in-interaction.” In Where Prosody Meets Pragmatics, ed. by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Nicole Dehé, and Anne Wichmann, 257–276. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2017. Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
d’Avis, Franz, and Jörg Meibauer. 2013. “Du Idiot! Din idiot! Pseudo-vocative Constructions and Insults in German (and Swedish).” In Vocative! Addressing between System and Performance, ed. by Barbara Sonnenhauser, and Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna, 189–217. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2013. “Turn-design at Turn-beginnings: Multimodal Resources to Deal with Tasks of Turn-construction in German.” Journal of Pragmatics 461: 91–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Susanne Günthner. 2015. “Introduction: Temporality in Interaction.” In Temporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Susanne Günthner, 1–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Jürgen Streeck (eds.). 2018. Time in Embodied Interaction. Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Droste, Pepe. 2018. Korpus ‚Multimodale Interaktion‘ [Corpus ‘multimodal interaction’]. University of Münster.Google Scholar
Droste, Pepe, and Susanne Günthner. 2020. “‚das mAchst du bestimmt AUCH du;‘: Zum Zusammenspiel syntaktischer, prosodischer und sequenzieller Aspekte syntaktisch desintegrierter du-Formate. [‘das mAchst du bestimmt AUCH du;’: On the interplay of syntactic, prosodic and sequential aspects syntactically disintegrated formats of du.]” In Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. [Construction Grammar and Prosody], ed. by Wolfgang Imo, and Jens Philipp Lanwer, 75–110. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goffman, Ervin. 1963. Behavior in Public Places. Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
. 1971. Relations in Public. Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1980. “Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of Mutual Gaze at Turn-beginning.” Sociological Inquiry 50 (3–4): 272–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1981. Conversational Organization. Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie H. Goodwin. 2004. “Participation.” In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by Alessandro Duranti, 222–244. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2016. “Praktiken erhöhter Dialogizität: onymische Anredeformen als Gesten personifizierter Zuwendung. [Practices of increased dialogism: Onymic forms of address as gestures of personified other-orientation.]” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 44 (3): 406–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Namentliche Anreden in onkologischen Aufklärungsgesprächen: eine interaktional ausgerichtete Studie zu Formen und Funktionen onymischer Anreden. [Onymic address in oncologic briefings: An interactional-oriented study of the forms and functions of onymic address.]” Arbeitspapiere Sprache und Interaktion (SpIn) 821.Google Scholar
Hewitt, John P., and Stokes, Randall. 1975. “Disclaimers.” American Sociological Review 40 (1): 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond. 2003. “The German Address System: Binary and Scalar at once.” In Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen, and Andreas H. Jucker, 401–425. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1957/1971. “Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb”. In Selected Writings, Vol. 21, 130–147. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1923. Language. Its Nature, Development, and Origin. New York: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 1990. Conducting Interaction. Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kretzenbacher, Heinz L. 1991. “Vom Sie zum Du – und retour? [From Sie to Du – and back?]” In Vom Sie zum Du – mehr als eine neue Konvention? [From Sie to Du – More than a new convention?], ed. by Heinz L. Kretzenbacher, and Wulf Segebrecht, 9–78. Hamburg/Zürich: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
2010. “‚Man ordnet ja bestimmte Leute irgendwo ein für sich…‘ Anrede und soziale Deixis. [‘Man ordnet ja bestimmte Leute irgendwo ein für sich…’ Address and social deixis.]” Deutsche Sprache 381: 1–18.Google Scholar
2003. “Selecting Next Speaker: The Context-sensitive Operation of a Context-free Organization.” Language in Society 32 (2): 177–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liebscher, Grit, Jennifer Dailey-O’Cain, Mareike Müller, and Tetyana Reichert. 2010. “Negotiating Identities through Pronouns of Address in an Immigrant Community.” Pragmatics 20 (3): 375–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2013. Affiliation in Conversation. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 350–369. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2009. “Emergent Focused Interactions in Public Places: A Systematic Analysis of the Multimodal Achievement of a Common Interactional Space.” Journal of Pragmatics 411: 1977–1997. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013a. “Embodied and Spatial Resources for Turn-taking in Institutional Multi-party Interactions: Participatory Democracy Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 461, 39–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. “Interactional Space and the Study of Embodied Talk-in-interaction.” In Space in Language and Linguistics. Geographical, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives, ed. by Peter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stukenbrock, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, 247–275. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality.” In Research on Language and Social Interaction 51 (1): 85–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, Kristian. 2009. “Establishing Recipiency in Pre-beginning Position in the Second Language Classroom.” Discourse Processes 46 (5): 491–515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young. 2007. “Overt Reference to Speaker and Recipient in Korean.” Discourse Studies 9 (4): 462–492. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68 (6): 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase. 2016. “Linguistic Reference in the Negotiation of Identity and Action: Revisiting the T/V Distinction.” Language 92 (3): 636–670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rendle-Short, Johanna. 2007. “‘Catherine, you’re Wasting your Time’: Address Terms within the Australian Political Interview.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 1503–1525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Address Terms in the Australian Political News Interview.” In Talking Politics in Broadcast Media. Cross-cultural Perspectives on Political Interviewing, Journalism and Accountability, ed. by Mats Ekström, and Marianna Patrona, 93–111. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütz, Alfred, and Thomas Luckmann. 1973. The Structures of the Life-World. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Schwitalla, Johannes. 1995. “Namen in Gesprächen. [Names in conversations.]” In Namenforschung. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Onomastik [Onomastics. An international handbook on onomastics], ed. by Ernst Eichler, Gerold Hilty, Heinrich Löffler, Hugo Steger, and Ladislav Zgusta, 498–504. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Kommunikative Funktionen von Sprecher- und Adressatennamen in Gesprächen. [Communicative functions of names of speakers and addressees in conversations.]” In Eigennamen in der gesprochenen Sprache [Proper names in spoken language], ed. by Nicolas Pepin, and Elwys De Stefani, 197–199. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret et al. 2011. “A System for Transcribing Talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Translated and adapted for English by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 121: 1–51.Google Scholar
Simon, Horst. 2003. “From Pragmatics to Grammar: Tracing the Development of ‘Respect’ in the History of the German Pronouns of Address.” In Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems, ed. by Irma Taavitsainen, and Andreas H. Jucker, 85–123. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (1): 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig. 2011. “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 3–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano. 2010. “Mobilizing Response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (1): 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J. 1981. “Children’s Use of Address Terms.” In Adult–Child Conversations, ed. by Peter French, and Margaret Maclure, 142–158. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, and Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. [Grammar of German language.] Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Ebner, Johannes
2024. Pronomengebrauch und Konfliktdynamik. Exemplarische Analyse einer Gewalteskalation. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 53:2 ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Li-Chi
2023. ‘Smash this sissy boy’s mouth, Cuiguo!’: Framing and humor in gay Taiwanese YouTubers’ self-disclosures about being bullied. Discourse & Communication 17:2 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Günthner, Susanne
2022. Relationship building in oncological doctor-patient interaction. In Relationships in Organized Helping [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 331], ► pp. 195 ff. DOI logo
Auer, Peter
2021. Gaze selects the next speaker in answers to questions pronominally addressed to more than one co-participant. Interactional Linguistics 1:2 ► pp. 154 ff. DOI logo
Floyd, Simeon
2021. Conversation and Culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 50:1 ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 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.