Cover not available
Article published In:
Concepts and Context in Relevance-Theoretic Pragmatics: New Developments
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska and Manuel Padilla Cruz
[Pragmatics 33:3] 2023
► pp. 486–504

Has madam read Wilson (2016)?

A procedural account of the T/V forms in Polish

ORCID logo | University of Warsaw
This paper offers an account of Polish addressative forms encoding deference and familiarity in terms of the relevance-theoretic notion of procedural meaning, which underlies a heterogeneous range of phenomena linked to different cognitive domains. The procedure encoded by pronouns used referentially can be seen as targeting the domain of inferential comprehension and contributing to the truth-conditional meaning of an utterance by identifying a referent of a pronoun. It is claimed here that addressative forms marking the politeness distinction encode another procedure, targeting the social cognition module and activating the hearer’s readiness to identify the form as (in)congruent with social norms. It is argued that the politeness element in addressative forms does not involve conceptual encoding. The potential of the T/V forms for giving rise to stylistic effects is also explored. It is suggested that the proposal can be extended to other languages with the T/V distinction.
Keywords: politeness, T/V pronouns, procedural meaning, addressative forms, modularity, social cognition module
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Procedures and the modularity of mind
    • 2.1Characteristic features of procedural items
    • 2.2Massive modularity and procedural items
  • 3.Pronouns as procedural and truth-functional items
  • 4.Addressative forms in Polish as expressions of social deixis
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21073.pis
References (44)
References
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman. 1960. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” In Style in Language, ed. by Thomas Sebeok, 253–276. London and New York: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2016. “The Heterogeneity of Procedural Meaning.” Lingua 175–1761: 154–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Casson, Sarah. 2020. “The Greek Connective gar: Different Genres, Different Effects?” In Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics, ed. by Agnieszka Piskorska, 95–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curcó, Carmen. 2011. “On the Status of Procedural Meaning in Natural Language.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 33–54. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 1998. “Politeness: A Relevant Issue for Relevance Theory.” Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 111: 45–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Norms and Principles: Putting Social and Cognitive Pragmatics Together.” In Current Trends in the Pragmatics of Spanish, ed. by Rosina Márquez-Reiter, and María Elena Placencia, 347–371. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Notes for a Restrictive Theory of Procedural Meaning.” In Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives, ed. by Rachel Giora, and Michael Haugh, 79–96. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter/Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, and Manuel Leonetti. 2011. “The Rigidity of Procedural Meaning.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 81–102. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. J. 1997. Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. “Perspectives on Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 141: 219–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2013. “Speaker Meaning and Accountability in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 481: 41–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Higashimori, Isao. 1992. “BUT/YET/STILL and Relevance Theory.” In Papers Presented to Professor Yoshimitsu Narita on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, 333–354. Tokyo: Eihosha.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark. 1998. “Relevance Theory and the Communication of Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 301: 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. “The Discourse Marker Well: A Relevance-Theoretical Account.” Journal of Pragmatics 191: 435–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, David. 1989. “Demonstratives.” In Themes from Kaplan, ed. by. Joseph Almog, John Perry, and Howard Wettstein, 481–563. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kostro, Monika, and Krystyna Wróblewska-Pawlak. 2013. “Formy adresatywne jako środek jawnej i ukrytej deprecjacji kobiet polityków w polskim dyskursie polityczno-medialnym.” (“Addressative Forms as a Means of Overt and Covert Discrimination of Female Politicians in Polish Political and Media Discourse”). Tekst i Dyskurs 61: 153–168.Google Scholar
Łaziński, Marek. 2006. O panach i paniach: Polskie rzeczowniki tytularne i ich asymetria rodzajowo–płciowa (On Ladies and Gentlemen: Polish Titulary Nouns and their Gender Asymmetry). Warsaw: PWN.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. “Pragmatics and Social Deixis: Reclaiming the Notion of Conventional Implicature.” Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 206–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lubberger, Beate. 2020. “Metarepresentation Markers in Indus Kohistani: A Study with Special Reference to the Marker of Desirable Utterances loo .” In Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics, ed. by Agnieszka Piskorska, 121–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzarella, Diana. 2015. “Politeness, Relevance and Scalar Inferences.” Journal of Pragmatics 791: 93–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2009. “Intuitive and Reflective Inferences.” In In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, ed. by Jonathan S. B. T. Evans, and Keith Frankish, 149–170. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Stephen. 1998. “A Relevance Theory Perspective on Grammaticalization.” Cognitive Linguistics 91: 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padilla Cruz, Manuel. 2007. “Politeness: Always Implicated?” In International Perspectives on Gender and Language, ed. by José Santaemilia, Patricia Bou, Sergio Maruenda, and Gora Zaragoza, 350–372. València: University of València.Google Scholar
. 2020. “Towards a Relevance-Theoretic Approach to the Diminutive Morpheme.” Russian Journal of Linguistics 241: 774–795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, Louis. 2011. “On Some Methodological Issues in the Conceptual/Procedural Distinction.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 55–79. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piskorska, Agnieszka. 2016. “Perlocutionary Effects and Relevance Theory.” In Relevance Theory: Recent Developments, Current Challenges and Future Directions, ed. by Manuel Padilla Cruz, 287–305. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Kate. 2016. “Pronouns and Procedures: Reference and Beyond.” Lingua 175–1761: 69–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 1994. “The Modularity of Thought and the Epidemiology of Representations.” In Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, ed. by Lawrence Hirschfield, and Susan Gelman, 39–67. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001a. “In Defense of Massive Modularity.” In Language, Brain and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler, ed. by Emmanuel Dupoux, 47–57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001b. “An Evolutionary Perspective on Testimony and Argumentation.” Philosophical Topics 291: 401–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christoph Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic Vigilance.” Mind and Language 251: 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2019. “Im/politeness: A 21st Century Appraisal.” Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 1 (6): 1–17.Google Scholar
Unger, Christoph. 2012a. “Procedural Semantics, Metarepresentation, and Some Particles in Behdini Kurdish.” Lingua 1221: 1613–1635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. “Epistemic Vigilance and the Function of Procedural Indicators in Communication and Comprehension.” In Relevance Theory: More than Understanding, ed. by Ewa Wałaszewska, and Agnieszka Piskorska, 45–73. New Castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2003. “Interjections, Language and the ‘Showing–Saying’ Continuum.” Pragmatics and Cognition 111: 39–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Pragmatics and Non-Verbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. “Procedural Meaning: Past, Present, Future.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3–31. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Reassessing the Conceptual–Procedural Distinction.” Lingua 175–1761: 5–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 1993. “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua 901: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar