Article published in:
The referential ambiguity of personal pronouns and its pragmatic consequences
Edited by Barbara De Cock and Bettina Kluge
[Pragmatics 26:3] 2016
► pp. 417–446

What do(es) you mean? the pragmatics of generic second person pronouns in modern spoken Danish

In modern Danish, the most frequently used pronoun for generic reference is man, developed from the noun man(d) ‘man’. Recently, though, the second person singular pronoun du has gained ground, in parallel to similar recent developments in other languages. A large-scale, longitudinal study of the LANCHART corpus of spoken Danish has documented a rise in the use of generic du in Copenhagen (and later in the rest of Denmark) during the period from the early 1970s, where generic du was practically non-existent, till the late 1980s where du comprised around 25% of all pronouns with generic meaning. However, recordings from the 2000s show that the use of du has peaked and is now decreasing or stabilizing at a lower level.This article focuses on intra-individual and intra-conversational variation within the LANCHART corpus with the aim of uncovering the pragmatic effect of using du instead of other generic pronouns. All passages in the recordings have been coded according to macro speech act, activity type, type of interaction and genre as well as enunciation. The results of a statistical analysis using mixed models show a number of correlations as to the use of generic du (in comparison with man), and by and large support the claim that generic du is used as a resource for construing involvement, arguably by exploiting the ambiguity of du between a generic and a specific second person meaning. These quantitative results make up the point of departure for corroborating qualitative analyses of the discourse framing of the use of generic pronouns.
Keywords: Ambiguity, Danish, Language variation and change, Socio-pragmatics, Real-time studies, Discourse context analysis, Generic pronouns
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 01 September 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.3.04jen
References
Norsk ordbok - Ordbok over det norske folkemålet og det nynorske skriftmålet
(1966-) Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.Google Scholar
Ordbok över Finlands svenska folkmål
(1982-) Helsingfors: Forskningscentralen för de inhemska språken.Google Scholar
Føroysk orðabók
(1998) Tórshavn: Føroya Fródskaparfelag & Fródskaparsetur Føroya.
Íslensk orðabók
(2002) Reykjavik: Edda.
Albris, Jon
(1991) Style analysis. In F. Gregersen, and I.L. Pedersen (eds.), The Copenhagen study in urban sociolinguistics vol 1. Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel, pp. 45-106.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M
(1986) The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson, and M. Holquist (eds.), Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 60-102.Google Scholar
Beck Nielsen, Søren, Christina Fogtmann Fosgerau, and Torben Juel Jensen
(2009) From community to conversation – and back. Exploring the interpersonal potentials of two generic pronouns in Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 411: 116-142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A
(2004) Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of pragmatics 371: 105-124. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Blondeau, Hélène
(2001) Real-time changes in the paradigm of personal pronouns in Montreal French. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5.4: 453-474. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn
(1986) Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive psychology 181: 355-387. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
(1979) To catch a metaphor: You as norm. American Speech 541: 194-209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman
(1960) The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 253-276.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald
(2008) Analyzing Linguistic Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Richard
(1996) A community-based test of a linguistic hypothesis. Language in Society 25.1: 61-111. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Greg N
(1982) Generic terms and generic sentences. Journal of philosophical logic 111: 145-181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny
(1987) Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable and sociolinguistic theory. Linguistics 25.2: 257-282. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coveney, Aidan
(2003) 'Anything you can do, tu can do better': Tu and vous as substitutes for indefinite on in French. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7.2: 164-191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
(1994) Mental spaces. Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
(2002) The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fosgerau, Christina Fogtmann
(2007) Samtaler med politiet: Interaktionsanalytiske studier af sprogtestning i danske naturalisationssamtaler. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Nordic Studies and Lingustics, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Fremer, Maria
(2000) Ve e du då - generisk du hos ungdomar och vuxna talare. In U.-B. Kotsinas, A.-B. Stenström, and E.-M. Drange (eds.), Ungdom, språk og identitet. København: Nordisk Ministerråd, pp. 133-147.Google Scholar
Fuller, Janet
(1993) Hearing between the lines: Style switching in a courtroom setting. Pragmatics 31: 29-43. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
(1981) Footing. In E. Goffman (ed.), Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 124-159. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
(1992) Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti, and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Presss, pp. 85–117.Google Scholar
Gregersen, Frans
(2009) The data and design of the LANCHART study. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 411: 3-29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gregersen, Frans, Jon Albris, and Inge Lise Pedersen
(1991) Data and design of the Copenhagen study. In F. Gregersen, and I.L. Pedersen (eds.), The Copenhagen study in urban sociolinguistics vol 1. København: C.A. Reitzels Forlag, pp. 5-43.Google Scholar
Gregersen, Frans, and Michael Barner-Rasmussen
(2011) The logic of comparability: On genres and phonetic variation in a project on language change. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 71: 7-36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gregersen, Frans, Søren Beck Nielsen, and Jacob Thøgersen
(2009) Steeping into the same river twice: On the discourse context analysis in the LANCHART project. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 411: 30-63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gregersen, Frans, Jens Normann Jørgensen, and Janus Spindler Møller
forthcoming) Sideways. 5 methodological studies of the sociolinguistic interview. Unpublished ms. under revision before resubmittance.
Gregersen, Frans, Torben Juel Jensen, and Nicolai Pharao
forthcoming) Comparing speech samples: On the challenge of comparability in panel studies of language change in real time. In Isabelle Buchstaller, and Suzanne Wagner (eds.) Panel studies of Language Variation and Change London Routledge
Hasan, Ruqaiya
(2009) On semantic variation. In J.J. Webster (ed.), Meaning in society and in sociolinguistics. London/Oakville: Equinox, pp. 41-72.Google Scholar
Hyman, Eric
(2004) The indefinite you . English Studies 85.2: 161-176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Torben Juel
(2009a) Generic variation? Developments in the use of generic pronouns in late 20th century spoken Danish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 411: 83-115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Standardisering, globalisering og lokalisering - generiske pronominer i Vinderup. In H. Hovmark, I. Stampe Sletten, and A. Gudiksen (eds.), I mund og bog. København: Københavns Universitet, pp. 157-169.Google Scholar
forthcoming) Generic ‘du’ in time and context. A study of intra-individual variation and change. In D. Duncker, and P. Bettina (eds.) Creativity and Continuity. Perspectives on the Dynamics of Language Conventionalization
Jensen, Torben Juel, and Marie Maegaard
(2010) Stability and change in adult speech. A real time panel study. Paper read at Sociolinguistics Symposium 18, at Southampton.Google Scholar
Johnson, Daniel Ezra
(2009) Getting off the GoldVarb standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and Linguistics Compass 3.1: 359–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, Jens Normann, and Kjeld Kristensen
(1994) Moderne sjællandsk. København: C.A. Reitzel.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
(1997) A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics 7.1: 1-20. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato, and Adrienne Lehrer
(1990) Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 739-759. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kluge, Bettina
(2012) Referential ambiguity in interaction. Establishing generic reference with second person pronouns in the Romance languages. Habilitationsschrift, Universität Bielefeld.Google Scholar
Kristensen, Kjeld
(1977) Variationen i vestjysk stationsby-mål. Dialektstudier 4.1: 29-109.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Tore
(1991) Sproglige normidealer på Næstvedegnen. Ph.D. dissertation, Institut for Nordisk Filologi, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Laberge, Suzanne
(1976) The changing distribution of indefinite pronouns in discourse. In R.W. Shuy, and A. Shnukal (eds.), Language use and the uses of language. Washington: Georgetown University Press, pp. 76-87.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Laberge, Suzanne, and Gillian Sankoff
(1980) Anything you can do. In G. Sankoff (ed.), The social life of language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 271-293. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
(1966) The social stratification of English in New York city. Washington: Center for applied linguistics.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2001) The anatomy of style-shifting. In P. Eckert, and J.R. Rickford (eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 85-108.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
(1997) Generics and habituals. In A. Athanasiadou, and R. Dirven (eds.), On conditionals again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz L
(1978) Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7.2: 171-182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leino, Pentti, and Jan-Ola Östman
(2008) Language change, variability, and functional load. Finnish genericity from a constructional point of view. In J. Leino (ed.), Constructional Reorganization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 37-54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lundeby, Einar
(1996) Om man og en og du . In S. Språknämnden (ed.), Språket lever - festskrift til Margareta Westman. Stockholm: Svenska Språknämnden, pp. 137-144.Google Scholar
Maegaard, Marie, Torben Juel Jensen, Tore Kristiansen, and Jens Normann Jørgensen
(2013) Diffusion of language change: Accommodation to a moving target. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17.1: 3-36. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Malamud, Sophia A
(2012) Impersonal indexicals: One, you, man, and du. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15.1: 1-48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neely, James H
(1977) Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of experimental psychology: General 106.3: 226-254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Bent Jul, and Magda Nyberg
(1992) Talesprogsvariation i Odder kommune. I. Lokalsprog og rigsmål i sociolingvistisk belysning. Danske Folkemål 341: 45-202.Google Scholar
(1993) Talesprogsvariation i Odder kommune. II. Yngre og ældre rigsmålsformer i sociolingvistisk belysning. Danske Folkemål 351: 249-348.Google Scholar
Rubba, Jo
(1996) Alternate grounds in the interpretation of deictic expressions. In G. Fauconnier, and E. Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammars. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 227-261.Google Scholar
Scherre, Maria Marta Pereira, and Anthony J. Naro
(1991) Marking in discourse: "Birds of a feather". Language Variation and Change 31: 23-32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schilling-Estes, Natalie
(2002) Investigating stylistic variation. In J.K. Chamber, P. Trudgill, and N. Schilling-Estes (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford/Malden: Blackwell, pp. 375-401.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
(2004) Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Miranda M
(1995) Personally speaking ... or not? The strategic value of on in face-to-face negotiation. French Language Studies 51: 203-223. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tarenskeen, Sammie
(2010) From you to me (and back). The flexible meaning of the second person pronoun in Dutch. MA thesis, Department of Linguistics, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Thibault, Pierette
(1991) La langue en mouvement: Simplification, régularisation, restructuration. LINX: Linguistique Institut Nanterre-Paris-X 25: 79-92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ushie, Yukiko
(1994) Who are you? And what are you doing? Discourse and pragmatic functions of the impersonal pronoun you in conversational narratives. Ochanomizu University Studies in Art and Culture 471: 127-147.Google Scholar
Westerberg, Anna
(2004) Norsjömålet under 150 år. Uppsala: Kungl. Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk folkkultur.Google Scholar

Full-text

What do(es) you mean? the pragmatics of generic second person pronouns in modern spoken Danish
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Auer, Peter & Anja Stukenbrock
2018. When ‘You’ Means ‘I’: The German 2Nd Ps.Sg. Pronoun Du between Genericity and Subjectivity. Open Linguistics 4:1 ► pp. 280 ff. Crossref logo
De Cock, Barbara
2016. Register, genre and referential ambiguity of personal pronouns. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 26:3 ► pp. 361 ff. Crossref logo
Haas, Florian
2018.  In Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 85], ► pp. 171 ff. Crossref logo
Kluge, Bettina
2016. Generic uses of the second person singular – how speakers deal with referential ambiguity and misunderstandings. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 26:3 ► pp. 501 ff. Crossref logo
Posio, Pekka
2016. You and we: Impersonal second person singular and other referential devices in Spanish sociolinguistic interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 99 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Rădulescu, Valentin & Daniël Van Olmen
2022. A questionnaire-based study of impersonalization in Romanian and English. Languages in Contrast 22:1 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Suomalainen, Karita & Mikael Varjo
2020. When personal is interpersonal. Organizing interaction with deictically open personal constructions in Finnish everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 168 ► pp. 98 ff. Crossref logo
Van Olmen, Daniël & Adri Breed
2018. Human impersonal pronouns in Afrikaans: a double questionnaire-based study. Language Sciences 69 ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Varjo, Mikael & Karita Suomalainen
2018. From zero to ‘you’ and back: A mixed methods study comparing the use of two open personal constructions in Finnish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 41:3 ► pp. 333 ff. Crossref logo
Zobel, Sarah
2016. A pragmatic analysis of german impersonally used first person singular ‘ICH’. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 26:3 ► pp. 379 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. 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.