Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Accessing politeness axes: forms of address and
terms of reference in early English correspondence
Minna Nevala
Research Unit for Variation and Change in English, Department of English, P.O. Box 24 (Unioninkatu 40 B),
University of Helsinki, Helsinki FIN-00014, Finland
Received 18 March 2003; received in revised form 16 January 2004; accepted 3 February 2004
Abstract
There are certain areas of study where present-day pragmatics can learn from history. This article
focuses on the socio-pragmatic aspects of forms of address and terms of reference in late 16th-century
English correspondence. The aim of the study is to explore the extent to which the use of forms of
address and reference, and the factors which influence their choice, can be seen to have any general
trends. A further goal is to relate these trends in historical data to such contemporary views as Brown
and Levinson’s [Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1987] politeness theory, Comrie’s [Linguistic politeness axes: speaker–addressee,
speaker–referent, speaker–bystander. Pragmatics Microfiche 1.7: A3, Department of Linguistics,
University of Cambridge, 1976] politeness axes, and Bell’s [Language style as audience design.
Language in Society 13, 145–204] audience design. The material itself, the Corpus of Early English
Correspondence (CEEC), gives a unique opportunity to explore the influence of factors like relative
power and social distance on the use of forms of address and reference in the highly stratified society
of the Renaissance period. The study shows that referential terms are often derived from the range of
direct address formulae. In direct address, when the social status of either the addressee or the referent
is very high, it seems to override the influence of social distance. In reference, the reasons for the
choice of an appropriate term are more complex, and the parameters set for, e.g., positive and negative
politeness can no longer be seen as equally valid.
# 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Politeness; English; Socio-pragmatic aspect
1. Introduction
The way we address someone directly and the manner in which we refer to that same
person are not always the same. The use of direct address formulae is governed by a
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Nevala).
0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.02.001
2126
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
relationship between two participants the speaker and the hearer. When choosing a term of
reference, however, the speaker not only has to take into account his/her relationship with
the hearer, but also has to decide how to present the referent in a situationally appropriate
manner.
Both direct address and reference have been largely studied from a pragmatic and
sociolinguistic point of view. Studies that have presented politeness as an integral factor
which influences people’s choice of address forms include, e.g., Brown and Levinson’s
(1987) theory, which combines ‘‘polite friendliness and polite formality’’, as well as
Comrie’s (1976) analysis along politeness axes. On the other hand, research done from a
more discourse analytic angle mostly focuses on participant roles, as well as on address and
reference as a means to clarify the functions of those roles (e.g., Bell, 1984, 2001; Clark and
Murphy, 1982; Murphy, 1988; Schegloff, 1996). There have also been synchronic studies
(Dickey, 1997; Allerton, 1996) which have concentrated on mapping the process of
choosing appropriate forms for address and reference, and making generalisations on their
usage.
In this article, I will concentrate on the differences and similarities between the nominal
forms of direct address and reference from a socio-pragmatic viewpoint. Instead of using
present-day material, I study these forms in personal letters from the Early Modern English
period, concentrating on the 16th-century correspondence of a father and a son, Sir
Nicholas Bacon and Nathaniel Bacon. My chief aim is to explore whether any generalisations can be made on the use of forms of address and reference and the factors which
influence their choice in historical material like the Bacon letters. Because of both the
historical material and the socially governed nature of address usage, I will also focus on
the social aspects of letter-writing in Early Modern England.
My second purpose is to see what features these forms have which parts are obligatory,
especially in reference, for the referent to be clearly identified? Furthermore, I study how
well the use of both direct address and reference in historical written material can be
explained on the basis of contemporary theoretical views based on spoken data, such as
Brown and Levinson’s (1987) and Comrie’s (1976) politeness axes, and Bell’s (1984,
2001) audience design. The pragmatic aspects I will study include the level of politeness
indicated by the writer: How closely does the use of reference terms follow forms used in
direct address? What is the degree of positive and negative politeness in address and
reference? Which factors influence the choice of different forms: Can direct address be
considered ‘‘a norm’’ governing reference, as suggested by Dickey (1997), also when it
denotes extreme positive politeness? Finally, in choosing a reference term, which is a
more powerful determiner, the writer’s relationship with the addressee or with the
referent?
2. Social constraints on direct address and reference
2.1. Early modern norms and conventions in letter-writing
The hierarchical society of the Early Modern period (ca. 1500–1700) was based on the
recognition of inequality. Differences in social status were reflected in every aspect of life,
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
2127
from clothing to conventions in everyday contacts (Wrightson, 1982: 17; see also Briggs,
1999: 119–120). The rank and degree of a person was an inseparable part of one’s identity,
and there were many ways in which this could be acknowledged. One of the most obvious
was to use forms of address (for an overview on the use of titles, see e.g., Laslett, 1971: 27–
29). Correspondence proved to be an excellent forum for practising one’s social skills,
among other purposes, and fluent letter-writers were also aware of the importance of
properly addressing their recipients. Letters were considered either public or personal, and
address formulae varied accordingly, especially during the 17th century. Conventions were
important, and although some writers became rather inventive, most people relied on the
various letter-writing customs which developed over the centuries (for the use of letterwriting manuals, see Nevala, 2004). It must be remembered, however, that the Early
Modern English address system differed greatly from that of present-day English. As
Jucker and Taavitsainen (2003: 4) point out, choices made in the use of address forms are
always ‘‘culturally dependent and change in the course of time as old criteria become
obsolete and come to be replaced by new criteria’’.
The fact that Early Modern letters could be, or actually were, seen and read by people
other than the person the letter was addressed to, introduced further complications. It was
common that private letters were circulated or read aloud among members of the family,
since they often contained news on important events: fathers of landed gentry families
wrote their report-like accounts of London and perhaps even the Court, and mothers sent
notes on how the family and household were getting along, not forgetting the ups and
downs of their neighbours. It could well happen that even though the writer had meant the
letter only for one person, the entire neighbourhood became aware of its contents sooner or
later.
Letters containing socially delicate information on matters of the state or eminent people
were of course meant for the addressee’s eyes only. The reliability of the post was a real
problem, and especially in the 16th century, letter-writers became most resourceful when it
came to securing the secrets in their letters. In extreme cases, one way of indicating that the
recipient should receive the letter intact was to draw the sign of the gallows alongside the
address. If one also wanted to make sure that the important message got to its recipient as
quickly as possible, the words ‘‘for life, for life’’ could be added in order to urge the
postman to make a speedy delivery (Beale, 1998: 142). This did not, however, help much:
especially letters from abroad were opened en route, and even the Privy Council ordered
letters to be intercepted. Merchants, for example, used to send an additional copy of the
original letter by another messenger, thus making sure their message would get through in
one way or another. In addition to this, letters might be further secured by sealing them with
a thread, or a hair, in scarlet wax.
Direct address naturally changed according to its users. The formulae could be divided
into nominal and pronominal forms. Examples (1a) and (1b) show some variants of the
nominal usage.1 The first one, a letter from Arthur Ingram to Thomas Wentworth,
presents a deferential honorific, and the second one from Anne Howard to her son
1
The references after each example show the name of the letter collection in the corpus (for more
information, see footnote 9), the year when the letter was written, the name of the writer and the exact page
reference.
2128
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, a more intimate use of a term of kinship and
endearment.
(1a)
(1b)
Worthi Sir, I hop now you ar gott home to your own howse and country ayrs,
that you haue recouered your helth and ar becom a strong man, the which I shall
bee right glad to hear of. (WENTWORTH: 1623, Arthur Ingram, 185)
My good Sonne [. . .] Your opinion, sweete harte, for sending to my Lady
Lumley, I will follow by writing very shortly. But I besech yu consider well
consarning my entry of Hayling, for I doute the deferring of it may rather bring
harme than otherwise. (ARUNDEL: 1609, Anne Howard, 59)
The pronouns of direct address included the variants of thou, as an equivalent to French tu,
and, more typically, of you, a counterpart to French vous (for a further analysis of their use
in correspondence, see Nevala, 2002). Both pronouns could also be mixed and used in
similar contexts, as in a letter from John Hoskyns to his wife Benedicta in Example (2):2
(2)
when did I deal ungratefully wth thee? you must com Ben & refute them.
(HOSKYNS: 1615, John Hoskyns Sr, 72)
Terms of reference were also chosen carefully. Especially when referring to a member of
Royalty or a known figure, social status had to be made clear, as an extract from John
Chamberlain’s letter to Alice Carleton in Example (3a) shows. Last names (henceforth LN)
with titles were used of referents representing the gentry (Gabriel Harvey to John Young in
Example 3b), and first names (henceforth FN) could be used either of referents with lower
status, such as servants, or of someone close to the writer or the addressee, as in a letter
from merchant Samuel Smith to Nathaniel Bacon (Example 3c).
(3a)
(3b)
(3c)
but the worst of all was that the King was so wearied and sleepie with sitting up
almost two whole nights before, that he had no edge to yt, wherupon Sir Fra
Bacon adventured to intreat his Majestie, that by this disgrace he wold not as yt
were bury them quicke: (CHAMBERLAIN: 1613, John Chamberlain, I, 426)
I besout M. Nevil that he wuld not deale so hardly bi me in that whitch concernd
me so greatly: desiring him that he wuld not hinder me ani longer, but that I miht
be nominatid that dai. (HARVEY: 1573, Gabriel Harvey, 3)
2 of the sayd tenantes, being some whatt sayd to for the evell nes of the corn,
sayd that Thomas your baly would have had them to have browght {4 of sakes}
fower sakes in a loode of your foysty barly & they would nott, for in very dede
there owen was evell in Norfolk (BACON: 1580, Samuel Smith, II, 118)
2
In a recent study, Busse (2002: 287–288) looks at the use of second-person pronouns in Shakespeare, and
concludes that this kind of variation in the use of address pronouns is not in any way intralinguistically
conditioned, i.e. no proper reasons can be found for switches between thou and you, besides the extralinguistic
ones which concern genre variation. Busse criticises Brown and Gilman’s (1989) view that the choice of the
pronouns can always be predicted, and emphasises the fact that there is room for social negotiation even when
the power relationship is asymmetrical.
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
2129
Possessive pronouns together with kinship terms (henceforth KT) were used, especially in
correspondence between members of the family, as in Example (4a) of a letter from
Elizabeth Hatton to her son Christopher. Kinship markers could often be followed by FN or
LN, or a combination of both, as an extract from Lettice Gawdy’s letter to her husband
Framlingham in Example (4b) shows.
(4a)
(4b)
I presume you were shewed ye fine things yr father brought me: farrender for a
gowne, and 6 pair of gloves, and a paire of stockens, wch is more yn I hoped for;
and so sensible I am of ye kindnes yt I desir you to help me to thank him for it.
(HATTON: 1666, Elizabeth Hatton, I, 50)
I gaue my cousen Cresnar the three boukes you sent him the which hee giueth
you many thankes for them I pray remembar my loue to my brouther Sr
Charles vaughan and to my Cousen Iohn Games my sister francis and my
cousen dorothy retureneth ther loue to you (GAWDYL: 1620s?, Lettice Gawdy,
f. 143)
Pronouns were not, however, used only on the purely deictic level, but also as a
part of a conventionalised formula, as can be seen above in Example (3a) (his Majesty).
Other referential terms of this kind were, for example, the terms Your Honour and
my Lady. The differences in pronoun usage are further discussed in Sections 2.2 and
5.1.2.
2.2. Social and pragmatic models
2.2.1. Axes of address terms
The use of forms of address is one of the ways in which politeness is manifested in
speech and writing. Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory is based on the
recognition of positive and negative politeness, and in their theory, address can be used to
show both. For example, when the speaker wishes to emphasise his/her close relationship
with the hearer or the referent, positively polite formulae like FNs are most often used.
Negative politeness is constructed as a means of avoiding face-threatening acts (FTAs), and
this can be done by using, e.g., LNs and titles.
Previous historical research on politeness as a means of analysing address use (see e.g.,
Brown and Gilman, 1989; Hope, 1993; Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg, 1995) has
shown that Brown and Levinson’s model is flexible and can be developed for historical
purposes. So far, few studies have made use of Watts’s (1992, 2003) restrictive politeness
model which categorises address terms as politic behaviour instead of proper (linguistic)
politeness.3 Watts (1992: 65–67; 2003: 19, 21, 133, 156, 169) repeatedly argues that since
forms of address are chosen according to what is usually expected in a social interaction,
they cannot be considered as conveying politeness, unless they are used ‘‘in excess of what
3
Kopytko (1993: 116) separates address usage from other politeness strategies and leaves the door open for
different interpretations, according to whether one thinks that forms of address reflect the ‘‘ethos’’ of the society,
or whether address is seen as a ritualised form of discourse.
2130
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
is necessary to maintain the politic behaviour of an interaction’’.4 Naturally, this raises a
whole new range of questions of what linguistic expressions can in the first place be
interpreted as being used ‘‘in excess’’ in each communicative situation. Moreover, Watts
(2003: 156) generalises the notion that in ‘‘highly institutionalised forms of social
interaction’’ deferential expressions, such as forms of address, constitute politic rather
than properly polite behaviour to cover almost all use of address forms. This can hardly be
seen as valid in all forms of social interaction, institutionalised or not, and there are bound
to be differences, for example, between spoken and written communication.
Instead of thinking, as Watts does, that address forms are routinised manifestations of
social conventions that can be categorised as politic behaviour, I see that these ‘‘conventions’’ may themselves be looked at from an opposite angle, so that they can be said to work
within, and for, politeness. This view allows us to describe diachronic change (which may
or may not result in conventionalisation) better than Watts’s theory of politic behaviour.
Although Watts’s model might be a practical way of describing (more static) present-day
address usage, it still seems too restrictive for analysing diachronic variation and change, as
opposed to Brown and Levinson’s model, especially in the use of address. Brown and
Levinson’s strategies of positive and negative politeness allow us to study not only
variation in the overall use of address terms, but also variation that occurs within the
terms themselves. Their original aim to produce a theory which combines ‘‘polite
friendliness and polite formality in a single scheme’’ makes it possible to see how address
can function in terms of both positive and negative politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1987:
283). Moreover, the use of address may result in a hybrid strategy, which includes features
that are both positively and negatively polite (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 230).
Brown and Levinson’s categorisation of the main axes of address usage has been
influenced by, e.g., Comrie’s (1976) study of linguistic politeness.5 In his brief analysis of
address and reference systems in different languages—including Japanese, Javanese and
Romanian—Comrie (1976: 5) introduces a new point of view by arguing that the
traditional understanding of the tu/vous (T/V) opposition is in fact false: instead of
classifying the distinction as a system of addressee politeness, he sees it as a case of
referent politeness. In his opinion, when using the T/V distinction, it is possible to show
politeness to the addressee only if he/she is referred to in the sentence itself, i.e., when the
addressee is the referent.6 In some languages (e.g., Japanese, Javanese), it is possible to
show addressee politeness by using certain lexical items or grammatical particles which do
not refer to the addressee at all. T/V opposition cannot, however, be used for addressee
4
This view seems to be shared by Thomas (1995: 152) who argues that address forms become
‘‘pragmatically interesting’’ only when they involve a strategic choice on the part of the speaker, i.e., when the
speaker deliberately wants to use address terms to change the relationship he/she has with the addressee.
5
By the term ‘‘honorifics’’ Brown and Levinson (1987: 179) mean ‘‘the direct grammatical encodings of
relative social status between participants, or between participants and persons or things referred to in the
communicative event’’. As for participant roles, Murphy (1988: 324) criticises both Levinson (1979) and Comrie
(1976) for their inadequate discussion of addressee-referent relations: in Murphy’s opinion, speakers may have
to take the relationship between the addressee and the referent into account when avoiding an FTA against the
addressee in a reference situation.
6
In his 1996 article, Lerner (1996) discusses the difficulties caused by the use of reference terms that are not
clear to the hearer(s) and the intended recipient. These forms include such ‘‘recipient indicators’’ as the pronoun
you which cause problems in communicative situations where the addressee ¼ the referent.
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
2131
politeness, since, for example, sentences in French like Pierre attend Françoise (‘‘Pierre is
waiting for Françoise’’) cannot make use of the T/V opposition to convey the politeness
shown, or not shown, by the speaker to the addressee.
Furthermore, Comrie challenges the use of the performative hypothesis in the analysis of
politeness by showing that Sadock’s (1974) claim—that expressions of politeness are
restricted to the speaker, the hearer and the overt referent—is inadequate. In Comrie’s
opinion, those persons who are not overtly referred to in the sentence, i.e., overhearers and
bystanders, could also have an influence on expressions of politeness (for further analysis
of this in audience design, see Section 2.2.2).
Based on this, Comrie proposes three separate axes of linguistic politeness: the speaker–
addressee axis, which can be applied to what I call direct address; the speaker–referent axis,
which means the overt referential forms; and the speaker–bystander axis, which presents
formulae of either direct address or reference that covertly express the relation of the
speaker to any bystanders or overhearers.7
As can be seen in Fig. 1, Brown and Levinson (1987: 181) have added a fourth axis, i.e.,
the speaker-setting axis, which they refer to as a socially deictic relation between social
roles assumed by the speaker and the audience. According to them, referent honorifics, e.g
in linguistic systems like Japanese (and this could be extended to referential terms in
general), are sensitive to in-group membership. In reference, as well as in direct address,
the relationships between the speaker, hearer, referent, overhearer and bystander, etc., can
be said to be influenced not only by social distance, but also by relative power.
Brown and Levinson (1987: 77, 178ff.) connect great power difference with giving
deference, which in turn is categorised as a strategy of negative politeness. They note that
deference can be shown in two different ways: the speaker may either humble him/herself
or raise the hearer to show that he/she is not ‘‘in a position to coerce H[earer]’s compliance
in any way’’ (for a discussion of politeness maxims of approbation and modesty, see Leech,
1983: 135–138). Watts (2003: 80, 176) simply classifies deference as politic behaviour
which the speaker learns as a child through a process of socialisation. Also Thomas (1995:
150) separates deference from politeness proper, and sees the difference between deference
and politeness as a matter of showing respect vs. showing consideration towards other
people. Interestingly enough, showing consideration and respect to the hearer are rather
near to Brown and Levinson’s view of humbling the self and raising the hearer, and Watt’s
definition of deference as a form of politic behaviour tells us nothing else of deference than
that it is a fundamentally social phenomenon.
7
Comrie (1976: 11, footnotes 4 and 7) shows an explicit example of bystander politeness by explaining the
use of the verbs perspire and sweat in discussing the consequences of hot weather during a royal parade.
Watchers of the show may agree that the soldiers sweated but the queen perspired (referent politeness, since the
queen is not present at the time of utterance, but her royal status must still be taken into account). But if they met
the queen herself, they might comment on the event by saying to her that the soldiers perspired. The latter use of
the verb perspire would be an example of addressee politeness, since the watchers would both address the queen
directly and take her status into account. Furthermore, if the two watchers thought the queen was likely to
overhear them or otherwise be in the vicinity, they would most probably say that the soldiers perspired in this
case as well (bystander politeness; the queen is not addressed or referred to directly, but since she is likely to
hear what is said, the speakers have to take her status into consideration).
2132
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Referent
Speaker
Addressee
Bystander
Setting
Fig. 1. Politeness axes (taken from Brown and Levinson, 1987: 181).
Referential terms involve the communication of the speaker–referent relation, which
means that the hearer or the addressee may calculate what the relation is between him/
herself and the speaker by looking at both the speaker–referent and the speaker–addressee
relations. This is shown especially with such deictic pronouns as my, your and his/her,
which work differently when used as a part of a direct address form. For example in direct
address in correspondence, if the writer uses the form your worship, the pronoun your is of
course used, in a way, to make the recipient a deictic centre, but since the entire formula is
conventionalised as a highly deferential address term, I would argue that it cannot be used
on the same concrete level of deixis as it would when used as a part of a referential formula
like your husband.8
Dickey (1997: 260) claims that when referring to a person who is unknown to the
addressee, the speaker’s use of reference terms is dictated by the need to convey certain
information about the referent. Deictic pronouns appear to be one way of pinpointing the
exact referent to the addressee. It may be argued, however, whether this usage is limited to
the existent addressee–referent relationship. It seems more probable that pronouns may
vary according to the addressee: basically, pronouns such as my function in the same way
whether the referent is known to the addressee or not.
2.2.2. Audience design
Bell’s (1984) sociolinguistic study of language variation is based on the notion that style
means speakers’ response to their audience. Bell draws a preliminary dichotomy between
linguistic and extralinguistic variation, of which the latter is further divided into interspeaker (‘‘social’’) and intraspeaker (‘‘stylistic’’) variation. The social factors include, e.g.,
class and age of different speakers, whereas the stylistic factors range from topic of
discussion to addressee design within the speech of a single person. The two categories are
interdependent so that variation in the stylistic dimension derives from variation in the
8
Levinson (1992: 91) notes that this kind of address, which conveys socially deictic, ‘‘absolute’’,
information, includes formulae reserved for ‘‘authorized recipients’’. These forms are solely dependent on and
restricted by the status of the referent. Moreover, in the process of establishing the socially deictic centre, other
honorifics, humble expressions, ‘‘relational designations’’ (father, boss) and intimate forms of address (daddy)
are used, as Fludernik (1993: 43) points out (for more on kinship terms used for situationally defined reference,
see Section 2.2.2; Allerton, 1987: 80; Braun, 1998: 254–256).
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
2133
social dimension (the so-called ‘‘Style Axiom’’; see Bell, 1984: 151). Therefore, a variable
cannot be seen to have intraspeaker variation if it has no interspeaker variation.
This correlation between the social and stylistic dimensions is the basis of what Bell
(1984: 159) calls audience design. It means that people respond to other people so that they
design their speech at all linguistic levels (including address and reference) according to
their hearers. Audience roles are then ranked on the basis of whether the hearers are known,
ratified or addressed by the speaker (i.e., whether they are addressees, auditors, overhearers
or eavesdroppers).
The so-called responsive dimension of audience design includes both addressee design
and auditor effect. Bell (1984: 161ff.) links style variation on this level to the accommodation model, which hypothesises that a person accommodates his/her speech to the
addressee in order to be approved (on accommodation theory, see also e.g., Giles and
Smith, 1979; Coupland and Giles, 1988).
As already stated in Section 2.2.1, the relationship between the speaker and the
addressee is governed by distance and status (power), which can most visibly be seen
in the use of address. Moreover, direct address can work as a marker of style variation,
showing the social mechanisms present in audience design. When writing a letter, for
instance, there is usually one intended recipient, sometimes several, and this can be
indicated by the choice of address formulae. The writer may choose a form by which he/she
shows that there is only one possible addressee, especially in intimate relationships, by
using a term of endearment or a nickname, as Queen Elizabeth I does in her letter to Robert
Dudley in Example (5). The two ‘o’s’ she uses correspond to ‘‘two eyes’’, originating most
probably from the fact that Dudley acted as her eyes and ears at the Court.
(5)
Now will I end that to imagine I talk still with you, and therefore loathly say
farewell, O O, though ever I pray God bless you from all harm and save you
from all foes, with my million and legion of thanks for all your pains and cares.
(Beale, 1998: 197)
The writer may also use address to indicate that the letter is intended to be seen by more
than one reader. This is usually done by using, for example, KTs or other nominal forms in
the plural, as in Examples (6a) and (6b) (from the same letter), where Winifrid Thimelby
writes to her nephews and nieces first addressing them collectively and later in the letter,
each one in turn. This strategy makes it possible for the recipients to choose themselves
whether to let one person read the letter to everyone or let the letter circulate, as was often
done in the Early Modern period.
(6a)
(6b)
My dear Children, Girls and Boys, Ever since my jubily, I have long’d for
opportunity to convay thes little things wear given me then; because I expect
none so fine agen. (TIXALL: 1670s, Winifrid Thimelby, 96)
God bless sweet Mall, Wat, and Hab, and all of you. I forgot to tell thee Gatt,
I never had that letter yr father tells me you ritt; but Franck I had both of
yours, and sent a little purs, and christall, to thee, by one Mr. Digby; but I
doubt he ner delivered it, tho he promised fare. (TIXALL: 1670s, Winifrid
Thimelby, 97)
2134
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
The so-called second addressees include auditors, overhearers, bystanders and eavesdroppers (for more discussion on conversational roles, see e.g., Goffman, 1981: 131ff.;
Levinson, 1992: 72–73; Wilson and Zeitlyn, 1995: 72–75). Also in this case, these third
persons are present in the speech situation: auditors are ratified participants but overhearers are not. In correspondence, it could be argued that certain reference terms may be
used instead of direct address formulae in order to indicate that the writer knows there
are other possible readers than the intended addressee (sometimes even the person
referred to). This may be overt (ratified ‘‘auditors’’) or covert (unratified ‘‘eavesdroppers’’), depending on whether the writer wishes to present the addressee with the
possibility of passing the news to others or not. The writer may express the permission to
speak to a third person about the matter in question by straightforwardly saying, e.g.,
‘‘tell this to your father’’ or ‘‘read this to my wife’’. In this case the referents could be
seen as auditors, as in Example (7):
(7)
Speak yoe mynde to the Lady of Bedford in my behalf, and tell her that the
weather hath bin very vnfauorable to the proceedinges of her picture.
(CORNWALLIS: 1614, Nathaniel Bacon Jr., 20)
In the case where the writer knows, or even fears, that there may be other people reading
the letter, although it is not so intended, he/she may use, for example, a cipher to try to
prevent possible overhearers and eavesdroppers from finding out who is referred to.
Whereas open expressions are often used in letters between intimates, these kinds of
attempts to keep a referent secret are used in correspondence handling, e.g., matters of
state, as can be seen in Elizabeth, Queen of Bohemia’s letter to Sir Thomas Rowe (Example
8; the name in brackets added by the editor):
(8)
As of there envoyes heere confessed plainlie the other day in privat to
128.219.130 [the Prince of Orange] who expostulated the matter with him, that
the Cardinall finding the Duke of Weimars army desired my sonne he stayed
him to hinder it, which plaine enough to be seene. (ROYAL2: 1639, Elizabeth of
Bohemia, SP 81/48, f. 190)
In addition to responsive design, Bell distinguishes an initiative axis of style which
includes what he calls ‘‘referees’’ (1984: 186).9 These are third persons who are not
physically present in a communicative situation but nevertheless influence the language the
speakers or writers use. The result is that the speaker shifts from addressee-oriented to
referee-oriented style. Referee design can then be further divided into in-group design
(identifying with the speaker’s own group) and out-group design (oriented towards an
outside reference group).
The use of reference terms may of course be taken as an example of a certain type of
referee design. In letters, the writer may wish to express whether he/she is a member of the
9
Bell (2001: 165) has revised his earlier view of treating referee design as a secondary dimension to
audience design, and now thinks that the two aspects may instead operate as complementary and co-existent in
all speech events.
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
2135
in-group or the out-group by referring to a third person with a term which can be easily
interpreted. Writers socially superior or equal to their addressee and/or referent may want
to stress either their superiority or in-group properties by using intimate terms of reference
of someone in their own in-group (but not of the addressee’s).10
On the other hand, there are situations in which a writer is socially inferior to the
addressee and/or the referent. The writer may wish to give the impression that he is a
close member of the referent’s in-group, although it is clear from the context that he is
not. If the referent were his close friend, it would be more probable that he used, e.g.,
title þ LN, or perhaps even FN, when referring to the referent. In Example (9), Daniel
Defoe in his letter to Robert Harley emphasises his relationship with the referent(s)
by using a qualifying formula my particular friend and a referential term all my
friends:
(9)
But the Mayor being Out of Town, the Next principle Magistrate, whom they
Call a Justice as having been Mayor The year before, was my perticular
Friend, And here was the first and Onely Time I show’d your Pass, Takeing the
hint from your Letter of useing it with Caution.
This So Encourag’d the Magistrate and all my Friends That I might
have assur’d my self here of Protection, and the Measures of the Other
party in the Town Seem’d Entirely broke. (DEFOE: 1705, Daniel Defoe,
99)
In addition to Bell, Dickey (1997) and Allerton (1996) have compared the use of address
forms and terms of reference in present-day material. One purpose in both studies is to
establish common rules for the derivation, or predicting, of reference terms from direct
address forms. In Dickey’s (1997: 256) opinion, the choice and use of both direct address
and reference is socially rather than lexically determined, a view also shared by Allerton
(1996: 622).11 Direct address has been found to be more ‘‘consistent’’ than reference; it
could therefore be considered the ‘‘normal’’ form from which reference may be seen to
deviate.
Both Dickey and Allerton acknowledge the centrality of shifting between different
viewpoints, especially in reference, and it is clear, as Allerton (1996: 623–624) notes,
that both sociolinguistic conventions and compromises become even more crucial in
such communicative situations where there are more than two participants. Choosing a
mode of reference means adopting another standpoint, whether that of the addressee or
the overhearer. Dickey and Allerton conclude that the reference term used is usually
chosen according to the direct address form which the addressee uses of the referent. For
example, if a university lecturer knows that a student addresses his/her fellow lecturer as
10
Murphy (1988: 328) uses the term ‘‘name-dropping’’ when talking about this kind of ‘‘flaunting of social
advantage’’. In his opinion it could be socially awkward to use, for example, FN as a reference term if the
addressee did not enjoy an equally intimate relationship with the referent as the speaker.
11
Dickey (1997: 256) suggests that the term ‘literal meaning’ could be replaced by ‘lexical meaning’, which
could in turn be distinguished from ‘social meaning’. Therefore, a choice like the one between using Jane and
Mrs. Smith when addressing or referring to a woman named Jane Smith would be socially determined.
2136
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Dr. Smith, it is likely that the lecturer also refers to the colleague as Dr. Smith when
talking to the student. Moreover, Dickey (1997: 268) notes that the addressee’s
inferiority/superiority influences the choice of reference terms in a particular way: in
general, when talking to a person who is either younger or inferior to the referent, the
speaker uses the term the addressee would use in direct address to the referent. For
example, a wife may refer to her husband by using the term daddy when talking to their
child, a term she would not herself normally use in direct address to him (see also
footnote 17). Correspondingly, she claims that when talking to a superior, the speaker
may sometimes choose that superior’s forms of address (e.g., students may refer to their
teacher by using FN instead of the normally used title þ LN when in conversation with
another teacher).
Allerton goes further than Dickey in his analysis of reference usage. By relating
his findings to Grice’s (1975) conversational maxims, he introduces a maxim of his
own, ‘‘avoid variation in form for the same meaning’’ (Allerton, 1996: 623). This
means that speakers should choose the same term to refer to the same referent where
possible.12 In reality, this creates what Allerton calls ‘‘tension’’ between the speakers,
since speakers cannot always use the same term for a certain referent. The situation can
only be resolved by making compromises: if, for example, the speaker uses FN to refer
to his close colleague and the addressee uses title þ LN when referring to the same
person, they can both compromise and call the referent by FN þ LN. The notion of
compromise is particularly evident in communication between people who are distant
to each other in some way. In conversation between family members, on the other hand,
the choice of reference term is more a question of convention, which means that one
participant’s form is adopted as a reference term for a shared relative. This adopted
term then usually corresponds to the term used in direct address to the referent by the
addressee.
3. Method and material
In order to illustrate the use of direct address and reference in the present study, I have
chosen to present two members of a prestigious Norfolk family from the turn of the 17th
century, the Bacons: Sir Nicholas Bacon and his son Nathaniel Bacon. These informants
were chosen mainly because there are many letters written directly to them, and, moreover,
because they are constantly referred to in letters written by various people, from nuclear
family members to correspondents outside kin relations.
12
Clark and Marshall (1981) discuss the importance of ‘‘mutual knowledge’’ in determining the referent.
Murphy (1988: 340) mentions mutual information as the basis of cooperativeness in his Rule of Polite Reference.
Hanks (1992: 59, 67ff.) also writes about the sufficient background knowledge, ‘‘a common framework’’, the
speaker and the addressee must have for the reference to be successful. Evans (1982: 379) uses the term
‘‘common knowledge’’, Clark and Murphy (1982: 288) talk about ‘‘common ground’’. Schegloff (1996: 459)
makes a distinction between ‘‘recognitional reference’’ and ‘‘non-recognitional reference’’. When using the
former, both the speaker and the addressee know who the referent is; in the latter, only the speaker may be able
to identify the referent.
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
F (close)
TC
FNr
– older
FO
+ older
– older
2137
T (distant)
inferior
equal
superior
+ older
Fig. 2. The organisation of the data.
My material is drawn from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC), a
database which, in its extended version, consists of personal letters from 1410 to 1800.13
For the analysis, I searched for every address form and term of reference both in the letters
written directly to my two informants and in those letters in which either Sir Nicholas or
Nathaniel Bacon were referred to by name, kinship term or title. In those cases where I
could not be sure of which male member of the Bacon family was referred to (the forms my
lord, Mr. Bacon or Bacon), I first relied on contextual evidence and finally left out the
instances in which it was absolutely impossible to determine the referent. The names of all
who either directly wrote of referred to Sir Nicholas and Nathaniel, together with the
quantitative information of the material used, are listed in Appendices A to E.
The data was then organised according to the determiners of distance and power
(including age), as seen in Fig. 2. By distance, I mean the symmetric notions of social
similarity as well as familiarity, scaling from close to distant. For example, a family
member may be close in terms of both social similarity and familiarity, but a friend may be
close in terms of familiarity, though not in terms of social similarity (rank), which leads us
to differences in relative power. Power is about asymmetric differences in social rank, on
the one hand, and relative power of control, on the other, i.e., it ranges from superior to
inferior. For example, a member of the nobility may be superior to a member of the gentry
both in terms of social rank and control, whereas a member of a nuclear family may be
equal in terms of social rank but superior in control, as e.g., a father is to a child. I see these
two concepts as interactive elements which may alter either on a social or situational
level.14
13
The 1998 version of the CEEC has been compiled by the Sociolinguistics and Language History team at
the Department of English, University of Helsinki (compilers: Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg,
Arja Nurmi, Minna Palander-Collin, Jukka Keränen and myself). It consists of 2.7 million words in 96 letter
collections from around 1410–1681. An extension consisting of letter material covering the 18th century is
currently under compilation (at present adding up to a total of over one million words). More information on the
project and the corpus can be found from the website http://www.eng.helsinki.fi/varieng/team2 and Laitinen
(2002). A sampler corpus (CEECS) is available on the second ICAME CD-ROM. The references to the
collections primarily used in this study, BACON and PARKHURST, as well as other collections in the corpus
can be found in, e.g., Nurmi (1999).
14
Spencer-Oatey (1996: 21) discusses the concepts of both power and distance in depth in her article, and
concludes that there is great inconsistency between the different meanings of the terms used by researchers. She
further points out that connotations on ‘power’ and ‘distance’ may vary according to cultural differences. For
example, ‘power’ may be seen as a negative dominance, as it is usually understood in English.
2138
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Abbreviations in the figures, as well as in Appendices A to E, are as follows: FNr
(nuclear family members), FO (other members of kin), FS (family servants), TC (close
friends)15 and T (other writers). My purpose with this classification was to find factors
governing the choice of the formulae and to facilitate the ‘‘prediction’’ of their usage
according to politeness variables.
4. The case study: the Bacons
4.1. Sir Nicholas Bacon (1510?–1579)
Sir Nicholas became the Lord Keeper to Elizabeth I in 1558. By that time, his marriage
to Jane, daughter of merchant Thomas Ferneley, had produced seven children: Nicholas,
Nathaniel, Edward, John, Elizabeth, Anne, and another Elizabeth. After the death of his
first wife in 1552, Sir Nicholas married Anne, daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke, with whom
he had four more children: Anthony, Francis, Susan and Mary.
Sir Nicholas has been characterised as ‘‘vigorous’’ and ‘‘idiosyncratic’’ (Hassell Smith
et al., 1978: xviii). He was very keen on knowing everything that happened at home while
he was attending his duties at Court, which also included dealing with every aspect of his
children’s lives. His critical instructions affected especially his sons, and so they soon
learned to be precise in every detail from business to estate management. Thanks to his
useful position as the Lord Keeper, many of his children soon established connections with
the Court: Anthony became Secretary to the Earl of Essex and Francis became Lord
Chancellor, whereas the two Elizabeths found their husbands among courtiers.
As expected, the material shows many instances of the recognition of Sir Nicholas’s high
social status as a knight and the Lord Keeper, as seen in Fig. 3. In general, the manner in
which Sir Nicholas is directly addressed can be analysed as denoting extreme negative
politeness, regardless of the distance between the writer and the recipient.
There is only one nuclear family member writing to Sir Nicholas, namely his son
Nathaniel, who uses the forms Your (good) Lordship and Sir in his letters, as seen in
Example (10). Nathaniel’s use of deferential forms of address remains the same during the
9 years of correspondence with his father.
(10)
Fearinge that your Lordship wolde thinke some slaknes in me, I thought best to
writ this letter, though it be litle to the aunsweringe of the chefest of the
remembrances which your Lordship at my comminge from yow gave unto me.
(BACON: 1572, Nathaniel Bacon, I,32)
Similar types of negatively polite formulae can be found in letters written by other than kin.
The form Your Honour is used by inferior writers, especially John Mounford, a family
15
These categories follow the ones set for the writer–addressee relationship in the CEEC. Especially when
determining the parameters for a close friendship, the compilers have relied on extensive external material,
including the Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) and each editor’s background knowledge of the
correspondents.
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
F (close)
TC
2139
T (distant)
no
examples
FNr
– older
Sir,
Your
(good)
Lordship
FO
+ older
no
examples
– older
no
examples
inferior
+ older
Your
Honour,
Your
Lordship
equal
my Lord,
Your
Lordship
superior
no
examples
no
examples
Fig. 3. Sir Nicholas Bacon: direct address.
servant (Example 11). Unfortunately, there is only one letter from Mounford to Sir
Nicholas in the CEEC, but the use of your honour and your worship can also be
seen in Mounford’s letters to Nathaniel (for more on letters of servants to Nathaniel,
see Section 4.2).
(11)
My dewtye remembred unto your honor, thes shalbe to lette your honor
undrestond that I have troden owt the felde. Accordyng unto your honor’s
appoyntment I have fownd owt that there belonggythe to Mr. Corbette’s lease &
John Calthroppe’s in eryable londes & medowes as apperythe by a particuler
byll that I send unto your honor herin enclosed, & all other profyghtes
belonggyng unto the sayd manors mensyonyd in the byll aforsayd. (BACON:
1572, John Mounford, I, 28)
The next excerpts show the use of direct address in letters written by more distant writers,
both inferior and equal. In Examples (12) and (13) the writers, Edmund Banyard and
George Gascoigne, are socially inferior to Sir Nicholas, whereas in Examples (14) and (15)
the address formulae used are from the letters of social equals, Edward Fiennes, Lord
Admiral, and Sir Francis Walsingham, Secretary of State.
(12)
(13)
(14)
Right honnorable, my bounden duetie remembred. That wheras I have made
soundrye and dyverse meanes unto your honnour, as well by gyvinge out of
quitaunces as by the mocione of my frindes, for the monye in your honnor’s
handes. (BACON: 1574, Edmund Banyard, I, 135)
My verie favorable good Lorde, beinge latelye receavede into Her Majesties
service (wherin I hope to recover my decayede estate) I devisede to presente all
my lordes and good frendes in Cowrte with certayne [Emblems] for their
Newyeres gyftes, an exercyes (as I judge) neyther unplesante nor unproffitable.
(BACON: 1578, George Gascoigne, II, 3)
My verie good Lord, yt maie pleas you to understand that this daie Hoobbard
and the rest which have committed offencys appon the cost of Norffolke and
Suffolke have ben before my Lordes of the Councell. (BACON: 1576, Edward
Fiennes, I,220)
2140
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
F (close)
TC
T (distant)
no
examples
FNr
– older
my
father,
my
Lord
FO
+ older
no
examples
– older
your
father,
my
Lord
inferior
+ older
no
examples
my Lord,
Sir
Nicholas
your
father, my
Lord
Keeper,
his
Lordship
equal
your
father,
my Lord
your
father
superior
no
examples
Fig. 4. Sir Nicholas Bacon: reference.
(15)
Ryght honorable and my verry good Lord, I sende your Lordship a coppye
of my Lords’ letters by the which you may perceyve what order is taken by them
for the shypps and goodes stayed by your Lordship’s sonne Mr. Nathanaell
Bacon. (BACON: 1576, Francis Walsingham, I, 223)
If we then turn to the terms used to refer to Sir Nicholas in Fig. 4, we notice that regardless
of social distance between the writer and the recipient, forms such as my Lord (Keeper),
or when in a letter to a member of Sir Nicholas’s kin, my lord your father, are mostly
used.
In letters written by family members, Sir Nicholas is referred to with the term my father
by his sons Nathaniel and Nicholas Jr. They also use my lord, which appears in other
relatives’ letters as well, including Edward, one of Sir Nicholas’s younger sons. In
Examples (16) and (17) we can see extracts from Nicholas Jr.’s letter to Sir William
Cecil and Robert Bacon’s (Sir Nicholas’s nephew) letter to Nathaniel.
(16)
(17)
Whereas I have received your honores letters understandynge thereby that there
hathe greate speeches paste betwen my brother and your Lordship concernynge
the matters in question betwen my brother Anthoney and my selfe touchynge
my fatheres will. (BACON: 1579, Nicholas Bacon Jr., II, 77)
thirdly yf he were justly to answhere uppon his conscience I thinke he canne but
affirme that notwithstanding [the havinge] my Lord your fathers good
cowntenance he had hardlie obtayned his wyf withowt my helpe whicch was as
foloweth (BACON: 1584, Robert Bacon, II, 283)
More distant writers, such as family servants and acquaintances, refer to Sir Nicholas alike:
if the letter is intended for a family member, my lord your father is common (Example 18);
if the letter is exchanged between people who are both distant to Sir Nicholas, my Lord
Keeper is used, as can be seen in Example (19). Example (20) shows a passage from a
formal letter from the Privy Council to Nathaniel, hence the obligation to refer to Sir
Nicholas in a strictly official manner, regardless of the close relationship between the
addressee and the referent.
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
(18)
(19)
(20)
2141
I have spoken with my cousyn Stubbes and by my int[reaty] he is contented
the matter for the purchase to ha[ve] in suspence untyll my Lord your
fathers comyng in to the countrye. (BACON: 1578, Christopher Heydon, II,
17)
These shalbe t’advertise yowe that, as I am enformed, my Lord Keper of the
Great Seall hath bowght the lordship of Stifkey alias Stewkey of Mr.
Banyard, and I for mye owne parte mean not to deall in sewttes of law with
any thinge that apperteineth unto his honour. (BACON: 1570, Stephen
Nevinson, I, 13)
After our hartie commendacions. We have bene made acquainted with your
letters written to our verie good Lord the Lord Keper, your father, towchinge
suche spoiles as have bene committed uppon that coaste by certeine
Englishemen pretendinge to serve under forreyne commission, contrarie to
Her Majeste’s proclamacion in that case sett forthe. (BACON: 1576, Privy
Council, I, 208)
The material indicates that in direct address Sir Nicholas’s superior social status, as well as
his social role as the father of the family, overrules whatever influence distance may have
on the use of formulae. The use of referential terms, however, is more governed by the
nature of the relationship between Sir Nicholas and the writer/the addressee. Kinship is
recognised, and in many cases even emphasised, by using a KT alone, or together with a
title, in letters written to Sir Nicholas’s family members.
4.2. Nathaniel Bacon (1546?–1622)
The second son of Sir Nicholas and Jane Bacon, Nathaniel, was educated at Trinity
College, Cambridge, and Gray’s Inn. In spite of his father’s eminent position at Court,
Nathaniel stayed in Norfolk, and after his marriage to Anne, daughter of Sir Thomas
Gresham, and acquiring five children, he was content to keep office as a local J.P. for almost
50 years. He became a valued member of many commissions and twice Sheriff of Norfolk
before being knighted in 1604.
Nathaniel was an ‘‘earnest, severe and rather self-righteous man’’ (Hassell Smith et al.,
1978: xvii). He was a true puritan, and his letters consisted more of facts of business and
politics than of ordinary life and everyday gossip. His interests lie in finding ways in which
legislation could be used to reduce the ills of society, and his puritan heart was set on social
and moral reform. In his opinion, the church and its bishops should do what they did best:
preach and teach, not administrate.
If we look at the direct address used in letters to Nathaniel in Fig. 5, we can
see a clear division between the letters that are written by those who are close to
Nathaniel, i.e., family, kin and friends, and those that are written by more distant
correspondents.
Nuclear family members use FN, LN, KT, as well as combinations of all of them. Sir
Nicholas addresses Nathaniel with the forms son Nathaniel, son Bacon or plain FN,
brothers and sisters use terms like brother Nathaniel or good brother, but Nathaniel’s halfbrother Anthony addresses him also as brother Bacon. Nathaniel’s daughter Anne Town-
2142
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
F (close)
TC
FNr
– older
brother,
brother
Bacon,
brother
Nathaniel,
most dear
father
FO
+ older
son,
Nathaniel,
brother
– older
brother
Bacon,
brother
Nathaniel,
cousin
Nath
my good
friend, Sir,
Mr
Nathaniel,
Mr Bacon
+ older
son,
cousin,
son
Bacon
T (distant)
inferior
Sir, Your
Worship,
Right
Worshipful,
your
Lordship,
Mr Bacon,
Mr
Nathaniel
equal
Sir, Mr
Nathaniel,
cousin
Bacon,
Mr
Sheriff
superior
Sir, Mr
Bacon
Fig. 5. Nathaniel Bacon: direct address.
shend begins her letter with most dear father. Example (21) shows direct address in a letter
from Edward Bacon, Nathaniel’s younger brother.
(21)
Brother, I somewhat dout yow have not received all [the letters] I have
sent yow. Thome Hawtyn telleth me of [a] letter [that] shold not be delivered,
beinge inclosed in a letter from hym [to] yow. (BACON: 1572, Edward Bacon,
I, 42)
More examples of similar type of positively polite address formulae can be found when
looking at letters written by other relatives, such as in-laws: cousin Nath, son Nathaniel,
brother Nathaniel and son Bacon are common. Example (22) is a passage from Nathaniel’s
cousin Robert Blackman, showing a typical term of address in a relative’s letter. KT is an
inseparable part of an address form here, especially in letters from Nathaniel’s in-laws
(Example 23; from Nathaniel’s father-in-law Sir Thomas Gresham).
(22)
(23)
Cosen Nath, yow shall understande that I thancke Gode that I am well
recowered, thanckes be to God, and I troste to se yow at Cockethrope shortely
after Newerstyde [New-year’s tide]. (BACON: 1573? Robert Blackman, I, 99)
Sonne Bacon, I thanke you for the paines you have taken about my busines.
And wheras [you] writt me that Mr Sydnie claymeth mor land bie 7 or 8 acrs
then was ment should be passed unto him and therfore desier to have the
counterpaine of his conveyance, I would have sent you the same but I cannot
presentlie come bie yt, but at the terme I will take advise therin. (BACON: 1579,
Thomas Gresham, II, 108)
Negative politeness is used when social distance varies: family servants
address Nathaniel with the highly deferential right worshipful, your worship or your
honour (Example 24), whereas friends use sir and the more neutral good Mr Bacon
(Example 25).
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
(24)
(25)
2143
Syr, my dewtye remembryd thys ys to lett your worchype understand that I have
talked with Mr Bosom for a thowsand wod and he sayth that you shall have of the
best & better chepe than he wyll sell to any man, but I could not gett hym to name
anye pryce how he wold sell ytt; (BACON: 1576, John Mounford, I, 77)
I perceve by your letter, good Mr Bacon, that Mr Sidnay with other lessees
enter apon courts leets and manreds of men to the great prejudice, and almost
overthrowe, of my hole office wherof you have the deputation with some charge
which you bestowed on me. (BACON: 1591, Roger North, III, 117)
More distant writers may alter their address by using formulae ranging from the neutral
cousin Bacon to the negatively polite sir or right worshipful, as seen in Example (26). The
form Master Bacon is commonly used in this category (Example 27; a letter of John
Saunders, a servant of Nathaniel’s father-in-law), and forms like good Mr Sheriff, Mr
Nathaniel and mine loving friend Mr Bacon also appear.16
(26)
(27)
Right worshipfull, my duetie remembred. Yt may please you to understand that
this day the constables of Aylesham showed your letter sent to theim yesterday
to Sir Edward Clere who demaunded of theim where the first warrant was,
which they told him was with the chief constables as the tr[u]th was. (BACON:
1583, Stephen Drury, II, 270)
Mr Bacon, my dewtie of humble commendations remembred. The opportunitie
of this [the] bringer, with the remembraunce of the manifolde benefites
from you received, woulde not suffer me to let slipe this occasion but that
I must troble you with these rude lines. (BACON: 1576, John Saunders, I,
183–184)
Referential terms used by nuclear family members, presented in Fig. 6, do not differ much
from the direct address. My brother þ FN or LN is used, and Sir Nicholas refers to his son
with my son Nathaniel. Nathaniel’s wife Anne uses, on the other hand, only the term my
husband in letters to her relatives (Example 28).
(28)
My husbande hetherto hath provided nothinge towardes our goinge to house. I
thinke the let be because he is not able. It were a hard matter by our one yeare’s
savinge to spare so mutch as wolde serve to provide us stuff for our house but in
the meanest sort. (BACON: 1572, Anne Bacon 3, I, 25)
The form Mr Bacon is used by other writers. What clearly differs from the formulae used by
distant writers in direct address is the fact that the positively polite form your brother
Nathaniel appears alongside of more negatively polite forms like your lordship’s son Mr
Nathaniel Bacon, as seen in Example (29). These terms are all used in letters to either
16
Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1995) have also used Nathaniel for a case study on address forms in
letter salutations. They point out (1995: 582) that letters to Nathaniel included a strategy called no-naming which
was a convention often used in official correspondence. However, in letters written to Nathaniel, those who use
no-naming also include members of his immediate kin, for which reason Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg
conclude that no-naming itself does not mean distance or lack of familiarity.
2144
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
F (close)
TC
T (distant)
no
examples
FNr
FO
inferior
Mr Bacon
– older
+ older
my
husband
my son
Nathaniel,
my
brother
Nathaniel,
my
brother
– older
+ older
no
examples
no
examples
equal
Mr Bacon,
Mr
Nathaniel
Bacon
superior
your
brother
Nathaniel,
your son Mr
Nathaniel
Bacon,
Mr Bacon
Fig. 6. Nathaniel Bacon: reference.
Nathaniel’s father or brother, which naturally explains their use in this context. It clearly is a
mixed form which may be seen as a compromise between a respectful term towards the
addressee (your Lordship), the term the writer suspects the addressee would use of the
referent (sonne), and the term he would himself use of the referent (Maister Nathaniell
Bacon).
(29)
I have received your letter and the coppie of a letter from your Lordship’s sonne
Maister Nathaniell Bacon, wherin he declarethe of the spoyle that ys don appon
the coast of Norffolke and Suffolke by certeyne shippes under the cooloure of the
Kynge of Spayne his lycence. (BACON: 1576, Edward Fiennes, I, 204)
The overall use of direct address in letters written to Nathaniel seems to be more varied
than address in letters to his father. Social distance between the correspondents is
recognised, in that more positively polite formulae are used within the family and more
negatively polite terms when the writer comes from outside Nathaniel’s kin. Referential
terms clearly vary according to the addressee of the letter and his/her relationship with
Nathaniel: in reference to his father, KTs are present, but this time also plain KT þ FN
(without a title) is used—something that in Sir Nicholas’s case would seem inappropriate
at the time.
5. Discussion
5.1. General observations
5.1.1. Address and reference: structure and forms
When we look at the letters written to Sir Nicholas, we can see that the addressee’s social
status as the Lord Keeper and his role as the father of the Bacon family shows very clearly in
the use of direct address formulae. Your Lordship, Sir, your Honour and Right Honourable are
used regardless of the distance between the writer and the addressee. Also in reference his title
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
2145
(Sir) is frequently mentioned, as are the terms my lord, his Lordship and the Lord Keeper. KT
is another obligatory part of reference when either the writer or the addressee is related to Sir
Nicholas. It is also used together with title in such cases where the term chosen could
otherwise refer to many referents (e.g., my lord). When the term my lord is used alone,
especially in letters written to Nathaniel, it is taken to mean Sir Nicholas only. This is
supported by the fact that when referring to some other referent entitled to be called my lord,
writers almost always use an additional ‘‘reference-specifier’’, as in my Lord Coke, my Lord
Treasurer, my Lord of Oxford and my Lord his Grace of Canterbury.
The direct address that Nathaniel Bacon receives from his correspondents clearly varies
according to the writer in question. FN and KTs are used by close correspondents, whereas
more distant writers often use titles and LN. The use of reference terms follows that of Sir
Nicholas, in that KTs are used in most cases. Only when both the writer and the addressee
are distant to Nathaniel, is title þ LN used without a KT. In order for the referent of the KT
to be understood, FN or LN is mentioned in most cases.
Wilson and Zeitlyn (1995: 81) have argued that, especially in regard to KTs, people tend
to use basic expressions (Mommy) in direct address, whereas compound expressions
(Tommy’s Dad) are used when referring to a third party.17 Whether this applies to my
material depends on what counts as a ‘‘compound expression’’ in the Early Modern period.
If we understand a combined phrase as including reference to both the addressee and the
referent (instead of only the proposed reference to two separate referents, as in Tommy’s
Dad), the answer is in the affirmative. In both Sir Nicholas’s and Nathaniel’s case such
referential terms as my lord your father or your son Mr Nathaniel Bacon may count as
combined entities in which KTs deictically modify the main address forms (my lord, Mr
Nathaniel Bacon), but I would argue that both in reference and direct address different
degrees of basicness and compoundness should be distinguished. For these purposes the
idea of a politeness scale (as proposed and used, e.g., in Nevala, 2003) might be applicable,
although it does cause problems in comparing the use of direct address to that of reference
terms—the main reason it is not used in this study.
If we take a look at the plain structure of both the direct address and reference, we may
draw conclusions about which forms can be used as reference terms without any
modifications. When referring to Sir Nicholas, there is only one address form, my (very
good) lord, that can be used in this way. In the case of other titles/honorifics, at least the
modifying pronouns must be changed according to the point of view of the writer/
addressee, and most often FN is added to the title Sir.
In reference to Nathaniel, direct address forms such as my brother and my cousin can be
used as such, although in direct address they often appear without the defining pronoun, or
the pronoun is changed as in Sir Nicholas’s case. In addition to the use of KTs, title þ LN
(Mr Bacon) can also be used in both direct address and reference. There are not, however,
any cases of title þ FN þ LN in address, as there are in reference.
FN in reference seems to be restricted to a certain use. As we saw in Fig. 4, when
referring to Sir Nicholas, FN cannot be used alone, but must be used in the form Sir þ
17
Schegloff (1996: 443, 447) notes that KTs like daddy and mom are third-person terms which may often be
used for referring either to the speaker him/herself or to the addressee in situations of ‘‘simplified register’’ (e.g.
when talking to children).
2146
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Nicholas. In Nathaniel’s case (Fig. 6) the FN usage is frequent also in reference, and FN is
used both by immediate family as well as more distant writers. In my opinion, this shows
another difference between direct address forms and referential terms: whereas in direct
address FN can be considered a marker of positive politeness, for referential purposes both
FN and LN may be used as what I have called ‘‘referent specifiers’’, i.e., as markers that
separate the referent from, for example, other family members. Naturally then, if there are
several possible referents for, e.g., the term your son, adding FN makes it clear to the
addressee which of his/her sons is in fact referred to.
5.1.2. Deictic pronouns and modifying adjectives
As I noted earlier (in Section 2.2.1), the pronouns my and your appear both in direct
address and in reference, but it seems that in direct address they are mostly a conventionalised part of the address form, as for example in your worship, your honour, your
Lordship or my very good lord. The pronoun my is also most often used together with a KT,
as in my brother or my good cousin. From the latter cases the pronoun has later been
excluded or replaced by dear.
In reference, however, these pronouns seem to have a clearer deictic function, which can
be seen for example in the term your father or in my brother Nathaniel. There is some
evidence of the opposite as well: when used by writers who are socially distant either to the
addressee or to the referent, pronouns in terms like my lord or my Lord Keeper are used as
part of a conventionalised whole.18 Probably due to its more restricted use also as a
positively polite address pronoun, thou is not used with titles (e.g., the form *thy lord).19
Formulae including thou þ KT, e.g., thy father, do not appear in this material either, which
points to the marginal use of the pronoun in a context like this.
Modifying adjectives used in direct address and reference are few in the material. Forms
such as right worshipful and very favourable can be used only in direct address, whereas the
adjective (very) good appears also in referential terms. The fact that the adjective dear is
not used for either of the informants is most probably due to the selection of the material.
Nevertheless, the modifiers present seem to be quite conventionalised in nature, as is also
most often the case where pronouns are used.20
5.2. Designing axes
5.2.1. Typical use of address and reference in the material
On the basis of my material it is possible to construct simplified ‘‘charts’’ of the typical
use of both direct address and reference for both informants. Due to the nature of my
18
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989) gives several occurences for the
combination my lord, the first one dated as early as c. 1440. It can be assumed, therefore, that by the time the
Bacon letters were written, my lord was already a conventionalised formula.
19
For one, Busse (2002: 286) has found that in Shakespeare there is a clear connection between the use of
thou and terms of endearment. In addition to its use alongside with terms of abuse, it often functions as a marker
of extreme intimacy. This is also corroborated by Nevala (2002).
20
Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1995: 567) point out that forms such as worshipful sir and my very
good lord were gradually semantically ‘‘bleached’’. Also Braun (1988: 256) discusses what she calls ‘‘faded
literal meaning’’ in reference to the nominal form mister, originating from master.
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Writer –
Addressee
CLOSE
2147
Writer –
Addressee
DISTANT
NEGATIVELY
polite
Sir Nicholas
Bacon
honorific
honorific
title
Nathaniel Bacon
title + LN
title + LN
honorific
honorific
honorific
honorific + title + honorific + title +
LN
LN
title
title
title + LN
title + FN
KT + LN
KT
KT + FN
FN
honorific
friendship term +
title + LN
friendship term
POSITIVELY
polite
Fig. 7. Direct address.
written and historical material, the following figures are only indicative of the usage in
general, which is the case especially with reference.
In Fig. 7 we can see that somebody in Sir Nicholas’s position would be addressed
directly with a title/honorific regardless of the distance between the writer and the
addressee. When he is referred to, however, a more complicated picture appears (see
below). Fig. 7 shows, secondly, the direct address model used in letters to Nathaniel. The
general trend seems to be one in which FN is used when the writer is close (family) to the
addressee, whereas at the opposite end of the scale titles and honorifics (þ LN) are
mostly used. KTs appear on the scale, mostly combined with FN or LN.
Fig. 8 shows that when either the writer or the addressee is close to the referent, the most
typical reference term is KT (in the close addressee–referent relationship, title þ KT is also
used). When the referent is equally close to the writer as to the addressee, the title is
connected to either plain FN or FN þ LN. The same pattern can be seen when the writer
and the addressee are both distant to the referent: the terms most often used are title þ FN,
title þ FN þ LN and plain title/honorific. In Nathaniel’s case, FN is used as an identifier in
the letters written to his father. Naturally, this is redundant when referring to Sir Nicholas in
letters written to Nathaniel.
5.2.2. The two poles of politeness
The use of positive and negative politeness in Brown and Levinson’s terms seems clear
when we look at direct address. Titles and honorifics are used as conveying negative
politeness, whereas FNs and KTs are used as positively polite address forms. In regard to
reference terms, the two sides of politeness become, however, more difficult to define or
categorise. In Sir Nicholas’s case, referential terms seem to be more mixed and less
politeness-specific than direct forms, meaning that also the non-kin writers who are
equal in power to the referent use what could in direct address be called positively polite
2148
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Wr
Ref
KT +
N
Ref
title +
N
Ref
title +
KT +
N
Add
Fig. 8. Reference.
forms (i.e., KTs). Also, judged by the distance factor, socially inferior writers, such as
family servants, use negatively polite forms throughout in both direct address and
reference, although there are also examples of the use of KTs (e.g., your father) in their
referential usage. In general, socially superior writers are allowed more variation in the
address and reference they use of others. This can be used to either emphasise, e.g., by
using the term my friend or other forms like FNs, or down-grade a relationship with the
addressee or referent by using either negatively polite forms or a positive form when a
negative one would be expected.
However, when the distance between the writer and the addressee, or the referent, is
very close, as in nuclear family relationships, there seem to be no decisive differences
between the direct address and the referential terms: what could be called positively
polite forms appear in both categories. If we look at Sir Nicholas and Nathaniel alone,
the direct forms of address that Sir Nicholas receives from his immediate family are
naturally more formal and negatively polite than the ones his son receives. This must be
due to the ideal power balance within families in the Early Modern period: a father was
considered to be superior to his wife and children.
5.2.3. Conventions or compromises?
When the use of direct address and reference is looked at from the point of view of
compromises and conventions, the results of my analysis form a relatively clear pattern.
The reference terms used to define a third party in letters between mutually close
writers and addressees seem to be more conventionalised in the sense that KTs are used
in most cases in the material. In family relations, it is not only clear who my father
or your husband is, but both the writer and the addressee know that leaving out
the referent’s title (and so emphasising the referent’s status) will not constitute an
FTA.
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
2149
In more distant relations, the situation is somewhat different. In many cases the writer
has to make a compromise between the term he would himself use of the referent and the
term he knows or suspects the addressee would use, at indicating a sense of respect for
the addressee the same time. As noted in Section 4.2, in such cases mixed formulae like
your lordship’s son Mr Nathaniel Bacon may be used, by which the writer simultaneously expresses the status of the addressee, the family relationship between the
addressee and the referent, and the status and identity of the referent.21
We may then ask whether using reference terms in general means making compromises. If, for example, there is a possibility that some outsiders may see the letter, and
thus the terms of reference used, is it probable that the reference is chosen on a more
conscious level than usual? At least when the relationship between the writer and the
addressee is distant, this seems to be the case: the writer often accommodates to the term
used by the addressee and other ‘‘bystanders’’ and ‘‘over-readers’’. This may also be the
case in ‘‘public’’ or formal letters by multiple senders, such as those from the Privy
Council to Nathaniel. As we have already seen in Example (20), Sir Nicholas is referred
to by using a term our very good Lord the Lord Keeper, your father, despite the fact
that the privy councillors were relatively familiar to the addressee. We may of course
wonder if in this case Sir Nicholas can be considered as a ratified auditor, and how
much the choice of such a term is a product of the auditor effect as compared to the
influence of the referent’s social status in general. Furthermore, the formal register of
the letter in general must have had an influence on the formulation of respect towards Sir
Nicholas as a referent, which more rarely is the case with letters of a more personal
nature.
It appears that the referent is the most influential, although it is difficult to choose
a term of reference without taking all the three main participants into account. What
is needed in reference, therefore, is an additional addressee–referent axis which
complements the triangle in which the referent is in the central role instead of the
speaker.
6. Conclusion
This study shows that the factors influencing the choice of both forms of direct address
and terms of reference in a historical material can be measured using present-day
theoretical tools. In a society as hierarchical as Early Modern England, recognition of
social status and the ways in which this could be ‘‘materialised’’ were an integral part of
people’s everyday relationships.
As for the questions asked at the beginning of this article, if we first consider the
central participant role which most influences the choice of forms in letters, we may
conclude that naturally in direct address it is the addressee, and in reference it is the
referent. If the usage is looked at from the comparative point of view, we may say that
direct address may be considered ‘‘a norm’’ governing reference in two separate ways.
21
Wilson and Zeitlyn (1995: 71) call this kind of referring via reference to others as using ‘‘oblique PREs
(person-referring expressions)’’.
2150
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Firstly, referential terms are often chosen and derived from the range of direct address
formulae used of the referent either by the writer or the addressee. Secondly, if address
is taken to be a norm in the sense that Dickey (1997: 271) understands it, i.e., in that
direct address usage is more consistent, reference may be said to derive from it in this
case as well.
When it comes to the choice of positively and negatively polite forms in address and
reference, either the addressee’s or the referent’s very high social status clearly overrides
the distance between the participants, as is the case with Sir Nicholas and the negatively
polite terms he receives. In those cases, however, in which the recognition of status is of
less importance, as we can see from Nathaniel’s nuclear family relations, positive
politeness becomes the main strategy, at least in the use of direct address. In reference,
the overall situation is more complex, since especially positive politeness cannot be defined
by similar parameters as is the case for direct address. It seems that in reference, the need to
identify the referent ‘‘neutralises’’ the forms which could be considered most positively
polite in direct address (e.g., FNs), and as a result the politeness scale is in this case only of
secondary importance.
Acknowledgements
My work during the writing of this article was funded by the Research Unit for
Variation and Change in English, a Centre of Excellence funded by the Academy of
Finland.
Appendix A
Statistics of the material used
Number of words
Number of letters
BACON
PARKHURST
139,004
34,797
383
93
Recipient/referent
Forms of address
Total
Terms of reference
Total
Sir Nicholas Bacon
Sir
Your (good) Lordship
Your Honour
Right Honourable
1
232
50
2 (3)
My/your (late/own) father
My/his (good) Lord
Sir Nicholas
My Lord Keeper (of the Great Seal)
38
155
5
5
My (very good/favourable)
Lord
Nathaniel Bacon
6
((My very) good) brother
Brother Bacon
(Good) brother Nathaniel
Nathaniel
52
3
8
3
Son (Nathaniel)
Son Bacon
Most dear father
(Good) Sir
((My very) good) cousin
(Bacon)
6
3
1
70
9
His Lordship
My Lord your father
Our very good Lord the Lord Keeper your father
My son Nathaniel
My/your brother (Nathaniel)
My husband
Mr (Nathaniel) Bacon
Your (Lordship’s) son (Mr Nathaniel Bacon)
5
11
1
1
30
7
7
5
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Letter collection
2151
2152
Recipient/Referent
Forms of address
Total
Cousin Nath/Bacon
(Good) Mr Bacon
My very good/loving friend (Mr Bacon)
(Good) Mr Nathaniel
Your (honour/good) Worship
(Your) Right Worshipful (Mr Bacon)
Worshipful Sir
You, the Sheriff/Good Mr Sheriff
2/1
12
2
4
103
8
5
2
Terms of reference
Total
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Appendix A. (Continued )
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
2153
Appendix B.
Sir Nicholas Bacon: direct address
Writer
Writer–
addressee
Date
Number
of letters
Terms used
FN
Nathaniel Bacon
Son
1571–9
29
Sir, Your (good) Lordship,
Your Honour
FS
John Mounford
Servant
1572
1
Your Honour
Edmund Banyard
Gentleman
1574
2
John Banyard
Edward Fiennes
Gentleman
Lord Admiral
1574–5
1576
2
4
George Gascoigne
Client
1578
1
Sir Francis
Walsingham
Secretary
of State
1576
1
John Parkhurst
Bishop of
Norwich
1571–3
4
Your (good) Lordship,
Right Honourable, Your
Honour, good my Lord
Your Honour
Your (good) Lordship, my
very good Lord
my (very (favourable))
good Lord, Your (good)
Lordship
Right Honourable and
my very good Lord,
Your Lordship
Your Honour, Your
Lordship
T
Appendix C.
Sir Nicholas Bacon: reference terms
Writer
FN
Nathaniel Bacon
Writer–
referent
Addressee
Date
Son
Edward Bacon
1583
1
Sir William Cecil
Anthony Stringer
Lady Anne Gresham
Lady Anne Bacon I
Sir Thomas Gresham
1579–83
1570s
1572
1573
1572–
1573
1575
1575
3
1
1
1
2
Edward Paston
Clement Paston
Number Terms used
of letters
1
1
My (late/own)
father, my Lord
2154
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Appendix C. (Continued )
Writer
Writer–
referent
Addressee
Date
Nicholas Bacon II Son
Sir William Cecil 1579
Edward Bacon
Nathaniel Bacon
Son
Number Terms used
of letters
3
My father, my
Lord
My father, my
Lord
My Lord
Nathaniel Bacon
1572– 12
1576
1573
1
Nephew
Nathaniel Bacon
1584
1
Nephew
Nathaniel Bacon
1572
1
Servant
Servant
Servant
Nathaniel Bacon
Nathaniel Bacon
Nathaniel Bacon
1579
1573
1576
1
3
1
Sir Nicholas
My Lord
My Lord, his good
Lord
Sir William Cecil
Lord High
Treasurer
Nicholas Bacon II 1579
2
Stephen Nevinson
Rector of
Stiffkey
Reginald Wolfe
1570
1
Edmund Banyard
Edward Stanhawe
Edward Grimstone
John Saunders
Gentleman
Tenant
Attorney
Servant
of TG
Magistrate
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
Nathaniel
Bacon
Bacon
Bacon
Bacon
1579
1573
1573
1576
2
1
1
1
Your (late good)
father, my Lord
your father
My Lord Keeper
(of the Great Seal),
his Lordship
My Lord your father
My Lord your father
My Lord your father
My Lord your father
Nathaniel Bacon
1578
1
My Lord your father
Servant of
TG
Nathaniel Bacon
1578
1
Nathaniel Bacon
1576
1
Nathaniel Bacon
1572–
1577
8
His Lordship, my
Lord Keeper
Our very good Lord
the Lord Keeper
your father
My Lord, my Lord
Keeper
Nathaniel Bacon
1573?
1
My Lord
Nathaniel Bacon
1581
1
My Lord
Lady Anne Bacon 1 Wife
FO
Robert Bacon
Robert Blackman
FS
John Baker
John Mounford
Richard Manser
Your father, my
Lord your father
My Lord, your
father
T
Sir Christopher
Heydon
Philip Scudamore
Privy Council
Francis Wyndham
Charles Calthorpe
George Powes
Nathaniel’s
brotherin-law
Steward of
Yarmouth
Clerk of
NBI
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
2155
Appendix D.
Nathaniel Bacon: direct address
Writer
Writer–addressee
Date
FN
Anthony Bacon
Half-brother
1578/1591
2
Edward Bacon
Brother
1572–1587
33
Sir Nicholas Bacon
Father
1572–1578
31
Nicholas Bacon II
Elizabeth D’Oyly
Brother
Sister
1569–1592
1576–1594
4
12
Elizabeth Mansell
Anne Townshend
Sister
Daughter
1594
1594
1
1
Step-mother
Sister-in-law
Cousin
1573
1583
1576–1584
1
1
3
Robert Blackman
Sir Robert D’Oyly
Winefrid Dutton
Lady Anne Gresham
Sir Thomas Gresham
Cousin
Brother-in-law
Mother-in-law
Step-mother-in-law
Father-in-law
1572–1577
1576
1578
1582
1577–1579
3
1
1
2
7
Sir Henry Neville
Brother-in-law
1583–1590
3
Lady Jane Townshend
Sir John Townshend
Francis Wyndham
Future in-law
Future in-law
Brother-in-law
1593
1593
1572–1591
1
1
22
Usher of Privy
Chamber
MP for Tavistock
2nd Baron North
of Kirtling
Magistrate
1577–1584
3
1569
1591
1
1
My good friend,
good Mr Nathaniel
Sir, good Mr Nathaniel
Good Mr Bacon
1592
1
NO ADDRESS
Servant
Clerk
Servant
1579–1585
1587
1576
5
1
1
Sir
Your Worship
Right Worshipful, Your
Worship
FO
Lady Anne Bacon I
Lady Anne Bacon II
Robert Bacon
TC
Dru Drury
Charles Morrison
Roger North
Sir William Paston
FS
John Baker
Martin Man
Richard Manser
Number of Terms used
letters
(My very good)
brother
(My) brother,
brother Nathaniel,
brother Bacon
Son, Nathaniel,
son Nathaniel
(Good) brother
(My very(good))
brother
Brother
Most dear father
Son
Brother Bacon
Sir, my very good
cousin
Cousin Nath
Good brother
NO ADDRESS
(Good) cousin
(Good) son, son
Bacon
Good brother, good
brother Nathaniel
Good Mr Bacon
Sir
Brother, brother Bacon,
brother Nathaniel
2156
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Appendix D. (Continued )
Writer
Writer–addressee
Date
Number Terms used
of letters
John Mounford
Servant
1573–1576 6
Walter Allen
Edmund Banyard
Rector of Rushbrooke 1574
1
Gentleman
1579–1580 2
Robert Barwick
Bernard Base
Servant?
Dept. customer
of Yarmouth
Prebendary of
Norwich cathedral
Your (Honour)
Worship, Sir
T
John Becon
1576
1576
2
1
1578
1
William Blennerhassett
John Braddock
John Brograve
Bartram Calthorpe
Charles Calthorpe
John Calthorpe
Sir William Cecil
Richard Clarke
Merchant
Attorney
Lawyer
Steward of Yarmouth
Gentleman
Lord High Treasurer
Merchant
1578
1587
1582
1581
1573–1574
1576
1583–1591
1589
2
1
1
2
4
1
4
1
Sir Edward Clere
Thomas Clere
Sir Edward Coke
William Downing
Stephen Drury
Edmund Freke
John Green
Edward Grimstone
Sir Christopher Hatton
Sir Christopher Heydon
John Heydon
William Heydon
Henry Hobart
Richard Hodgson
Clement Hyrne
Francis Johnson
Neighbour
1580–1582
Neighbour
1587
Attorney General
1594
Deputy customs farmer 1587–1591
Attorney
1575–1593
Bishop of Norwich
1577
Vicar of Hemsby
1582
Attorney
1572–1579
Lord Chancellor
1588
Fellow magistrate
1578
Gentleman
1590–1
Esquire
1573–1586
Steward of Yarmouth 1587
Merchant
1579
Merchant
1581
Merchant
1575–1578
4
1
3
5
4
1
1
2
1
2
2
6
1
1
1
4
Thomas Lichfield
Groom of the Queen’s 1582
Privy Chamber
2
Your Worship
(Worshipful) Sir, Your
Worship
Sir, Your Worship
Right Worshipful, Your
(good) Worship
NO ADDRESS
Sir
Your Worship
Sir
Sir, Your Worship
Sir, Mr Bacon
Your Right Worshipful
Sir
Your Right Worshipful,
Sir, Your Worship
NO ADDRESS
Sir, Your Worship
Sir
Sir, Your Worship
Sir, Right Worshipful
Mr Bacon
Your Worship
Sir, good Mr Nathaniel
NO ADDRESS
NO ADDRESS
Sir
Sir, cousin Bacon
Good Sir
NO ADDRESS
Sir, Your Worship
Mine loving friend Mr
Bacon, Right Worshipful
(Mr Bacon), Your
Worship, Worshipful Sir
Sir
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
2157
Appendix D. (Continued )
Writer
Thomas Outlaw
John Percival
George Powes
Privy Council
Sir Ralph Sadler
Writer–addressee
Date
Chief Constable
of Eynsford
Rector of Stiffkey
1592
Chancellor of the
Duchy of Lancaster
Servant of Sir
Thomas Gresham
Servant of TG
Customer of Lynn
Merchant
Philip Scudamore
Thomas Sidney
Samuel Smith
1
1581
1
1576–1594 9
1582–1583 3
Your (good)
Worship
Right Worshipful,
Your Worship
Sir, Your Worship
‘you, the Sheriff’
NO ADDRESS
1574–1576 7
Mr Bacon
1578–1579 2
1582
2
1579–1580 2
Mr Bacon
Sir
Worshipful Sir,
Your Worship,
Mr Bacon
Sir, (Right)
Worshipful,
Your Worship
Sir
Sir, Mr Nathaniel
Good Mr Sheriff
Sir
Your Worship
Good cousin
Your Worship
Sir
1574–1585 3
Clerk of NBI
John Saunders
Number Terms used
of letters
William Smythe
Customer of
Yarmouth
1576–1583 3
Edward Stanhowe
Anthony Stringer
John Stubbe
William Stump
Henry Stutfield
Jane Tuttoft
John Tuttoft
Sir Francis Walsingham
Tenant
Servant of TG
MP for Great Yarmouth
Gentleman
Gentleman
‘‘Cousin’’
1573
1572–1573
1587
1587
1585–1586
1580
1580
1582–1583
Secretary of State
4
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
Appendix E.
Nathaniel Bacon: reference terms
Writer
FN
Sir Nicholas
Bacon I
Nicholas Bacon II
Anne Bacon 3
Writer–
referent
Addressee
Date
Number
of letters
Terms used
Father
Sir Thomas
Gresham
Sir William
Cecil
1577
1
My son Nathaniel
1579
1
My brother
Nathaniel, my brother
Sir Thomas
Gresham
Lady Anne
Gresham
1572
1
My husband
Brother
Wife
1572–1573 2
2158
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Appendix E. (Continued )
Writer
Writer–
referent
Addressee
Date
Number Terms used
of letters
Mistress
Dutton
1572–1573 3
Sir Nicholas
Bacon I
1576
2
1579
2
1576
1
T
Edward Fiennes
Sir William Cecil Lord High
Treasurer
Sir Francis
Secretary
Walsingham
of State
John Parkhurst
Bishop of
Norwich
Thomas Calthorpe Gentleman
1573
1
Your (Lordship’s) son
Mr Nathaniel Bacon,
your Lordship’s son,
Mr Bacon
Your brother
Nathaniel
Your Lordship’s son
Mr Nathaniel Bacon
Mr Nathaniel Bacon
1581
1
Mr Bacon
John Heydon
1590
1
Mr Nathaniel Bacon
1592
1
Mr Bacon
Thomas Talbot
Lord
Admiral
Nicholas
Bacon II
Sir Nicholas
Bacon I
Sir Nicholas
Bacon I
James
Calthorpe
Gentleman
Christopher
Heydon
Judge of the William Sabbe
and Bolt
Admiralty
Court of
Norfolk
References
Allerton, David J., 1987. The linguistic and sociolinguistic status of proper names. Journal of Pragmatics 11,
61–92.
Allerton, David J., 1996. Proper names and definite descriptions with the same reference: a pragmatic choice for
language users. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 621–633.
Beale, Philip, 1998. The History of the Post in England. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Bell, Allan, 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13, 145–204.
Bell, Allan, 2001. Back in style: reworking audience design. In: Eckert, Penelope, Rickford, John R. (Eds.),
Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 139–169.
Braun, Friederike, 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures.
Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Briggs, Asa, 1999 [1983]. A Social History of England. Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen C., 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Brown, Roger, Gilman, Albert, 1989. Politeness theory and Shakespeare’s four major tragedies. Language in
Society 18, 159–212.
Busse, Ulrich, 2002. Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus: Morpho-syntactic Variability of Second
Person Pronouns. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Clark, Herbert H., Marshall, Catherine R., 1981. Definite descriptions and mutual knowledge. In: Joshi, Aravind
K., Webber, Bonnie L., Sag, Ivan A. (Eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 10–63.
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
2159
Clark, Herbert H., Murphy, Gregory L., 1982. Audience design in meaning and reference. In: Ny, Le, JeanFrançois, Kintsch, Walter (Eds.), Language and Comprehension. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 287–299.
Comrie, Bernard, 1976. Linguistic politeness axes: speaker–addressee, speaker–referent, speaker–bystander.
Pragmatics Microfiche 1.7: A3. Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge.
Coupland, Nikolas, Giles Howard (Eds.), 1988. Communicative accommodation: Recent developments. Special
Issue of Language and Communication 8 (3/4).
Dickey, Eleanor, 1997. Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics 33, 255–274.
Evans, Gareth, 1982. The Varieties of Reference. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Fludernik, Monica, 1993. The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction. Routledge, London.
Giles, Howard, Smith, Philip M., 1979. Accommodation theory: optimal levels of convergence. In: Giles,
Howard, Clair, Robert St. (Eds.), Language and Social Psychology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 45–65.
Goffman, Erving, 1981. Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Grice, H. Paul, 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Cole, Peter, Morgan, Jerry L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics,
vol. 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58.
Hanks, William F., 1992. The indexical ground of deictic reference. In: Duranti, Alessandro, Goodwin, Charles
(Eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 43–76.
Hassell Smith, A., Baker, Gillian M., Kenny, R.W. (Eds.), 1978/1979. The Papers of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey.
Norfolk Record Society 46, Norfolk Record Society, Norwich.
Hope, Jonathan, 1993. Second person singular pronouns in records of Early Modern ‘spoken’ English.
Neophilologische Mitteilungen 94 (1), 83–100.
Jucker, Andreas H., Taavitsainen, Irma, 2003. Introduction. In: Taavitsainen, I., Jucker, A.H. (Eds.), Diachronic
Perspectives on Address Term Systems (Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 107). John Benjamins,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 1–25.
Kopytko, Roman, 1993. Polite Discourse in Shakespeare’s English. Adam Mickiewicz University Press, Poznan.
Laitinen, Mikko, 2002. Extending the Corpus of Early English Correspondence to the 18th century. Helsinki
English Studies 2. http://www.eng.helsinki.fi/hes/.
Laslett, Peter, 1971 [1965]. The World We Have Lost. Methuen and Co. Ltd., London.
Leech, Geoffrey, 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London/New York.
Lerner, Gene H., 1996. On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: ‘second
person’ reference in multi-party conversation. Pragmatics 6 (3), 281–294.
Levinson, Stephen C., 1979. Pragmatics and social deixis: reclaiming the notion of conventional implicature.
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 5, 206–225.
Levinson, Stephen C., 1992. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Murphy, Gregory L., 1988. Personal reference in English. Language in Society 17, 317–349.
Nevala, Minna, 2002. Youre moder send a letter to the: pronouns of address in private correspondence from Late
Middle to Late Modern English. In: Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja, Rissanen,
Matti (Eds.), Variation Past and Present. VARIENG Studies on English for Terttu Nevalainen. Mémoires de
la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 61. Société Néophilologique, Helsinki, pp. 135–159.
Nevala, Minna, 2003. Family first: address formulae in English family correspondence from the 15th to the 17th
century. In: Taavitsainen, I., Jucker, A.H. (Eds.), Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems
(Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 107). John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 147–176.
Nevala, Minna, 2004. Inside and out: forms of address in 17th- and 18th-century letters. Journal of Historical
Pragmatics 5 (2), 273–298.
Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, 1995. Constraints on politeness: the pragmatics of address
formulae in early English correspondence. In: Jucker, Andreas H. (Ed.), Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic
Developments in the History of English. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 35. John Benjamins,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Nurmi, Arja, 1999. A Social History of Periphrastic DO. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki
56. Société Néophilologique, Helsinki.
Oxford English Dictionary, 1989. Second ed. Simpson, J.A., Weiner, E.S.C. (Eds.). Additions 1993–1997.
Simpson, John, Weiner, Edmund, Proffitt, Michael (Eds.). Third ed. (in progress), March 2000. Simpson,
John (Ed.), OED Online. Oxford University Press. http://dictionary.oed.com.
Sadock, Jerrold M., 1974. Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York.
2160
M. Nevala / Journal of Pragmatics 36 (2004) 2125–2160
Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1996. Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: a partial sketch
of a systematics. In: Fox, Barbara (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia,
pp. 437–485.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen, 1996. Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics 26, 1–24.
Thomas, Jenny, 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman, Harlow.
Watts, Richard J., 1992. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: reconsidering claims for universality.
In: Watts, Richard J., Ide, Sachiko, Erlich, Konrad (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History,
Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, pp. 143–169.
Watts, Richard J., 2003. Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wilson, Andrew J., Zeitlyn, David, 1995. The distribution of person-referring expressions in natural
conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (1), 61–92.
Wrightson, Keith, 1982. English Society 1580–1680. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.