Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas LITHUANIAN WRITTEN DISCURSE: ADDRESSED PARTICIPATE NOUNS KEY WORDS: written discourse, speech strategy, participle pronouns, definition, subjectivity, intersubjectivity. INTRODUCTION In the current Lithuanian written discourse with a direct addressee (letters, messages) there are two variants of writing the pronouns TU, JŪS denoting the dialogue partner: in addition to the usual, traditionally stylistic use of capital letters called Tu, Jūs writing, there 1 is also a non-exclusive notation of pronouns denoting the real addressee, i.e. writing in lowercase. It should be emphasized that you, you (and other humorous forms of these pronouns) may not be excluded by persons with excellent communication and linguistic competence. See sentences created by such authors and their writing in e-mails (personal aut. 2 correspondence), where: (a) ‘addressee’ means a single person: (1) Could you check if you can't get in? (2) What would you think? 1 “Capital letters are used to address another person politely and respectfully (in letters, greetings, invitations, requests), e.g. : Jūs, Tu, Tamsta, Pone, Gerbiamasis, Sveikas, Bičiuli, Mielas(is) Drauge.“ This is one of the first points of the Stylistical Use of Major Letters, quoted from the KLKŽ, available online: http://www.xn--altiniai4wb.info/files/kalba/KI00/Lietuvi%C5%B3_kalbos_%C5%BEinynas._Did%C5%BEi%C5%B3j%C5%B3_raid %C5%BEi%C5%B3_ra%C5%A1ymas.KI1800.pdf (accessed 2017 12 01). The original source of this quotation is the publication Lietuvių kalbos rašyba ir skyryba (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1992: 71). The updated Spelling and Punctuation Provisions, which came into force on 03 July 1997 (approved by Decision No. 60 of the State Lithuanian Language Commission to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 19 June 1997; the consolidated version available on the Internet at https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.41265/qkELNFgtVx, which has been in force since 04 June 2016) propose the advisory spelling of words in greetings, invitations, requests, etc.), e.g. : You, Tamsta, sir; You, didžiąja raide, plg.: „2.7. Žodžiai gali būti rašomi didžiąja raide stilistiniais sumetimais. // 2.7.1. Didžiąja raide gali būti rašomi žodžiai, kuriais mandagiai, su pagarba kreipiamasi į kitą asmenį (laiškuose, Yourself, Hello, Friend, Friend, Dear, Dearest.” 2 For communicational competence – the ability of a person as a member of a certain sociocultural community to properly use all semiotic systems operating in that community (hence also written language) and its separate area – linguistic competence, see Hymes (1972); Lyons (1993: 573). JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lithuanian writing discourse: addressee-indicating participle pronouns | 2 (3) BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 We print, but whether it will reach all your potential readers, it’s up to you spręsti. (4) Two of your articles are among the selected ones. (b) “addressee” means several persons: (5) Dear colleagues, I wish you a cozy and peaceful Christmas! (6) Dear colleagues, please report your vacation schedule if you have not declared it in the general procedure. Cases of pronouns referring to the dialogue partner can be found in public letters published in the media, in comments and/or in quotes taken from social network discourses. Often, both variants of pronouns are used for confusion in the text of the same addressee, e.g. : (7) In conclusion: <...> I wish you and your editorial light, spirit and culture. <...> Gražių Jums gėlių, vis prisimenu, kaip norėjot kažkada jas auginti ir dovanoti žmonėms. 3 (8) Thank you all for your citizenship, your reactions. 4 In terms of discourses corresponding to the style of letters, it is important to understand that 5 dialogue partners can choose not only coinciding, but also different strategies of writing pronouns referring to the dialogue partner. The participants in the written conversation, having both chosen a coincident strategy, mark each other equally, so that any choice is unproblematic. 6 Asymmetrical choice of strategies (one dialogue partner writes his interlocutor in different ways, but also different concepts of their meanings. Therefore, in a verbal communication situation, formally equivalent conversation participants may appear to give each other different žymi didžiąja, kitas – mažąja raide užrašomu tu / jūs) rodo ne vien skirtingus šių žodžių semantic roles in written discourse, because different addressees 3 Retrieved 2017-11-23. https://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/komentarai/grazina-smigelskieneatsakymas-vytautui-v-landsbergiui-500-884306 (accessed 2017-11-23). 4 Retrieved 2016-01-20. http://www.delfi.lt/veidai/eteris/del-visuomene-supurciusio-laidos-pries-srovesiuzeto-pradetas-tyrimas.d?id=70170284 (accessed 2016-01-20). 5 About the proximity of the letter to real communication (a letter always has a specific addressee and means of linguistic expression oriented to this addressee, and its text is always oriented to the addressee’s text – it is either a response or a provocation) see (2010) (10). 6 On the linguistic strategies of the interlocutors – constructive and destructive, and the fact that in certain cases the latter is unprofitable for the addressee, because “with the destructive strategy the addressee would first harm his own interests” see Zaikauskas (2002: 145, 147). JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lithuanian writing discourse: addressee-indicating participle pronouns | 3 The BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 writing of addressee-indicating pronouns conveys different semiotic codes and attitudes. Some adresantai renkasi Tu / Jūs – tokį išskirtinį bet kurio asmens, esančio adresatu, žymėjimą interpret it as a natural sign of respect for another person; others do not (even) have the habit of writing to emphasize the uniqueness of the addressee (choose you / you). That the latter provision cannot be associated only with the expression of respect is shown by the possibility of such a pronoun notation option in the text of sympathy, cf. : 7 (9) Sympathy for relatives, friends. I ask everyone to honour with thoughts and feelings. And the speeches and writings of remembrance will be later. <...> But in any case, Leonid – rest in peace, and we will finish your work as far as possible, accept friends and continue relations. I'm very, very sorry you're leaving. 8 However, there are different interpretations. In everyday correspondence situations, this can cause tension, because different ways of writing pronouns indicating the addressee, even nuolatinių rašytinio dialogo partnerių paprastai nebūna aptariami: asmuo, koduojantis savo between lowercase pronouns, can lead to conflicts. the latter does not point out to the sender that he is disturbed by the non-exclusive presentation of the you/you forms, but he himself consistently follows the usual pattern of written language, hoping that his written presentation of the you/you forms will eventually be considered as a good example. The identification of the dialogue partner and the way of presenting this identification (not only with personal names, but also with pronouns that represent them) is a very important detail of written communication. And although it is customary to demand accuracy in the pronunciation or spelling of the name and surname, deviations from the Lithuanian written language etiquette 9 when writing the noun indicating the addressee are tended to be silenced, because in the personal field of communication this is perceived as a culturally based taboo. Therefore, this article aims to discuss the tendencies of the now varying writing of YOU / YOU forms, their causes, directions, effects or the pragmatics of participle pronouns (since any specific 10 7 About the two functions of sympathy: informational and emotional evaluation, and the fact that a distinctive feature of literary obituary is to be considered “univocal second-person address to the deceased (<...> they were united by your love for theater and man)” see Marcinkevičienė (2008: 173–175). 8 Accessed on: http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/mire-filosofas-ldonskis.d?id=72351034 (accessed 2016 09 21). 9 According to Vladimir Plungian, the central position of the denotation elements in the grammar of natural languages allows us to conclude that “language is a system specially adapted for the interaction of speaker and addressee (in other words, communication); it has been the primary and main function since the very beginning of this system.” (Plungian 2011: 72). 10 Pragmatics – as a whole of linguistic forms, communication functions and the network of their realization. Fillmore (1998: 385–386). JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lithuanian writing discourse: addressee-indicating participle pronouns | 4 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 addressee-indicating text encourages its recipient to consider the intentions of the person writing to him according to how they are expressed in the text) and to look at the roots of such an 11 exceptional pronoun-indicating-addressee spelling in the dedications of ancient Lithuanian language monuments. 1. PERSONAL PARTICIPATE NOUNS AND THEIR SCHRIFTING Pronouns are a closed, limited, but multifunctional class of words. The Lithuanian term, created according to the model of the Latin equivalent, etymologically allows the noun to be perceived as a substitute for the word that comes "in the place of the noun". The role of the pronoun as a 12 substitute or a direct indicative expression is linked to a weak semantic content. Personal addressee – roles. In some cases, the proper determination of these roles is facilitated by the phrases or vocatives of the noun used as an opposition in addition to the personal first and 13 second person pronouns (see Bhat 2007: 3). participiniams įvardžiams 14 tai leidžia atlikti šnekos akto dalyvių – buvimo kalbėtoju ir buvimo 15 In common Lithuanian, there are nine personal participle pronouns: aš, tu, mes, mudu, mudvi, jūs, judu, judvi, tamsta (Rosinas 1996: 25). Four of them – I, You, We and You – are commonly regarded as basic (cf. Judžentis 2012: 113) (probably because the frequency of the plural forms mudu, mudvi, 16 judu, judvi in texts is much lower than the frequency of the plural forms we, you, since the use of the plural form requires the presence of a situation, based on the buvimu ar veikla dviese, kontekstas 17 ). Sociolingvistiniai tyrimai rodo realią dialogo partnerį 11 On the means of linguistic expression revealing the subjective view of the author and the interpersonal function of the text see 2008. pp. 35–36. 12 For example, see the Latin term prō-nómen for "substitute of a name". Dixon (2009: 190). 13 In languages where the name of the term suggests that pronouns should be defined as substituting a noun (see English pronoun), the dimension of substitution is not the most appropriate for describing first and second person pronouns (see Bhat 2007: 1–2). 14 The term participative pronouns, introduced into Lithuanian linguistics by Alberto Rosinas, describes one group of personal pronouns – pronouns whose realization requires dialogue (see Rosinas 1996: 24–25). 15 Personal pronouns (like real names) indicate a unique substitute, but have no meaning in themselves (cf. Lyons 2004: 22). 16 For the twofold approach to the category of number in the present Lithuanian language, which can be seen in the descriptions of grammar: the traditional one, which considers it binary, and the modern one, which also includes the binary in the present Lithuanian numbering system, see Roduner, Čižik-Prokaševa (2006: 74). The reality of the category of the trinomial number in contemporary Lithuanian is explained by the essence of the perception of the plural category as stated by William Croft: the perception of the plural category in languages that have a binary number (“more than two”) differs from the perception of the plural characteristic of languages that do not have a binary number (“more than one”) (cf. Croft 2004: 141). 17 The double judu, movable forms of the verbs are also written in two ways (e.g.:<...> judu, You and Kuzmickas, are each other's friends. DLKT; After many years, when Judu and Vytautas lived in Druskininkai, some of his aunt came from Moscow. DLKT). Regarding the spelling, it should be emphasized that the addressee of direct discourse should be written exclusively and plural (group of persons) indicating You, and plural (two persons) indicating In the case of Judu / Judvi. JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lithuanian writing discourse: addressee-indicating participle pronouns | 5 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 pronouns indicating YOU, YOU usage in current common Lithuanian language discourses (cf. Girčienė 2009b: 214–215; 231). In Lithuanian writing tradition, it is customary to write the noun indicating the author of the speech (addresser) non-exclusively, and the noun indicating the addressee (addressee) in capital letters, if the text (or part of it) is addressed directly to that other person. This type of pronoun spelling is usually only discussed in spelling rules. Grammatical descriptions of languages describe their morphological expression, meaning and contextual suitability, but the latter is 18 rarely linked to a spelling pattern. Attention to the spelling of pronouns indicating the addressee is shown only in newer works of linguistics: in summarizing studies (see 19 Marcinkevičienė 2004; 2008: 57; Girčienė, Kupčinskaitė-Ryklienė 2005) and (or) following the rule of spelling exclusivity by providing examples. 20 In Lithuanian common language, the unique spelling model of pronouns denoting the dialogue partner Tu, You is justified by stylistic considerations with a long tradition (i.e. respect and etiquette). For a long time, such a pattern of spelling was considered normative. The current version of the spelling rules, which contains the provision “Words may be capitalized”, is considered to be advisory spelling (see footnote 1 to this article for the full wording of this spelling provision and the dates of the amendments). Against the background of such a free-choice provision, the need for an exclusive spelling model for pronouns denoting the dialogue partner is also highlighted by a grammatical argument related to the dual possibility of you (and in more rare cases you) definiteness. 1.1 Beginning of the tradition of exclusively designating the addressee by participative pronouns The dedication of ancient Lithuanian writings allows capitalization of the pronoun indicating the direct addressee to be linked to the example of Latin writing culture. In the 16th and 17th centuries, in the dedications of Lithuanian publications and in reverendissimo-type conversations, the authors or editors of books usually address the patron of the publication with the pronoun TU. Some of these authors prefer capitalized 18 In the case of the pronouns tu: tu / tamsta, the expression of mutual relationship is described by plg. : Valeckienė (42006: 259); Rosinas (1996: 38-45); Judžentis (2012: 121); spelling pattern was not used to pay attention to illustrating: for example, even discussing you, the use of tamsta in examples is chosen non-exclusive spelling (cf. Since 1963: 1980; 1980). 19 One such exception is the grammar of the Lithuanian language prepared by Alfredo Senno, which refers to the capitalization of You, That, Hello, You in letters (see Senn 1966: 60). 20 E.g.: united by Your love (Marcinkevičienė 2008: 175); I wanted to ask you a question. (Plungian (vertė Jurgis Pakerys) 2011: 115). JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 6 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 įvardžio formas. Taip, pavyzdžiui, lotyniškoje Punktų sakymų (SP I, 1629) dedikacijoje į (10) PErexigui operis partem, in magna mea imbecillitate, & affecta grauiter Valetudine, Patriâ linguâ elaboratam, Tibi Illvstrissime Præsvl libens & venerabundus offero ac dedico. Hic qualiſunq[ue] cona tus meus, ſinceram inprimis grecis Tu, quem dei annuente benignitate laudabiliter feliciterq[ue]; peace, vtilita we have seen. SP I 2015: 20 (plg. The very small part of the work, carefully written in the language of my parents, being in weak health and seriously ill, I dedicate and dedicate to You, Most Holy Bishop, with love and respect. These little things I do at tangos are first and foremost for the direct benefit of Your flock, which by the grace of God You are shepherding gloriously and successfully. PrDe 294) or to bishop Jurgis Tiškevičius – the author of Hymns appropriate to the Catholic faith (SG,1646) Slavoj Žižek, plg. : (11) Io verò inhiſce non rudi tantū labore ſed & tēp[ore] ipſe, Tui nominis immortalitati litauerim. SG1 IV10-13 (see Regina Koženiauskienė’s translation: I want to glorify Your immortal name not only with imperfect work, but also with wasted time, PrDe 308). In the popular thanksgivings of that period, the addressee's reference to "your highest nobility" is written in a different way, e.g. tuæ Illuſtriſsimæ celſitudini. SG1 IV14-15 (cf. Your Most Glorious Nobleness PrDe 308) and Illuſ[t]riſime ac Reuerendiſime Ceſ[it]udinis tua Deuotiſim9 cliens SG1 V4-6 (cf. Your Most Glorious and Most Honourable Nobleness's Most Humble Client see PrDe 308). But, for example, in the dedication of Bartholomew Wilens’ Euvangelia and Epistles (1579) every word in the address to Prince George Frederick is marked exclusively, cf. : Tuæ Illuʃtriʃimæ Celʃitudini (To Your Most Illustrious Nobility); Tuæ Celʃitudini (Your Excellency) or his abbreviations T. C. or C. T. (cf. PrDe 81–82). Martynas Mažvydas’s Gieʃmе S. Ambraßeijaus (GA, 1549) has a Lithuanian address-thank you to Mr. Sebastijanuy Perbanth, in which the addressee is named by the combination tavo Mylista (see tawa Miliʃtas) or its abbreviations tawa M. or T. M. (in the quotation, the reconstructed forms are marked with an asterisk): JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lithuanian writing discourse: addressee-indicating participle pronouns | 7 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 (12) Supratau klauſitoijus Diewa ſʒodʒa norincʒus tureti geſme tą kure wadin: Te Deum laudamus. Todeley ijie as iſguldʒau ſu other*, on ſchweſ iſſiunſt, and tawa Miliſtas warduy ijie prieraſiti, paſtacʒau. And now, when I was gone, I sent a letter to the Tawa Miliſtai*, and I gave them a great gift, and I asked them to tell me if the Tawa Miliſtai* were willing to accept that gift. God's skull is dear. The third day of the month Kowa. Methuselah. 1549. GA 217-28 Very consistently Daniel Klein capitalized the pronouns indicating the direct addressee, namely the choice of their writing method, rather than the semantic YOU and YOU assigned to the capitalized pronouns in the dedication to Prince Friedrich Wilhelm Tavo and Jūsų PrDe 332 The Most Bright and vertinęs kaip galimybę parodyti pagarbą kitam asmeniui. Plg. Grammatica Litvanica (1653) Powerful Elector, Your... PrDe 376) and Sereni ßima Veʃtra Celʃitudo PrDe 340 Your Supreme nuorodas (plg., pavyzdžiui, QVæ Tuo, SERENISSIME ET POTENTISSIME SEPTEMVIR Brightness PrDe 379). In the short summary of this grammar in German, COMPENDIUM LITVANICO-GERMANICUM, Oder Kuräe und ganan deutliche ʒur Littauſen Sprache / w ie man recht Littauſ leſen / ſchreiben und reden ſol. (KlC, 1564) (see Kazimieras Eigminas’ translation of KlC’s title: Trumpas ir gana aiškus lietuvių kalbos vadovas, kaip reikia teisingai lietuviškai skaityti, rašyti ir kalbėti. PLKG 529), D. Kleinas presented the paradigm of TU, JŪS conjugation, showing the importance of capitalizing these pronouns, cf. : Singularity. Nominative ⌊Tuu du / Genitivo ⌊Tawes⌋ deiner / Dativo ⌊Taw⌋ dir / Accusative ⌊Taw en dich / Vocative ⌊ô Tuum ô du / Ablative Inſtrum. ⌊Tawimie with you / Localis, ⌊Tawije / ejeed in dir. KlC 469-16 Two liters. Male. N. Ac. V. ⌊Iuduu ihr beyde / Hungry. ⌊Iudwij / Genit. ⌊jum dwiejuw ewer beyden / That. ⌊jum dwiemm euch beyden. KlC 4617-21 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lithuanian Writing Discourse: Participle Pronouns Indicating the Addressee | 8 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Plural. Nominative ⌊Iusus ihr / Genitive ⌊Iuſuu ewer / Dative ⌊Iumus / jumsed euch / Accusative ⌊Iusus euch / Vocative ⌊ô Iush ô ihr / Ablative Inſtrum. ⌊Iumisj with you / Localis, ⌊Iuſůſee in euch. KlC 4622-29 1.2. The question of the definiteness of personal pronouns Typological linguistics does not leave unexplored the question of the definiteness of personal pronouns and their relationship with real names. Proper names have an equivalent but no meaning (cf. Lyons 2004: 22); Similarly, the essential feature of the pronoun – the lack of a specific semantic content (see Siewierska 2004: 9). However, both personal pronouns and proper nouns have the same grammatical and pragmatic characteristics as definite expressions (cf. Dik 1997: 186). In conversational situations, the addressee indicated by a pronoun is characterized by situational definition – the addressee is real, obvious, and therefore easily identifiable. In written communication situations, the mentioned lack of semantic content can be eliminated exclusively by noting the noun indicating the addressee. 1.2.1. Apibrėžtumas vokatyvinėse frazėse The aforementioned paradigm of the pronouns Tu, You in D. Klein’s Compendium ô Jus (see KlC įdomi ne vien dėl dėmesį patraukiančios pavyzdžių rašybos, bet ir dėl vokatyvo formų ô Tu, 4614; 27). In the grammar descriptions of the contemporary Lithuanian language, following the tradition of associating the vocative only with the noun category, the pronoun vowel is not 21 indicated (cf. 2006: 272, 273). Jonas Jablonskis explained the absence of the pronoun in the paradigm of pronoun conjugation by its identity with the noun, cf.: “the pronouns here are the genders of the nouns” (Jablonskis (1997 [1922]: 50). But YOU, YOU, equal to the denominator in identity, are sometimes inevitable in everyday interjections, e.g. : (13) Hey, you, come here! Yeah, yeah, you! 21 For more on this tradition and the proposal to treat such forms as a separate grammatical category, see Judžentis (2012: 72–73). JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lithuanian written discourse: participative pronouns indicating the BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 addressee | 9 This use of the pronouns tu (jūs) in colloquial language is usually associated with the unexpectedness of certain situations, so they are usually accompanied by attention-grabbing particles, insertions of non-normative vocabulary and (аr) descriptions of derogatory meaning, cf.: (14) Jau blecha, pridegi pomidorus čia, o tu topūzi. DLKT (Oral language) (15) Oh, you green, he has covered us again. (quoted from Judžentis 2012: 72–73) (16) If you do not raise. DLKT (Journalism) (17) Hey, can I buy you something to drink? DLKT (Publications) (18) Hey, you, mules! Why are you standing there, crushing the earth?! DLKT (Publications) This is also typical of other languages. Typological studies draw attention to vocatives as an interesting, but insufficiently studied 22 grammatical category (therefore, the possibilities of assigning the vocative to the vowel category are considered), and cases of contiguous pronoun with noun or noun phrase use in conjugations are discussed. Such a pronoun-adverb prosodic structure is considered to exist 23 as if separately from the sentence, because the vocatives are not syntactically or semantically included in the predicate structure (cf. Levinson 2005: 71). In the opinion of Christopher Lyons, personal participle pronouns perform the function of determinant in conjugations (which is not characteristic of them) – this indicates the definiteness of noun phrases that perform the function of vocative, since vocatives as forms of direct address are equivalent to the reference to the second person – therefore, vocatives composed of a personal pronoun and a prefix must also convey definiteness (see Lyons 2004: 152). 1.2.2. Kreipiniu išreikšta dialogo partnerį nurodančio įvardžio apozicija In order to clearly identify the roles of the YOU / YOU forms, the meaning of the pronoun can be clarified in the address. This is shown by the concurrent use of the pronoun and the proper name or noun phrase that represents it (see their function of clarifying, emphasizing, emphasizing the meaning of the denotation). If clarification is necessary, please refer to 24 22 Vladimir Sannikov emphasizes the unusualness of the vocative with a noun-only address in the Russian language (pvz., Иди сюда, ты!) ir kur kas įprastesniais laiko sakinius, kuriuose ty (vy) turi atributinį priedėlį (dažniausiai of the derogatory meaning, for example, Иди сюда, ты, негодяй! ), see. Sannikov (2008: 94). In English, second-person pronouns can also be used alone (You, come here!) or with a noun phrase (You boys, follow me!) (cf. Lyons 2004: 152). 23 According to Vladimir Plungian, “from a typological perspective, the appeal function (i.e., the designation of the addressee of the speech act) can be included in the set of universal syllable meanings”. Plungian (2011: 168). 24 According to Christopher Lyons, proper nouns are often defined as merely indicative but meaningless adjectives; the context is very important in identifying the person they refer to, as with any description that emphasizes specificity. But actually proper nouns are used as if they JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lithuanian writing discourse: participative pronouns indicating the addressee BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 | 16 Bartai. Whose "Nam" finish in the third year made me this impression. <...> Korshunov was wrong. You won't have to wait for purgatory. <...> 46 (47) Be the first to try – the best DROGAS news is waiting for you! <...> // <...> This email is sent to you by UA B Drogas <…> 47 The manner of writing the pronouns indicating the addressee chosen by the third type of addressees is probably not only related to certain ethical provisions, but may also be 48 determined by the description of the meanings you: you traditionally presented in the grammatical descriptions of the Lithuanian language, based on the opposition of respect and familiarity (cf. the negative connotation of the meaning of the adjective familiarus), rather 49 than on distance-contact strategies of politeness (cf. Girčienė 2009b: 214– 50 215). The choice of the non-exclusive designation of pronouns indicating the addressee could also be motivated by the descriptions of the expression of the most popular interpersonal 51 functions by pronouns (when the tendency of use is reformulated into permission) or the 52 somewhat incorrectly formulated spelling rule of pronouns and other addressees indicating the addressee. 53 2.3. Implicit expression of the addressee’s position or of third parties’ views Regarding the spelling of the addressee indicated by participle pronouns, it is important to pay attention to their notation in fiction, intertexts of linguistic literature, interviews, etc. 46 Retrieved 2017-11-16. https://www.15min.lt/vardai/naujiena/lietuva/paules-bocullaites-vyras-karoliskaupinis-viesas-laiškas-visiems-kuriems-rupi-1050-882088. 47 Source news[email protected]ogas.lt 2017 02 15 letter. 48 On ethical stylistics and the fact that “the ethical values of the addressee are well recognizable from a certain linguistic stylistic expression” see Koženiauskienė (2013: 94). 49 Plg. In the present Lithuanian grammar, the description of tu, which is associated with the “shade of familiar addressing” and stačiokiškumas, and you “you” in the meaning of the definition of the scope of use – “to address an unknown or little known, older and respected person, as well as an official acquaintance” (Valeckienė 2006: 259). A similar distinction between you, which means familiarity, and you, which means respect and officiality, is also made in newer works (cf. Judžentis 2012: 124). Rosinas assigns the plural you, used instead of the singular you, and the noun tamsta to the “subjective evaluation pronouns” (Rosinas 1996: 38). 50 Cf. familiaras, -i ing definition: "too free, uncomplicated". Accessed: http://www.lkzd.lki.lt/Zodynas/Visas.asp (accessed 2017 11 30). 51 See the neutral formulation about the use of pronouns in appealing texts: “<...> the reader is usually addressed in the second person singular or plural – you, you or you” (Marcinkevičienė 2004: 60). 52 For example: “Thus, in advertising, in order to reach as large an audience as possible, and at the same time to affect each individual individually, the addressee in the second person <...> can be addressed in three ways: in the singular form, in the respectful plural and in the neutral plural. Symbolically, these approaches could be written: you, you and you.” (Gordon 2005: 221). 53 For example, the same Interactive database of sources for teaching Lithuanian language, literature (culture) and Lithuanian history, www.šaltiniai.info, mentioned in footnote 1, also provides a different formulation regulating stylistic capitalization, which can be understood as permission for exceptional cases, cf. „Stylistic capitalization is allowed when expressing exceptional respect, polite addressing (You, You, Dear, Mother, Fatherland...)“. Internet access: http://www.xn--altiniai-4wb.info/index/details/565 (viewed 2017 11 18). JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 17 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 perrašuose ir pan. Literatūroje galima didesnė autoriaus laisvė literatūriniu personažu tapusiam provide the addressee with various writing options (but this should also be related to specific objectives, revealing one or another model of language etiquette of the intended character). Against the background of Lithuanian writing culture, fictional literature texts or intertexts written in the letter genre seem more convincing, in which the basic stylistic requirement of this genre is observed – capitalization of references to the direct addressee (personal names, special addresses, participle pronouns). It is difficult not to notice the distinctive spelling of pronouns indicating the dialogue partner in fictional works and their translations, which graphically distinguish various intertextual layers and thus the letters contained in them. For example, the Lithuanian versions of two Haruki Murakami books use different strategies for marking the pronoun indicating the addressee of the letter. These choices are related to the personal attitude of the translator and/or editor of the text and to their understanding of the expression of politeness in the source language from which the text is translated. In the collection of short stories The Elephant Disappears (this is a translation from Japanese), the choice of the unique graphic expression of the pronoun indicating the addressee in the letters allows such a choice to 54 be perceived as a natural reflection of Japanese cultural etiquette, e.g. : (48) <...> I have tried and tried many times for almost this whole week to write you a letter. MDramPr 68. The intertexts – letters of the novel The Chronicles of the Screwed Bird (this is a translation from a secondary source in English) follow the non-exclusive English spelling pattern of participative pronouns indicating the addressee. The choice of such a pattern is difficult to 55 relate to the exceptional sensitivity to etiquette characteristic of Japanese culture (especially after reading the narrator’s note, which refers to the addressee of the letter as a great connoisseur of etiquette), cf. the sentence with the graphically non-exclusive choice of 56 the addressee naming you: (49) Understanding very well how insolent it is on my part to impose on you a completely undesirable burden in this way, I would nevertheless like to emphasize to you that, sitting down to write this letter, I pursue the sole purpose of <...> MPrPK 209. 54 Apie skirtingose kalbose nevienodus jautrumo mandagumui lygmenis, pasirenkant asmeninius įvardžius; ir kaip tie lygmenys pasireiškia tokiose kalbose kaip japonų (mandagumą reiškiant veiksmažodžių English (pronouns are completely neutral in terms of politeness), cf. Plungian (2011: 79). 55 Although the difference between you and you, which is characteristic of the Lithuanian language, is respected, cf. the notation of close distance with the addressee of the letter with the noun you: I was going to write to you much earlier and explain everything properly, but the time slinko <...> MPrPK 271. 56 See the narrator’s comment on the style of writing of the author of this letter: “With the naked eye: the subtleties of etiquette leitenantas Mamija išmano kaip penkis pirštus.“ MPrPK 209. JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. The attitude of third persons to the spelling of YOU/YOU indicating the BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 addressee is also clearly visible in publications, interviews or other transcripts presenting dialogues or their insertions, cf.: (50) You said that teenagers write you letters about books, tell you about their problems, what are they talking about? 57 (51) The president does not participate in these backyard games either. How do you explain this? 58 (52) “Share what your video recorders recorded, what you drove near Elektrėnai or Kėdainiai, we are checking everything, intensively searching,” – DELFI said. D. Žukauskas. 59 (53) Ar teismas jau yra priteisęs Jums dukros išlaikymą? 60 In situations of writing or transcription (stenographing, translation) of discourses with direct addressees, when a real, specific person is addressed, compliance or non-compliance with written language conventions indicates not the attitude of the original source – the speaker, the addressee, but of the person preparing the transcription. In transcripts of direct interviews, without reference to the authors of the text, the person who initiated the interview may be identified with the author in the eyes of the reader. CONCLUSIONS The use of personal pronouns is inseparable from the concept of the category of person itself and the pragmatic content of this category. The distinctive designation of the participle pronoun indicating the direct addressee in Lithuanian is associated with longevity, already spaudiniuose užfiksuota tradicija, o dabartinės lietuvių kalbos rašybos nuostatose regulated in the oldest Lithuanians as a sign of good style or language etiquette. In the Lithuanian writing tradition, it is customary to emphasize the singularity of the interlocutor marked with a participle pronoun. This demonstrates an attitude to another person based on mutual understanding. In direct correspondence, You/You forms of pronouns are used exclusively as substitutes with equivalent value to the personal noun. Such a notation provides the addressee with information about the addressee as a responsible notifier. 57 Retrieved 2017-02-19. https://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/50141609/ministro-pirmininko-patarejasvietimui-kaunaite-vienas-blogiausiu-keliu-yra-vaiku-suskirstymas (accessed 2017-02-19). 58 Retrieved 2017-11-20. https://www.lrytas.lt/aktualijos/2017/11/20/news/atvirai-apie-tai-kurveda-r-karbauskio-ir-a-verygos-sielu-giminyste3582104/?utm_source=lrExtraLinks&utm_campaign=Copy&utm_medium=Copy (accessed 2017-11-20). 59 Retrieved 2017-03-07. http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/crime/antra-para-ieskoma-dingusios-merginosplunges-policija-abejoja-ar-galejo-buti-kabrobta-del-israrkos.d?id=73960354 (accessed 2017-03-07). 60 Access online: https://www.delfi.lt/veidai/zmones/karaliunaites-vyras-neistvere-dave-atvirainterviu-apie-kova-del-dukros-ir-dainininkes-problemas.d?id=76345823 (žiūrėta 2017 11 15). JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lithuanian writing discourse: participative pronouns indicating the addressee BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 | 19 The addressee writes a message to a specific addressee with certain pragmatic objectives and, obviously, in order to be properly understood. Based on the tradition and codification of the Lithuanian language writing, in any written discourse with a target, real addressee, substitutes of a specific addressee expressed in any linguistic form are exclusively marked – capital letters are written not only for the name, surname of the person, but also for respectful addresses replacing them (e.g., Mrs., Mr., Your Excellency, Director,...), exclamation forms of nouns indicating the permanent or situational personal role (e.g., Teacher, Aunt, Uncle, g erbiamas Colleague...), names of the closest family members, especially those whose substitution into a personal address is possible only as an expression of irony (see the usage field of the addresses Mumyte, Tėti, Močiute, Seneli and their possibilities of replacing them with a personal name) and, of course, any pronoun You / You in the verb form, indicating another specific person (group of persons) being the addressee. In texts with a direct addressee, the difference between You and You or 1 is Jūs ir jūs nėra toks nereikšmingas kaip gali pasirodyti iš pirmo žvilgsnio: graphically indicated. Failure to observe this graphic notation shows that the usual pattern of behaviour in the Lithuanian language writing system is not respected. (2) The designation of the direct addressee as non-exclusive you/you violates the principle of informativeness, since the reader of the message must decide whether it is a designation conveying his/her personality or a generalised reference to a person. (3) The use of a pronoun which does not emphasise the individuality of the addressee does not help the addressee to achieve his pragmatic objectives. The model of the unmarked you/you choice in direct correspondence is non-constructive and therefore may have certain consequences (the addressee has reason to think about deliberate disregard of linguistic etiquette). Recently, the transcriptions of direct discourses found in the media and advertising texts are rather favourable: there is a tendency to emphasize the uniqueness of the addressee by capitalizing the forms of the participle pronoun You / You. It is likely that such a tendency will also be evident in daily mutual correspondence. ŠALTINIAI DLKT – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas. Prieiga internete: http://tekstynas.vdu.lt/tekstynas. GA – Martynas Mažvydas Gieſme S. Ambraßeijaus bey S. Auguſtina... Karalaucʒuy 1549. Parengė P. U. Dini, 1996; e. versija J. Gippert 2012. Prieiga internete: http://titus.unifrankfurt.de/texte/etcs/balt/lit/mazvga/mazvg.htm. JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 20 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 KlC – Danielius Kleinas, Compendium Litvanico-Germanicum, 1654. Parengė M. Šinkūnas, 2011. Prieiga internete: http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=43. KLKŽ – Kompiuterinis lietuvių kalbos žinynas. Nuo morfologijos iki reikalų raštų (CD), sud. P. Kniūkšta, Vilnius: Šviesa, 2004. MDramPr – Haruki Murakami. Dramblys pradingsta. Iš japonų kalbos vertė J. Polonskaitė. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2015. MPrPK – Haruki Murakami. Prisukamo paukščio kronikos. Iš anglų kalbos vertė J. Nauronaitė. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2016. PLKG – Pirmoji lietuvių kalbos gramatika , Vilnius: Politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1957. PrDe – Koženiauskienė R. XVI–XVII amžiaus prakalbos ir dedikacijos, Vilnius: Mokslas. 1990. SG – Saliamonas Mozerka Sla vočinskis, Giesmės tikėjimui katolickam priderančios, 1646. Parengė R. Petkevičius, B. Kabašinskaitė. Prieiga internete: http://seniejirastai.lki.lt/db.php?source=10. SP I – Konstantinas Sirvydas, Punktai sakymų nuo Advento iki Gavėnios = Konstanty Szyrwid, Punkty Kazań od Adwen tu do Postu, Kritinis leidimas / Wydanie krytyczne, Virginija Vasiliauskienė, Kristina Rutkovska (eds.). 2015. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. LITTERACY Bhat D. N. S. 2007: Pronouns, Oxford University Press. Čepaitienė G. 2010: Letter: Croft W. 2004: Typology and Universals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Relationship between Monologue and Dialogue, – Filologija 15, 5–13. Accessed online: http://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/fedora/objects/LT–LDB– 0001:J.04~2010~1367173481529/datastreams/DS.002.0.01.ARTIC/content. Dik S. C. 1997: The Theory of Functional Grammar: Part 1: The Structure of the Clause, Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dixon R. M. W. 2009: Basic linguistic theory 2, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fillmore Ch. J. 1998: Pragmatics and the Description of Discourse. – Pragmatics. Critical concepts 5. Communication, Interaction and Discourse, ed. Asa Kasher, London and New York York: Routledge, 385–407. Girčienė J. 2009a: Identification of the addressee in the periodical. – Language and Contexts, Vilnius, 82–88. JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. 21 Girčienė J. 2009b: Competition of plural and singular forms of addressing in BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 public sentence usage, – Kalbos kultūra 82, 214–234. Internet access: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/?82. Girčienė J., Kupčinskaitė-Ryklienė A. 2005: Addressing the Addressee in Advertising, Language Culture 78, 220–229. Internet access: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/?78. Greimas A. J. 1989: Semiotics. Vilnius: Mintis. Haspelmath M. 2000: Indefinite Pronouns, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hymes D. H. 1972: On communicative competence. – Pride J. B., Holmes J., eds., Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269–293. Holvoet A., Pajėdienė J. 2004: The category of time and the forms of time, – Researches on grammatical categories [Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 2], Vilnius: Lietuvos kalbos institutas, 121– 140, 169–170. Jablonskis J. 1997: Grammar of Lithuanian Language, 3–as fotogr. 2nd edition, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Judžentis A. 2012: Grammatical categories of Lithuanian language, Vilnius: Vilnius University Press. Karaliūnas S. 2008: Language Use and Social Context, Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute. Koženiauskienė R. 2013: Rhetoric and stylistics – the relationship of whole and part. – Trends and Problems of Contemporary Stylistics, Vilnius: Edukologija, 89–99. Kučinskaitė A. 1980: Mandagumo įvardžiai, Lietuvių kalbos kultūra 39, 51–53. Internet access: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/?39. Langacker R. W. 2007: Constructing the meanings of personal pronouns. – Aspects of Meaning Construction, eds. Günter Radden, Klaus–Michael Köpcke, Thomas Berg and Peter Siemund, 171–187. Levinson St. C. 2005: Pragmatics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons Ch. 2004: Definiteness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons J. 1993: Semantics 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marcinkevičienė R. 2004: Expression of the interpersonal function of commissioned advertising articles. – Respectus philologicus 6, 56–63. Retrieved 2007-06-01. doi:10.1007/s00661-006-0066-1. ARTIC/content (viewed http://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/fedora/objects/LT-LDB2017–11–27). JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 22 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 Marcinkevičienė R. 2008: Žanro ribos ir paribiai. Spaudos patirtys, Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2008. Plungian V. 2011: Typology of Grammatical Categories 2, translated by Jurgis Pakerys, Vilnius: Vilnius University, Bibliotheca Salensis. Roduner M., Čižik-Prokaševa V. 2006: The category of numbers. – Researches on the noun compound, Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas, ed., Vilnius: Lithuanian Language Institute, 67– 101. Rosinas A. 1996: Pronouns in Lithuanian Common Language, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Sannikov V. [Sannikov V. Z.] 2008: Russian syntax in semantic-pragmatic context пространстве, Москва: Языки славянских культур. Senkus J. 1963: Jūs, tamsta ir tu, – Kalbos kultūra 5, 37–39. Internet access: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/?5. Senn A. 1957: Handbook of Lithuanian Languages. I: Grammatik, Heidelberg: C. Winter. Siewierska A. 2004: Person, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith C. 2001: Discourse modes: aspectual entities and tense interpretation. – Cahiers de Grammaire 26, Semantic and Discourse, 183–206. Šinkūnienė J. 2010: Expression of author’s position in personal pronouns in written academic discourse. – Filologija 15, 124-141. 1965: Pronoun, – Grammar of Lithuanian Language, 1: Phonetics and Morphology (noun, adjective, numerals, pronoun), ed. Kazys Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis, 635– 721. Valeckienė A. 2006: The Name. – Contemporary Lithuanian Grammar, ed. Vytautas Ambrazas, Vilnius: Institute of Science and Encyclopedia Publishing, 251–282. Vasiliauskienė V. 2002: Problematic aspects of Lithuanian language and spelling, Vilnius: Homo Clear. Zaikauskas E. 2002: Strategy, social roles and types of participants in the conversation act in Lithuanian language. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 46, 145–172. Awarded on 2017-12-04 Adopted on 2017-12-29 JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 23 BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204 LITHUANIAN WRITTEN DISCOURSE: PARTICIPIAL PRONOUNS REFERRING TO ADDRESS Summary The article discusses the variations of spelling of participial pronouns referring to another person in the Lithuanian written discourse. In addition to the usual spelling Tu/Jūs based on the traditional stylistic capitalization, the model of spelling where the pronoun referring to the addressee starts with a lower-case letter tu/jūs also exists. The reference to a dialogue the likely partner and the way it is presented are an essential communication detail; therefore, naturally, reasons, directions and effects of the current tendencies of varying spelling of participial pronouns in direct discourses are linked with the conception of the category of PERSON itself. The article reviews the models of perception of participial pronouns proposed in linguistic descriptions and discusses the levels of communication of ONE PERSON’S relationship to ANOTHER in which the interlocutors find themselves when using the forms of the same pronoun which are differently coded in writing. It is normal in the Lithuanian written tradition to add prominence to the person by capitalising the participial pronoun referring to the interlocutor. It is a way to show the attitude to ANOTHER PERSON based on mutual understanding. KEYWORDS: written discourse, communicative strategy, participial pronouns, definiteness, subjectivity, intersubjectivity. JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas Petro Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]