JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ

Institute of the Lithuanian Language

LITHUANIAN WRITTEN DISCOURSE: PARTICIPIAL PRONOUNS INDICATING THE ADDRESSEE

KEYWORDS: written discourse, speech-act strategy, participial pronouns, definiteness, subjectivity, intersubjectivity.

INTRODUCTION

In contemporary Lithuanian written discourse that has a direct addressee (letters, announcements, messages), there are two spelling variants of the pronouns TU, JŪS referring to the dialogue partner: alongside the usual form of writing Tu, Jūs, traditionally called stylistic use of capital letters¹, there is also unmarked notation of pronouns referring to the actual addressee, that is, writing them with lowercase letters. It should be noted that even individuals with excellent communicative and linguistic competence may leave unmarked tu, jūs (and other case forms of these pronouns) referring to the dialogue partner². Compare sentences composed by such authors and their rendering in emails (personal correspondence), where:

a) the addressee is one person:

(1) Could you see whether you can get into it too?

(2) What would you think?

¹ “Words used when addressing another person politely and respectfully (in letters, greetings, invitations, requests) are written with a capital letter, e.g.: Jūs, Tu, Tamsta, Pone, Gerbiamasis, Sveikas, Bičiuli, Mielas(is) Drauge.” This is one of the earliest points on stylistic use of capital letters, quoted from KLKŽ; available online at: http://www.xn--altiniai-4wb.info/files/kalba/K100/Lietuvi%C5%B3_kalbos_%C5%BEinynas._Did%C5%BEi%C5%BEi%C5%ABj%C5%B3_raid%C4%97%C5%BEi%C5%B3_ra%C5%B3ymas.KI1800.pdf (accessed 2017 12 01). The original source of this quotation is the publication Lithuanian Spelling and Punctuation (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1992: 71). The updated Spelling and Punctuation Provisions, which came into force on 1997 07 03 (approved by Resolution No. 60 of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language under the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 19 June 1997; the online version of the consolidated text in force since 2016 06 04 is available at https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.41265/qkELNFgtVx), recommends the use of capital letters as a matter of guidance, cf.: “2.7. Words may be written with a capital letter for stylistic reasons. // 2.7.1. Words used when addressing another person politely and respectfully (in letters, greetings, invitations, requests, etc.) may be written with a capital letter, e.g.: Jūs, Tamsta, Pone; Tu, Pats, Sveikas, Bičiuli, Drauge, Gerbiamasis, Brangusis.”

² For a discussion of communicative competence—the ability of an individual, as a member of a particular sociocultural community, to use appropriately all the semiotic systems operating within that community (including written language)—and of its distinct domain, linguistic competence, see Hymes (1972); Lyons (1993: 573).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 2

(3) We publish, but whether it will reach all your potential readers is for you to decide.

(4) Two of your articles are among those selected.

b) the addressee is several people:

(5) Dear colleagues, I wish you a cozy and peaceful Christmas!

(6) Dear colleagues, please let me know your vacation schedule if you have not submitted it through the usual procedure.

Cases in which the pronoun referring to the interlocutor is not marked distinctively can be found in public letters and comments published in the media and/or in quotations transferred from social media discourse. Often, the same addresser uses both spelling variants interchangeably in a single text; cf.:

(7) In summary: <...> I wish you and your editorial team light, and that you may raise the spirit and culture. <...> Lovely flowers to You; I always remember how you once wanted to grow them and give them to people.³

(8) Thank you all for your civic-mindedness and your reactions.⁴

When discussing discourses that correspond to the style of letters⁵, it is important to understand that interlocutors may choose not only matching but also different strategies for spelling the pronouns used to refer to one another⁶. Participants in written conversation who both choose the same strategy refer to one another in the same way, so either choice is unproblematic. An asymmetric choice of strategies (one interlocutor refers to the other using tu / jūs with an uppercase letter, while the other uses a lowercase letter) indicates not only different ways of spelling these words but also different conceptions among the interlocutors of their meanings. Thus, in written discourse, participants who are formally equal in spoken communication may appear to assign different semantic roles to one another, because the addressee is treated differently

³ Available online: https://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/komentarai/grazina-smigelskiene-atsakymas-vytautui-v-landsbergiui-500-884306 (accessed 2017 11 23).

⁴ Available online: http://www.delfi.lt/veidai/eteris/del-visuomene-supurciusio-laidos-pries-srove-siuzeto-pradetas-tyrimas.d?id=70170284 (accessed 2016 01 20).

⁵ On the letter’s affinity with real communication (a letter always has a specific addressee and linguistic means oriented toward that addressee, and its text is always also oriented toward the addressee’s text—either as a response or as a provocation), see Čepaitienė (2010: 10).

⁶ On interlocutors’ linguistic strategies—constructive and destructive—and on the fact that in certain cases the latter is disadvantageous to the addresser, since “through a destructive strategy, the addresser would primarily harm their own interests,” see Zaikauskas (2002: 145, 147).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 3

The spelling of addressee-referring pronouns conveys different semiotic codes and attitudes. Some senders choose Tu / Jūs—interpreting this distinctive marking of any person who is the addressee as an inherent sign of respect for another person; others no longer have the habit of emphasizing in writing the distinctiveness of the addressee referred to by the pronoun (choosing tu / jūs). That the latter attitude cannot be associated solely with the expression of respect is shown by the possibility of choosing this way of marking pronouns in a condolence⁷ text, cf.:

(9) Condolences to family and friends. I ask everyone to pay tribute in thought and feeling. The memorial speeches and writings will come later. <...> But, in any case, Leonidas—rest in peace, and we will finish your work as best we can, welcome your friends, and continue our relationships. We are very, very sorry for your passing.⁸

There are, nevertheless, different possible interpretations. In everyday correspondence, this can cause tension, since different ways of writing addressee-referring pronouns are usually not discussed even among regular written-dialogue partners: a person who encodes their interlocutor with a lowercase pronoun remains “unaware” that the reader of their messages, encoded in general terms, uses a different pronoun-spelling strategy; the latter does not mention to the sender the distracting, non-distinctive presentation of tu / jūs forms, but consistently adheres to the customary written-language model, hoping that their presentation of the Tu / Jūs forms in writing will ultimately be taken into account as an appropriate example.

How a dialogue partner is addressed, and how that address is presented (not only through personal names, but also through pronouns that stand in for them), is a very important detail of written communication⁹. Although exactness in saying or writing a first and last name is commonly expected, deviations from Lithuanian written-language etiquette in writing an addressee-referring pronoun tend to go unmentioned, since at the level of personal interaction this is understood as a taboo grounded in politeness. Therefore, this article seeks to discuss current tendencies in writing the varying TU / JŪS forms, their causes, directions, and effects, or the pragmatics of personal participial pronouns¹⁰ (since any specific

⁷ On the two functions of condolences—the informative and the evaluative-emotional—and on the fact that a distinctive feature of the literary obituary may be considered “the second-person singular address to the deceased (<...> they were united by Your love of theatre and people)” see Marcinkevičienė (2008: 173–175).⁸ Available online: http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/mire-filosofas-l-donskis.d?id=72351034 (accessed 2016 09 21).⁹ According to Vladimir Plungian, the central position of deictic elements in the grammars of natural languages allows us to generalize that “language is a system specially adapted to the interaction of speaker and addressee (in other words, to communication); this has been its primary and principal function since the very emergence of the system.” (Plungian 2011: 72).¹⁰ On pragmatics—as the totality of linguistic form, communicative functions, and the network of their realization—see Fillmore (1998: 385–386).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 4

a text with an addressee prompts its recipient to consider the intentions of the person writing to them on the basis of how those intentions manifest themselves in the text¹¹) and to examine the beginnings of this distinctive spelling of the pronoun referring to the addressee in dedications in early Lithuanian-language sources.

1. PERSONAL PARTICIPIAL PRONOUNS AND THEIR SPELLING PATTERNS

Pronouns are a closed, small, yet multifunctional word class. The Lithuanian term, modeled on its Latin equivalent¹², etymologically allows a pronoun to be understood as a substitute for a word that comes “in place of a name.” The role of the pronoun as a substitute or a directly referential expression¹³ is connected with its limited semantic content. This enables personal participial pronouns¹⁴ to perform the roles of speech-act participants—that of being the speaker and that of being the addressee¹⁵. In certain cases, noun phrases used appositionally alongside first- and second-person pronouns, or vocatives, help to identify these roles correctly (cf. Bhat 2007: 3).

Standard Lithuanian uses nine personal participial pronouns: aš, tu, mes, mudu, mudvi, jūs, judu, judvi, tamsta (Rosinas 1996: 25). Four of them—aš, tu, mes ir jūs—are conventionally regarded as basic (cf. Judžentis 2012: 113) (probably¹⁶ because the dual forms mudu, mudvi, judu, judvi occur in texts far less frequently than the plural forms mes, jūs, since the use of the dual requires a context involving the presence or activity of two people¹⁷). Sociolinguistic studies show the actual dialogue partners’

¹¹ On linguistic devices that reveal the author’s subjective viewpoint and on the interpersonal function of a text, see Marcinkevičienė (2008: 35–36).

¹² Plg. „vardo pakaitalą“ įvardijantį lotyniškąjį terminą prō-nōmen žr. Dixon (2009: 190).

¹³ In languages whose term suggests that pronouns should be defined as replacing nouns (cf. English pronoun), substitutability is not the most suitable criterion for describing first- and second-person pronouns (cf. Bhat 2007: 1–2).

¹⁴ The term participial pronouns, introduced into Lithuanian linguistics by Albertas Rosinas, describes one group of personal pronouns—pronouns whose realization requires dialogue (cf. Rosinas 1996: 24–25).

¹⁵ Personal pronouns (like proper names) refer to a unique substitute, but have no meaning in themselves (cf. Lyons 2004: 22).

¹⁶ On the dual perspective found in grammar descriptions on the number category in contemporary Lithuanian—traditional, treating it as binary, and modern, including the dual in the number system of contemporary Lithuanian—see Roduner, Čižik-Prokaševa (2006: 74). The essence of how the plural category is understood, as explained by William Croft, helps account for the reality of a three-way number category in contemporary Lithuanian: in languages with a dual, the plural category means “more than two,” whereas in languages without a dual, it means “more than one” (cf. Croft 2004: 141).

¹⁷ The case forms of the dual judu, judvi are also written in two different ways (cf.:<…> judu, Jūs ir Kuzmickas, esate vienas antro draugai. DLKT; Po daugelio metų, kai Judu su Vytautu gyvenot Druskininkuose, atvažiavo iš Maskvos kažkokia jo tetulė. DLKT). Regarding spelling, it should be emphasized that the addressee in direct discourse should be capitalized both when expressed by the plural form (referring to a group of people) Jūs and when expressed by the dual form (referring to two people) Judu / Judvi.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 5

the use of addressee-referring pronouns TU, JŪS in contemporary discourses of standard Lithuanian (cf. Girčienė 2009b: 214–215; 231).

In the Lithuanian written tradition, it is customary to write the pronoun referring to the author of the speech (the addresser) without special distinction, while the pronoun referring to the person being addressed (the addressee) is written with a capital letter if the text (or part of it) is addressed directly to that other person. This way of writing pronouns is usually discussed only in compilations of spelling rules. Grammatical descriptions of the language characterize their morphological expression, meanings, and the appropriateness of usage contexts¹⁸, but the latter is very rarely connected with the spelling model¹⁹. Attention to the way addressee-referring pronouns are written is evident only in more recent linguistic studies: when summarizing research (cf. Marcinkevičienė 2004; 2008: 57; Girčienė, Kupčinskaitė-Ryklienė 2005) and/or when providing examples in accordance with the principle of distinctive spelling²⁰.

In standard Lithuanian, the distinctive spelling of the pronouns Tu, Jūs referring to a dialogue partner is justified by stylistic considerations rooted in a long-standing tradition (i.e. respect and etiquette). For a long time, this spelling model was considered normative. The currently valid edition of the spelling rules, which conveys the principle that “Words may be written with a capital letter,” is regarded as advisory spelling (see the full wording of this spelling principle and the dates of its amendments in footnote 1 of the article). Against the background of such provisions allowing free choice, the grammatical argument related to the possibility of two levels of definiteness for tu (and, in rarer cases, jūs) also underscores the need for a distinctive spelling model for pronouns referring to a dialogue partner.

1.1 The beginnings of the tradition of distinctively marking the addressee referred to by participial pronouns

Dedications in old Lithuanian writings make it possible to associate the capitalization of a pronoun referring to a direct addressee with the model of Latin written culture. In the dedications of 16th–17th-century Lithuanian publications and in prefaces of the reverendissimo type, the authors or editors of books most often address the publication’s patron with the pronoun TU. Some of these authors choose to write with a capital letter

¹⁸ For discussion of the expression of interpersonal relationships conveyed by the pronouns tu: jūs / tamsta, cf. Valeckienė (⁴2006: 259); Rosinas (1996: 38–45); Judžentis (2012: 121); the spelling model has not customarily received attention even in illustrative examples: for instance, even when discussing the use of jūs, tamsta, examples use their nondistinctive spelling (cf. Senkus 1963: 38; Kučinskaitė 1980).

¹⁹ One such exception is the Lithuanian grammar prepared by Alfred Senn, which notes that Jūs, Tamsta, Sveikas, Tu are written with capital letters in letters (cf. Senn 1966: 60).

²⁰ Pvz.: vienijo Tavo meilė (Marcinkevičienė 2008: 175); Norėjau Jūsų paklausti. (Plungian (vertė Jurgis Pakerys) 2011: 115).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 6

įvardžio formas. Taip, pavyzdžiui, lotyniškoje Punktų sakymų (SP I, 1629) dedikacijoje į vyskupą Eustachijų Valavičių kreipiasi Konstantinas Sirvydas, plg.:

(10) P̄Erexigui operis partem, in magna mea imbecillitate, & affecta graviter Valetudine, Patriâ linguâ elaboratam, Tibi Illvstrissime Præsvl libens & venerabundus offero ac dedico. Hic qualificunq[ue] conatus meus, sinceram inprimis gregis Tui, quem dei annuente benignitate laudabiliter feliciterq[ue]; pacis, vtilitatem spectauit. SP I 2015: 20 (cf. Regina Koženiauskienė’s translation: A small part of a great work, carefully written in my native tongue, I gladly and reverently offer and dedicate to You, most illustrious Bishop, while in poor health and gravely ill. This humble effort of mine was intended above all for the direct benefit of Your flock, which, by God’s gracious will, You shepherd laudably and successfully. PrDe 294).

ar į vyskupą Jurgį Tiškevičių – Giesmių tikėjimui katalickam priderančių (SG,1646) parengėjas Saliamonas Slavočinskis, plg.:

(11) Ego verò inh[ic]e non rudi tantū labore sed & tēp[ore] ipso, Tui nominis immortalitati litauerim. SG1 IV_10–13 (cf. Regina Koženiauskienė’s translation: I wish to glorify Your immortal name not only with imperfect work, but also with the time spent. PrDe 308).

In the acknowledgments of that period, the way of writing the popular address “to Your Most Illustrious Highness” varies; cf.:

tuæ Illuſtriſsimæ celſitudini. SG1 IV_14–15 (cf. to Your Most Illustrious Highness PrDe 308) and Illuſ[t]riſsimæ ac Reuerendiſsimæ Ceſ[it]udinis tua Deuotiſsim9 cliens SG1 V_4–6 (cf. the most humble client of Your Most Illustrious and Most Honorable Highness see PrDe 308).

Bet, pavyzdžiui, Baltramiejaus Vilento Evangelijų bei Epistolų (1579) dedikacijoje išskirtinai žymimas kiekvienas žodis, esantis kunigaikščiui Jurgiui Frydrichui skirtame kreipinyje, plg.: Tuæ Illuſtriſsimæ Celſitudini (Tavo Šviesiausiajai Kilnybei); Tuæ Celſitudini (Tavo Kilnybei) ar jo trumpiniai T. C. ar C. T. (plg. PrDe 81–82).

Martyno Mažvydo parengta Gielme S. Ambraßeijauſ (GA, 1549) turi lietuvišką kreipimąsi-padėkojimą Ponui Sebastijanuy Perbanth, kuriame adresatas įvardijamas junginiu tavo Mylista (plg. tawa Militas) arba jo trumpiniais tawa M. ar T. M. (citatoje žvaigždute žymimos atstatytos formos):

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 7

(12) I understood that the listeners wanted to have the hymn of praise to God, which is called Te Deum laudamus. Therefore, just as I translated it together with the others*, I had it sent out on a sheet and added your Dearness’s name to it. Now, as I send it to your Dearness*, I add this note, and instead of a greeting I offer a gift*, humbly asking that your Dearness receive this little gift with a cheerful heart. Farewell in the love of God. In Ragainė, on the 3rd day of the month of March. In the year of God’s incarnation, 1549. GA 2_17–28

Danielius Kleinas very consistently marked direct addressee-referring pronouns with capital letters, regarding specifically the choice of how to write them—not the semantic distinction between TU and JŪS—as an opportunity to show respect for another person. Cf. the capitalized forms Tawo and Jūsų in the dedication to Duke Friedrich Wilhelm in Grammatica Litvanica (1653) (cf., for example, QVæ Tuo, SERENISSIME ET POTENTISSIME SEPTEMVIR PrDe 332 Most Illustrious and Most Powerful Elector, Tawo... PrDe 376) and Sereniſima Veſtra Celſitudo PrDe 340 Your Most Illustrious Highness PrDe 379). In the short German-language compendium of this grammar—COMPENDIUM LITVANICO-GERMANICUM, Oder Kurtze und gantz deutliche Anführung zur Littauſchen Sprache / wie man recht Littauſch leſen / ſchreiben und reden ſol. (K1C, 1564) (cf. the translation of the K1C title given by Kazimieras Eigminas: A short and entirely clear guide to the Lithuanian language, showing how to read, write, and speak Lithuanian correctly. PLKG 529), D. Kleinas provided the declension paradigm for TU, JŪS, demonstrating the importance of capitalizing these pronouns; cf.:

Singular.

Nominative [Tu] you (singular) /

Genitive [Tawes] of you /

Dative [Taw] to you /

Accusative [Tawe] you /

Vocative [ô Tu] O you /

Ablative instrumental [Tawimi] with you /

Locative, [Tawije / eje] in you. K1C 46_9–16

Dual.

Masculine, nominative, accusative, vocative [Iudu] you two /

Feminine [Iudwi] /

Genitive [jumu dwieju] of you two /

Dative [jum dwiem] to you two. K1C 46_17–21

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 8

Pluraliter.

Nominativo [Ius | ihr /

Genitivo [Iuſu] ewer /

Dativo [Iu m u s / j u m s] euch /

Accusativo [Ius] euch /

Vocativo [ô Ius] ô ihr /

Ablativo Inftrum. [Iu m i s] mit euch /

Localis, [Iuſuſe] in euch. KIC 46_22–29

1.2. The issue of definiteness in personal pronouns

Typological linguistics does not leave unaddressed the question of the definiteness of personal pronouns and their relation to proper names. Proper names have a referent but no meaning (sense) (cf. Lyons 2004: 22); the essential characteristic of a pronoun is described similarly—as lacking its own semantic content (cf. Siewierska 2004: 9). Nevertheless, both personal pronouns and proper names have the same grammatical and pragmatic properties as expressions marked for definiteness (cf. Dik 1997: 186). In speech situations, the addressee referred to by a pronoun is situationally definite—the addressee is real and evident, and therefore easily identifiable. In written communication, this lack of semantic content can be remedied by explicitly marking the pronoun that refers to the addressee.

1.2.1. Definiteness in vocative phrases

The declension paradigm of the pronouns Tu, Jūs in D. Klein’s aforementioned Compendium is interesting not only because of the striking spelling of the examples, but also because of the vocative forms ô Tu, ô Jus (see KIC 46_{14, 27}). Following the tradition of associating the vocative only with the category of nouns, grammatical descriptions of contemporary Lithuanian do not list a vocative form for pronouns²¹ (cf. Valeckienė 1965: 640; 2006: 272, 273). Jonas Jablonskis explained the absence of a vocative in the pronoun declension paradigm by its identity with the nominative, cf.: “here, nominative forms serve as vocatives” (Jablonskis (1997 [1922]: 50). But TU, JŪS, which are identical to the nominative, are sometimes unavoidable in everyday exclamations, e.g.:

(13) Hey, you, come here, now! Yes, yes, you!

²¹ For more on this tradition and the proposal to treat such forms as a separate grammatical category, see Judžentis (2012: 72–73).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 9

Such use of the pronouns tu (jūs) in colloquial speech is usually associated with the unexpectedness of particular situations, so they are most often accompanied by attention-getting particles, insertions of nonstandard vocabulary, and/or derogatory descriptions, cf.:

(14) Well, damn, you’ve burned the potatoes here, you toad. DLKT (Spoken language)

(15) And you, you snake, he’s fooled us again. (quoted from Judžentis 2012: 72–73)

(16) Oh, you loser. DLKT (Publicistics)

(17) Hey, you, could I buy you something to drink? DLKT (Publicistics)

(18) Hey, you moles! Why are you digging around, crumbling the earth?! DLKT (Publicistics)

This is also characteristic of other languages²². Typological studies draw attention to vocatives as an interesting but insufficiently studied grammatical category (and thus consider the possibility of assigning the vocative to the category of case²³); they also discuss cases of adjacent use of a pronoun with a noun or noun phrase in exclamations. This prosodic construction, consisting of a pronoun and an appositive, is regarded as being somewhat separate from the sentence, since vocatives are not syntactically or semantically integrated into the predicate structure (cf. Levinson 2005: 71). In Christopher Lyons’s view, personal pronouns in exclamations perform a determiner function (which is not otherwise characteristic of them): this indicates the definiteness of noun phrases functioning as vocatives, since vocatives, as forms of direct address, are equivalent to second-person reference; therefore, vocatives consisting of a personal pronoun and an appositive must also convey definiteness (cf. Lyons 2004: 152).

1.2.2. Apposition of a vocative specifying the dialogue partner

To clearly establish the roles of the YOU (SG./PL.) forms, the meaning of the pronoun can be clarified by a vocative. This is evidenced by the adjacent use of a pronoun and a proper name used as a vocative, or a noun phrase standing in for one (cf. their function of clarifying and emphasizing the meaning of a deictic reference and highlighting its importance)²⁴. If clarification is necessary, the vocative

²² Vladimir Sannikov emphasizes the unusualness in Russian of a vocative consisting of a pronoun alone (e.g., Иди сюда, ты!), and regards sentences in which ты (вы) has an attributive appositive as much more usual (most often with a derogatory meaning, e.g., Иди сюда, ты, негодяй!); see Sannikov (2008: 94). In English, second-person pronouns can likewise be used alone (You, come here!) or with a noun phrase (You boys, follow me!) (cf. Lyons 2004: 152).

²³ In Vladimir Plungian’s view, “the appellative function (i.e., identifying the addressee of a speech act) may, from a typological perspective, be included in the set of universal case meanings”; see Plungian (2011: 168).

²⁴ Christopher Lyons observes that proper nouns are often defined merely as referring expressions without meaning; context is crucial for determining their referent, as it is for any description emphasizing specificity. In fact, however, proper nouns are used as though they

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 10

an appositive can occur with any case form of YOU (SG./PL.). This proves that appellativity is associated with any case form of a pronoun specifying the dialogue partner; cf.:

(19) How is it that you, Marija, bring [someone] at such a time <...> DLKT

(20) I don’t intend to scold you, Juliuk. DLKT

(21) Thank you, Doctor, for your concern, <...> DLKT

(22) What surprised you most, Šarūnas, during the reorganization of the LKL? DLKT

(23) On the occasion of your splendid Jubilee, we congratulate you, Danute, and wish you a happy celebration [...] DLKT

(24) I just wanted to talk with you, Egle. DLKT

(25) But how much strength you have in you, child; they’ll melt it away from you in no time <...> DLKT

(26) It is no coincidence that this is the title of the book you, Dear Reader, are holding in your hands. DLKT

(27) <...> scientific and technical supervision of this project is your prerogative, Professor. DLKT

(28) I wish you, Jolanta, great success in your work, <...> DLKT

(29) With these words of an Easter hymn, I address you, Lithuanians of the Kaliningrad Region, <...> DLKT

(30) <...> in the second year, the experts said that you and I, esteemed colleagues, were not yet ready, <...> DLKT

(31) <...> we are nevertheless pleased that within you, Teacher, the serfs are beginning to give way to a self-respecting person. DLKT

The need to clarify the meaning of pronouns is also evident in public discourses with an implicit addressee (for example, in sentences (26) and (29)). Such texts contain insertions in which the author attempts to characterize that implicit addressee. In certain cases, a personal pronoun can function much like a definiteness marker in a noun phrase (cf. Lyons 2004: 27). Inclusive *we* can serve various pragmatic functions: it may involve the addressee in the argumentation, or signal an unwillingness to take responsibility for the ideas expressed, while the author’s use of you indicates an exclusive relationship and helps define the situational role (cf. Šinkūnienė 2010: 130–132). In texts with an implicit addressee, for example, opinion articles that include a form of address characterizing the reader, the way the pronoun is written

would be absolutely unique (since the uniqueness of a proper noun lies in its association with definiteness); cf. Lyons (2004: 21).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 11

may soften (see sentence (32)) or, conversely, strengthen the impression of distancing oneself from the addressee²⁵ (see sentence (33)); cf.:

(32) And to you, dear compatriots, before reading—I suggest you find it.²⁶

(33) Do you, Lithuanians, like this view of Karbauskis?²⁷

When describing the use of participial pronouns in written discourse, a distinction must be made according to how clearly the addressee is established; cf. the opposition real: implicit (see Levinson 2005: 72). In direct address, the context clarifying the meaning of a personal pronoun may also be provided in a neighboring sentence. In that case, a larger portion of the text should be subordinate to it, e.g.:

(34) I would like to ask the Seimas Ombudsman of the Republic of Lithuania why this was not discussed not only now, but for many years? What was the result of your investigation?²⁸

It is understandable that, in a question appearing under such circumstances, the reader expects the pronoun referring to a specific person to be specially written. In discourse subtypes with different addresser–addressee configurations, the way pronouns are written makes it possible to distinguish the reader of the text (i.e., a witness to the text segment containing a direct question with an addressee) from the target addressee²⁹, to whom the question is posed and who is the actual addressee of a particular text segment; cf. the version of sentence (34), which allows only this reading:

(34a) I would like to ask the Seimas Ombudsman of the Republic of Lithuania <...> What was the result of Your investigation?

²⁵ For a discussion of the text author’s positions toward the matters described and the readers, and the strategies selected (involvement, emotional distance, or neutrality), see Marcinkevičienė (2008: 53).

²⁶ Available online: https://www.delfi.lt/pilietis/voxpopuli/atsibodo-mediku-dejones-nustokite-isivaizduoti-esantys-svarbesni-nei-kitu-profesiju-atstovai.d?id=76319361 (accessed 2017 11 11).

²⁷ Available online: http://www.delfi.lt/news/ringas/lit/r-valatka-laiskas-kaledu-seneliui-ka-cia-dar-uzdraudus-lietuviams.d?id=73203746 (accessed 2016 12 18).

²⁸ Available online: https://www.delfi.lt/news/ringas/politics/robertas-sar(k)n(i)ckas-sepetukas-ranksluostis-ne-renkuosi-zmogu-kuris-isklauso.d?id=76361755 (accessed 2017 11 19).

²⁹ Apie šiuos vaidmenis žr. Levinson (2005: 68).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 12

1.2.3. Indefinite reference or neutralization of the individual meanings of tu / jūs

The pronoun tu may refer not only to a specific individual who is the addressee, but may also be used as a generic pronoun, that is, to convey indefinite reference (cf. Haspelmath 2000: 11). In Lithuanian linguistics, this is described as use with a generalized meaning (cf. Valeckienė 1965: 668), as neutralization of the individual meaning of tu (cf. Rosinas 1996: 26), or as an instance of grammatical metaphor (cf. Judžentis 2012: 114). In such cases, tu, which in ordinary contexts has the property of referring to another person distinguished by their individuality, takes on the semantics of the noun žmogus ‘person’ and becomes a word that provides a cover of commonality (and is written only with a lowercase letter). Such generalized tu is most often chosen by the speaker to avoid referring to themself and/or when there is a need to describe situations as universally as possible, e.g.:

(35) <...> It makes no difference whether you’re from a big city or not. <...> It’s not where you live that defines the narrowness of your outlook.³⁰

The most standardized sentence patterns formed with generic tu in Lithuanian are easily recognizable. Their core most often consists of present or future forms of verbs such as padaryti, pasakyti, parašyti (‘do’, ‘say’, ‘write’), negated by the prefixes ne-, be- or by questions that have acquired a distinctive intonation (emphasizing the hopelessness of the situation); in these, the generalized meaning of the pronoun tu is often clarified by the apposition žmogus ‘person’ or by the vocative žmogau ‘man’ or Dieve ‘God’, cf.:

(36) The ice floes are drifting, and what can you do about it? If you like, you can only admire them. DLKT

(37) Men are getting bolder, and what can you do about them? DLKT

(38) <...> that times are hard—what, dear God, can you rewrite here, when the theater of life is like this <...> DLKT

(39) He is used to that kind of life, and say whatever you like to him. DLKT

(40) But what does it matter? Do your best, man, as you please, but life hasn’t got any better, and it still hasn’t... DLKT

The tu of indefinite reference (and, more rarely, the polite jūs) is also used in sentences that do not follow such a standard pattern. The same universal means are used to form them

³⁰ Available online: https://zmогnes.lrytas.lt/tv-antena/2017/11/25/news/audrius-bruzas-apie-alkoholi-tai-vykdavo-iki-nuomoto-buto-uzliejimo--3646238/?utm_source=lrExtraLinks&utm_campaign=Copy&utm_medium=Copy (accessed 2017 11 25).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 13

rules related to a somewhat specific expression of temporal relations conveying a generalized character³¹: a personal pronoun acquires an indefinite meaning when describing situations assigned to the irrealis category³², which are characterized by selecting negative polarity (expressed by means of a subordinate clause / question / standard of comparison that highlights the conditionality of the situation and/or a (non-)direct negation) and a free choice (cf. Haspelmath 2000: 52; 64). Cf. sentences in which the reference of the indefinite forms you is revealed by a present (future) tense verb (with negative connotation) describing the generalized, i.e. non-factual, nature of an action, or by a conditional or temporal clause, e.g.:

(41) That was the attitude—publications, conferences abroad. If you don’t cross the border, your publication won’t count toward accreditation.³³

(42) More precisely: a type of crime emerges, an accusation that automatically destroys your social existence, regardless of its validity, while your attempt to defend yourself automatically becomes yet another crime—“victim blaming” <...>.³⁴

(43) Try analyzing such an author in detail yourself when you’re trembling with fear during an exam—what if you fail to please the examiner, what if you’re thinking incorrectly...³⁵

(44) If you actually buy a garment but it doesn’t seem good enough to you, you return it, and later see that it has gone on sale and decide that at that price you can buy it after all, since its flaws don’t seem significant, then everything is morally fine.³⁶

(45) Most people say that my latest book, “Letters to Elzė,” is about bullying. It is just as much about being lonely when the people around you don’t hear you, adults dismiss your problems as unimportant, and many other difficulties arise from this.³⁷

³¹ On the importance of understanding the expression of temporal relations and the possibility of unconsciously noticing the distinctive features of these grammatical forms, cf. Smith (2001: 194).

³² On the connection between the meaning of irrealis and the avoidance of factual implications or presuppositions, see Holvoet, Pajėdienė (2004: 90).

³³ Available online: https://www.delfi.lt/news/ringas/politics/s-tumenas-good-bye-lituanistika.d?id=76277309 (accessed 2017 11 08).

³⁴ Available online: https://www.delfi.lt/news/ringas/lit/nida-vasiliauskaite-kaltumo-prezumpcija.d?id=76335685 (accessed 2017 11 23).

³⁵ Available online: https://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/education/destytoja-apie-lietuviu-kalbos-ir-literaturos-brandos-egzamina-kur-cia-dangus-griuva.d?id=76449667 (accessed 2017 11 26).

³⁶ Available online: https://www.delfi.lt/verslas/mano-eurai/prasideje-is pardavimai-ikvepe-atskleide-gudrybe-kaip-isleisti-maziau.d?id=76455979#cxrecs_s (accessed 2017 11 24).

³⁷ Available online: https://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/50141609/ministro-pirmininko-patareja-svietimui-kaunaite-vienas-blogiausiu-keliu-yra-vaiku-suskirstymas (accessed 2017 02 19).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 14

2. THE ADDRESSER’S POSITION

2.1. What should one rely on: subjectivity or intersubjectivity in discourse?

Traditionally, the pronoun I is considered egocentric³⁸. In Ronald W. Langacker’s view, when discussing personal pronouns, attention should be focused primarily on subjectivity based on mutual relations between dialogue partners, in other words, on their intersubjectivity in discourse (cf. Langacker 2007: 185): mutual understanding is absolutely essential in relations between the referents designated by the pronouns I and you, and the essence of intersubjectivity may be described as understanding the other’s thoughts and their significance (Langacker 2007: 182). It may be assumed that focusing not on I’s egocentricity (which can be emphasized even when presenting aspects of the spelling of forms of address³⁹), but on dialogue grounded in mutual understanding between I and you, could change even such details of written communication (considered unimportant by some) as how the pronoun designating the immediate addressee is written. I’s egocentricity may also be useful here, since the author creating a text always knows what and how they wish to say, and what their choice of forms of presentation and the way they are written is meant to convey⁴⁰. In dialogues, the roles of I and you continually change⁴¹, so it is appropriate to understand the factors governing the choice between the forms you and you, as well as the arguments supporting the distinctive spelling pattern for these pronouns (not only arguments concerning basic literacy, but also semantic and pragmatic ones). In the Lithuanian written tradition, it is customary to emphasize the distinctiveness of the interlocutor referred to by a participial pronoun. This expresses an attitude toward another person grounded in mutual understanding. In direct correspondence, the case forms of You / You, written distinctively, become substitutes with a value equivalent to that of a personal name. Distinctively written You / You also acquire a positive, different—additional—content value. Such spelling conveys information to the addressee about the addresser as a communicator characterized by a sense of responsibility. When discussing values, a question may arise about the possibilities

³⁸ Cf.: “In standard Lithuanian <...> the addresser is the central person in the communicative act, from whose point of view relations with the addressee and other persons are evaluated <...>. For this reason, the pronoun I is called egocentric” (Rosinas 1996: 26).

³⁹ Cf. an egocentrically grounded formulation in which a neutrally worded situation of addressing another person is rephrased to pragmatically emphasize addressing a person important to us, cf.: “For stylistic reasons, we write capital letters w h e n a d d r e s s i n g a p e r s o n i m p o r t a n t t o u s in statements, requests, and letters” (Vasiliauskienė 2002: 36).

⁴⁰ Cf.: “When selecting an addressee-domain participial pronoun, the addresser already knows the addressee’s social characteristics” (Rosinas 1996: 40).

⁴¹ On the alternation, incompatibility, and harmony of the subject and object roles (functions) performed by I and you, see Langacker (2007: 184–185).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 15

to manipulate such additional value⁴². But if the functioning Lithuanian orthographic system⁴³ traditionally recognizes the distinctive marking of an addressee referred to by a pronoun, then precisely the disregard of such marking in direct written communication may be understood as manipulation: writing pronouns with lowercase letters when directly addressing another person may be perceived as neutralizing the distinctiveness of the person designated by that pronoun.

2.2. Variants of pronoun spelling chosen by senders

Participial pronouns perform both a personal and a social-status deictic function (cf. Levinson 2005: 72). It is likely that certain aspects of how these functions are understood are not understood in the same way by everyone. Because of differing viewpoints, three spelling variants are possible for TU / JŪS, which refer to a partner in written dialogue, in Lithuanian written discourse. This makes it possible to distinguish three types of sender:

1) The sender observes the etiquette of written language—writing the forms Tu / Jūs of pronouns referring to the addressee with capital letters;

2) The sender chooses the unmarked forms tu / jūs (presumably simply because they are not in the habit of graphically emphasizing the distinctiveness of the pronoun referring to the addressee);

3) The sender observes language etiquette only in part: when addressing someone, they choose to write the pronoun with a capital letter, Jūs, whereas the singular form referring to the addressee is marked by the lowercase spelling tu⁴⁴.

A sender of the third type can be identified by reading letters written to different people (examples of these can be found in publications of private letters), or letters containing forms of address to different addressees (see the excerpt from a public letter given in example (46)), as well as advertising letters in which both the tu and Jūs forms are chosen to refer to the same addressee in a single message and/or its cover letter (see example (47))⁴⁵, cf.:

(46) You, Audrius Bačiulis, who proudly wrote last night that <...>. A year ago <...> I often defended you against my younger colleague, who was horrified by you as a person. I would say that your opinion mattered and that, despite your tone and words, one should listen carefully to what you were saying. <...> // <...> And you, Šarūnas

⁴² For an account of the values of content, their transformations and manipulation in narrative syntax, see Greimas (1989: 165).

⁴³ In Simo Karaliūnas’s view, “it would be wrong to think that communication is the sum of individual actions. <...> An individual does not invent their own system of communication: upon entering society, they find it already <...> functioning” (Karaliūnas 2008: 101).

⁴⁴ The singular tu and the honorific form Jūs mark vertical hierarchical relations (cf. Marcinkevičienė 2004: 62).

⁴⁵ For unmotivated “cases in which both singular and plural forms of address to the addressee are used in the same advertisement,” see Girčienė, Kupčinskaitė-Ryklienė (2005: 228).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 16

Bartai. The ending of his “Namai” in my third year made such an impression on me. <...> Koršunuovas was wrong. You won’t have to wait in Purgatory. <...>⁴⁶

(47) Be the first to try it – the best DROGAS news is already waiting for you! <...> // <...> This email is sent to you by UAB Drogas <...>⁴⁷

The way of writing pronouns referring to the addressee, chosen by third-type senders, is most likely linked not only to certain ethical attitudes⁴⁸, but may also be determined by the description of the meanings of tu: jūs traditionally given in Lithuanian grammatical descriptions, based on a contrast between respect and familiarity⁴⁹ (cf. the negative connotation of the meaning of the adjective familiarus⁵⁰), rather than on distance/contact politeness strategies (see Girčienė 2009b: 214–215). The choice not to distinguish the marking of pronouns referring to the addressee may also have been encouraged by descriptions of the expression of the most popular interpersonal functions by pronouns (when a tendency in usage⁵¹ is reformulated as permission⁵²), or by a somewhat imprecisely formulated spelling rule for pronouns and other forms of address referring to the addressee⁵³.

2.3. Indirect expression of the sender’s position or the viewpoint of third parties

When considering the spelling of the addressee referred to by participial pronouns, it is also important to note how they are written in fiction, in intertexts in linguistic literature, and in interviews

⁴⁶ Available online: https://www.15min.lt/vardai/naujiena/lietuva/paules-bocullaites-vyras-karolis-kaupinis-viesas-laiskas-visiems-kuriems-rupi-1050-882088 (accessed 2017 11 16).

⁴⁷ Source [email protected] email dated 2017 02 15.

⁴⁸ On ethical stylistics and the fact that “the sender’s ethical values are readily recognizable from certain linguistic-stylistic expressions,” see Koženiauskienė (2013: 94).

⁴⁹ Cf. A Contemporary Grammar of the Lithuanian Language, which characterizes tu as having a “familiar tone of address” and being blunt, and describes the domain of use of jūs in the “tu” sense as “addressing a stranger or a person one knows only slightly, an older and respected person, and also an acquaintance in a formal context” (Valeckienė 2006: 259). A similar distinction between tu expressing familiarity and jūs expressing respect and formality is also emphasized in more recent works (cf. Judžentis 2012: 124). Rosinas classifies the plural jūs, used instead of the singular tu, and the pronoun tamsta as “pronouns of subjective evaluation” (Rosinas 1996: 38).

⁵⁰ Cf. the definition of familiarùs, -i: “overly informal, unreserved.” Available online: http://www.lkzd.lki.lt/Zodynas/Visas.asp (accessed 2017 11 30).

⁵¹ Cf. the neutral formulation concerning the use of pronouns in appellative texts: “<...> readers are usually addressed in the second person singular or plural – tu, Jūs or jūs” (Marcinkevičienė 2004: 60).

⁵² Cf.: “Thus, in advertising, in order to reach the largest possible audience while also influencing each individual separately, the addressee can be addressed in the second person <...> in three ways: with the singular form, the polite plural, and the neutral plural. Symbolically, these forms of address could be written as: tu, Jūs and jūs.” (Girčienė, Kupčinskaitė-Ryklienė 2005: 221).

⁵³ Cf., for example, the same Interactive Database of Sources for Learning Lithuanian Language, Literature (Culture), and Lithuanian History cited in footnote 1, www.šaltiniai.info, which also offers a different formulation regulating the stylistic use of capital letters, which can be understood as allowing them in exceptional cases; cf. “Stylistic capitalization is permitted when expressing exceptional respect or making a polite form of address (Jūs, Tu, Gerbiamasis, Motina, Tėvyne...).” Available online: http://www.xn--altiniai-4wb.info/index/details/565 (accessed 2017 11 18).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 17

in transcriptions and so on. In literature, an author may have greater freedom to grant an addressee who has become a literary character various writing options (though these should also be related to specific aims that reveal one or another envisioned model of the character’s speech etiquette). Against the background of Lithuanian written culture, more convincing are literary texts or intertexts written in the epistolary genre that observe the main stylistic requirement of this genre—capitalizing references to the direct addressee (personal names, special forms of address, participial pronouns). It is hard not to miss the distinctive spelling of pronouns referring to a dialogue partner in works of fiction and their translations that graphically distinguish various levels of intertexts, and thus the letters contained within them. For example, the Lithuanian versions of two books by Haruki Murakami employ different strategies for marking the pronoun referring to the addressee in a letter. These choices are linked both to the personal views of the text’s translator and/or editor and to their understanding of the expression of politeness in the language of the source text. In the letters in the short-story collection Dramblys pradингsta (translated from Japanese), the distinctive graphic rendering of the pronoun referring to the addressee allows this choice to be understood as a natural reflection of Japanese cultural etiquette⁵⁴, e.g.:

(48) <...> for almost the whole week I kept trying and trying to write you a letter. MDramPr 68.

In the intertexts—letters—in the novel The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle (translated from the primary English source), the English-language convention of spelling participial pronouns referring to the addressee without distinctive marking is followed⁵⁵. It is difficult to link the choice of this convention to the distinctive sensitivity to etiquette characteristic of Japanese culture (especially after reading the narrator’s note, which identifies the letter’s sender as an excellent connoisseur of etiquette⁵⁶); compare the sentence with the graphically unmarked choice of the pronoun you referring to the addressee:

(49) Fully aware of how presumptuous it is of me to burden you in this way with an entirely unwanted responsibility, I nevertheless want to stress to you that, in sitting down to write this letter, I have only one aim <...> MPrPK 209.

⁵⁴ For differing levels of sensitivity to politeness across languages when personal pronouns are chosen, and how these levels manifest in languages such as Japanese (where politeness is expressed through verb forms) and English (whose pronouns are entirely neutral with respect to politeness), cf. Plungian (2011: 79).

⁵⁵ Although the distinction characteristic of Lithuanian between tu and jūs is observed—cf. the marking of a close distance from the letter’s addressee by the pronoun tu: I intend to write to you much earlier and explain everything properly, but time went by <...> MPrPK 271.

⁵⁶ Cf. the narrator’s note on the style of this letter’s author: “It’s plain to see: Lieutenant Mamiya knows the subtleties of etiquette like the back of his hand.” MPrPK 209.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 18

Third parties’ views on the spelling of TU / JŪS referring to the addressee are also clearly evident in journalistic writing and in transcripts presenting interviews or other dialogues, or excerpts from them; compare:

(50) You said that teenagers write you letters about books and tell you their problems; what do they talk about?⁵⁷

(51) The president does not take part in these yard games either. How do you explain that?⁵⁸

(52) “Share what your dashcams have recorded, those of you driving near Elektrėnai or in the Kėdainiai area; we are checking everything and searching intensively,” D. Žukauskas told DELFI.⁵⁹

(53) Has the court already ordered you to pay child support for your daughter?⁶⁰

In situations involving the writing or transcription (stenography, translation) of discourse addressed directly to someone, when the speaker is addressing a real, specific person, observance or disregard of written-language conventions reflects the views not of the original source—the speaker, the addresser—but of the person preparing the transcript. In transcripts of live interviews that do not identify who prepared the text, readers may conflate the person who initiated the interview with the person who prepared the text.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of personal pronouns is inseparable from the very concept of the category of person and the pragmatic content of this category. The distinctive capitalization of a participial pronoun referring to the direct addressee in Lithuanian is associated with a long-standing tradition, documented in the earliest Lithuanian printed works, and is regulated in the current Lithuanian orthographic guidelines as a mark of good style or linguistic etiquette.

In the Lithuanian written tradition, it is customary to emphasize the distinctiveness of the interlocutor referred to by a participial pronoun. This demonstrates an attitude toward the other person based on mutual understanding. In direct correspondence, the case forms of Tu / Jūs, written distinctively, become substitutes whose value is equivalent to that of a personal name. This form of writing conveys information to the addressee about the sender as a communicator characterized by a sense of responsibility.

⁵⁷ Available online: https://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/50141609/ministro-pirmininko-patareja-svietimui-kaunaite-vienas-blogiausiu-keliu-yra-vaiku-susikirstymas (accessed 2017 02 19).

⁵⁸ Available online: https://lietuvosdiena.lrytas.lt/aktualijos/2017/11/20/news/atvirai-apie-tai-kur-veda-r-karbauskio-ir-a-verygos-sielu-giminyste-3582104/?utm_source=IrExtraLinks&utm_campaign=Copy&utm_medium=Copy (accessed 2017 11 20).

⁵⁹ Available online: http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/crime/antra-para-ieskoma-dingusios-merginos-plunges-policija-abejoja-ar-galejo-buti-pagrobta-del-iespirkos.d?id=73960354 (accessed 2017 03 07).

⁶⁰ Available online: https://www.delfi.lt/veidai/zmones/karaliaunaites-vyras-neistvere-dave-atvira-interviu-apie-kova-del-dukros-ir-dainininkes-problemas.d?id=76345823 (accessed 2017 11 15).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 19

The sender writes a message to a specific addressee with certain pragmatic aims and, of course, with the intention of being properly understood. In keeping with Lithuanian written tradition and codification, in any written discourse with a specific, real addressee, substitutes for that addressee expressed in any linguistic form are distinctively marked: not only a person’s first and last name are written with a capital letter, but also honorific forms of address that replace them (e.g., Ponia, Pone, Jūsų Ekscelencija, Direktoriau,...), vocative forms of nouns indicating a permanent or situational personal role (e.g., Mokytojau, Teta, Dėde, gerbiamas Kolega...), terms for immediate family members, especially those whose replacement by a form of address expressed as a personal name would be possible only as an expression of irony (cf. the contexts of use of the forms of address Mamyte, Tėti, Močiute, Seneli and the possibility of replacing them with a personal name), and, of course, any case form of the pronoun Tu / Jūs referring to another specific person (or group of people) as the addressee.

In texts with a direct addressee, the graphic distinction between Tu and tu or Jūs and jūs is not as insignificant as it may seem at first glance:

1. Failure to follow this graphic convention indicates disregard for a customary behavioral norm in the Lithuanian writing system.

2. When a direct addressee is referred to using the non-distinctive tu / jūs, the principle of informativeness is violated, because the reader of the message must decide whether the form refers to them personally or expresses a generalized reference to a person.

3. A form of the addressee-referencing pronoun that does not emphasize the individual nature of the person does not help the sender achieve their pragmatic aims. The unmarked tu / jūs option in direct correspondence is a non-constructive pattern and may therefore have certain consequences (the addressee has reason to think that linguistic etiquette is being deliberately disregarded).

Recently, the ways direct discourse is written (or rewritten) in the media and in advertising texts have been rather encouraging: there is a tendency to emphasize the distinctiveness of the addressee by writing the forms of the participial pronoun Tu / Jūs referring to them with a capital letter. This tendency is likely to become evident in everyday correspondence as well.

ŠALTINIAI

DLKT – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos tekstynas. Prieiga internete: http://tekstynas.vdu.lt/tekstynas.

GA – Martynas Mažvydas Giesmė S. Ambraziejaus bey S. Augustina... Karalauczuy 1549.

Parengė P. U. Dini, 1996; e. versija J. Gippert 2012. Prieiga internete: http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/balt/lit/mazvga/mazvg.htm.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 20

K1C – 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 Slavočinskis, Giesmės tikėjimui katalickam 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 Adwentu do Postu, Kritinis leidimas / Wydanie krytyczne, Virginija Vasiliauskienė, Kristina Rutkovska (eds.). 2015. Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

LITERATŪRA

Bhat D. N. S. 2007: Pronouns, Oxford University Press.

Croft W. 2004: Typology and Universals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Čepaitienė G. 2010: Laiškas: monologo ir dialogo santykis, – Filologija 15, 5–13. Prieiga internete: 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: Routledge, 385–407.

Girčienė J. 2009a: Adresato įvardijimas periodikoje. – Kalba ir kontekstai, Vilnius, 82–88.

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 21

Girčienė J. 2009b: Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje, – Kalbos kultūra 82, 214–234. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/?82.

Girčienė J., Kupčinskaitė-Ryklienė A. 2005: Kreipimosi į adresatą būdai reklamoje, Kalbos kultūra 78, 220–229. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/?78.

Greimas A. J. 1989: Semiotika. Darbų rinktinė, 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: Laiko kategorija ir laiko formos, – Gramatinių kategorijų tyrimai [Lietuvių kalbos gramatikos darbai 2], Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 121–140, 169–170.

Jablonskis J. 1997: Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 3-as fotograf. leidimas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Judžentis A. 2012: Lietuvių kalbos gramatinės kategorijos, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Karaliūnas S. 2008: Kalbos vartojimas ir socialinis kontekstas, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas.

Koženiauskienė R. 2013: Retorika ir stilistika – visumos ir dalies santykis. – Šiuolaikinės stilistikos kryptys ir problemos, Vilnius: Edukologija, 89–99.

Kučinskaitė A. 1980: Mandagumo įvardžiai, Kalbos kultūra 39, 51–53. Prieiga internete: 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: Užsakomųjų reklaminių straipsnių tarpasmeninės funkcijos raiška. – Respectus philologicus 6, 56–63. Prieiga internete: http://etalpykla.lituanistikadb.lt/fedora/objects/LT-LDB-0001:J.04~2004~1367181663661/datastreams/DS.002.0.01.ARTIC/content (žiūrėta 2017–11–27).

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351–7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 22

Marcinkevičienė R. 2008: Žanro ribos ir paribiai. Spaudos patirtys, Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2008.

Plungian V. 2011: Gramatinių kategorijų tipologija 2, vertė Jurgis Pakerys, Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas, Bibliotheca Salensis.

Roduner M., Čižik-Prokaševa V. 2006: Skaičiaus kategorija. – Daiktavardinio junginio tyrimai, Axel Holvoet, Rolandas Mikulskas, red., Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas, 67–101.

Rosinas A. 1996: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla.

Sannikov V. [Санников В. З.] 2008: Русский синтаксис в семантико–прагматическом пространстве, Москва: Языки славянских культур.

Senkus J. 1963: Jūs, tamsta ir tu, – Kalbos kultūra 5, 37–39. Prieiga internete: http://www.bendrinekalba.lt/?5.

Senn A. 1957: Handbuch der Litauishen Sprachen. 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, Sémantique et Discours, 183–206.

Šinkūnienė J. 2010: Autoriaus pozicijos raiška asmeniniais įvardžiais rašytiniame akademiniame diskurse. – Filologija 15, 124–141.

Valeckienė A. 1965: Įvardis, – Lietuvių kalbos gramatika, 1: Fonetika ir morfologija (daiktavardis, būdvardis, skaitvardis, įvardis), red. Kazys Ulvydas, Vilnius: Mintis, 635–721.

Valeckienė A. 2006: Įvardis. – Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos gramatika, red. Vytautas Ambrazas, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 251–282.

Vasiliauskienė V. 2002: Probleminiai lietuvių kalbos ir rašybos aspektai, Vilnius: Homo Liber.

Zaikauskas E. 2002: Šnekos akto dalyvių strategija, socialiniai vaidmenys ir tipai lietuvių kalboje. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 46, 145–172.

Įteikta 2017-12-04

Priimta 2017-12-29

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017)

www.bendrinekalba.lt

ISSN 2351-7204

JŪRATĖ PAJĖDIENĖ. Lietuviškas rašto diskursas: adresatą nurodantys participiniai įvardžiai | 23

LITHUANIAN WRITTEN DISCOURSE: PARTICIPIAL PRONOUNS REFERRING TO ADDRESSEE

Summary

The article discusses the variations of spelling of participial pronouns referring to another person in the Lithuanian written discourse. Next 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 exists as well. The reference to a dialogue partner and the way it is presented are an essential communication detail; therefore, naturally, the likely 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

[email protected]

BENDRINĖ KALBA 90 (2017) www.bendrinekalba.lt ISSN 2351–7204