Clara Calvo

Pronouns of Address and Social Negotiation in as You Like it

None of the extant approaches to Early Modern English you and thou can satisfactorily account for all types of pronominal shift present in Shakespeares plays. The difficulty often lies in swift changes of pronoun performed by one speaker while addressing the same hearer, sometimes in the course of the same dramatic scene or even within the same conversational turn. In this article, some landmarks in the study of the pronouns of address — Brown and Gilman (1960), McIntosh (1963), Wales (1983) — are briefly discussed before concentrating on some of the problems posed by Celias and Rosalinds shifts of pronominal choice in As you like it. McIntoshs analysis of you and thou in this play is questioned, and the shortcomings of approaches in terms of the norm/deviation or marked/unmarked dichotomies lead to the conclusion that the pronouns of address in Early Modern English must have fulfilled other functions beside those of conveying ‘expressive’ or ‘attitudinal’ overtones. Finally, it is suggested that you and thou might have functioned as markers of in-group or out-group relations in the negotiation of social identities, and as discourse markers signalling a change of conversational topic and the presence of a boundary in the structure of the dialogue.

European Shakespeare on Either Side of the Channel

The study of Shakespeare in a European context, and in European countries where he is primarily read in translation, has burgeoned since the collapse of communism in 1990. This short paper briefly surveys the field, pointing out certain ironies arising from, amongst others, the attachment to Shakespeare in the German literary culture and informs readers of recent and forthcoming research-network events (in particular conferences) that take this work forward.

Book Reviews: Jargon:Its Uses and Abuses by Walter Nash, 1993, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. x + 214, ISBN 0 631 18063 X

covered, initiated by an unreferenced (see previous comment) presentation of Berko’s (1958) nonce forms or wug experiment. However, Peccei takes this experiment a stage further (perhaps in preparation for a later phonological analysis) in her useful acknowledgement of the different phonetic realisations of morphemes. For example, in the past tense form of her nonce word tark, she comments, ’you added a t sound (tarkt)’ (p. 42). Children’s creativity with words is further illustrated by looking at their use of compounding, for example, ’rip-boy’ (p. 44) is a term used by a child to describe a person who ’rips things.’ The discussion’is broadened in Unit 8 by the explicit ’factoring in’ of the influence of external linguistic input. Analysis is partly tied into exploration of pronouns (previously introduced in Unit 5) and articles, with relevance again transcending the book’s sphere. However, the apparent interchangeability of ’parent’ for ’mother’ in the discussion of ’child-directed language’ (p. 49) is open to challenge. Although ’maternal speech’ can be exhibited by fathers or, indeed, siblings, it is arguable that material speech has characteristics that can distinguish it from paternal utterances. The final core units in this book cover the subject of phonology. The consideration of child-related phenomena, such as syllable structure processes, is appropriately dealt with. Partly transcribed data and consonant/vowel diagrams are used so as not to bewilder the