2+3 clusivity wrote:Question, how do you determine which is marked or unmarked? Is the unmarked one simply the one most often used? Also how do you deal with a system with more than two layers?
Well, if you can ask native speakers then they'll probably tell you that there's a particular pronoun choice which they'd expect given a particular speaker-addressee context - and they'll probably be able to tell you that a particular pronoun choice would be rude/patronising/whatever in particular circumstances. That would give you your unmarked and marked options for those circumstances. In corpus linguistics, it's harder... In my case I've been looking at frequency of usage indexed against various social properties of speaker and addressee which might conceivably be relevant and then looking at every single case of
v usage and looking for discourse factors which might be relevant (in this case, every single one occurs in a context where face-threatening acts are occurring).
I imagine--but have no expertise in this area--that in systems with more than two pronouns all the same sorts of generalisations apply..
chris_notts wrote:You might want to look at the Basque hi vs zu distinction. Because the distinction is lost in the urban dialects I don't know that much about it, but I did read a paper once that had interesting claims like the following:
Thanks! Basque sounds like a very interesting system. I'll look into it more...
zompist wrote:That paper is very interesting... I like the idea of a pronoun marking solidarity.
As to the original question-- I'd ask, what happens if you don't make the assumption that one pronoun is unmarked? I'm not sure I buy this description
given a particular speaker and addressee, there will be an unmarked choice: t or v. The unmarked choice may be determined by social properties of individuals (rank, age, gender, caste, etc.) or properties of relationships (familial relationships, friendships, etc.). Speakers then have the option to use the marked form to achieve particular discourse effects: marked politeness or formality; marked intimacy or friendliness; rudeness or offhandness; etc
as applying to the Romance languages I know. My impression is that the vast majority of the time, there's a very clear right answer about which pronoun to use; the area of optionality is small.
Well, if there's a very clear right answer about which pronoun to use, then that's the unmarked one in that situation. It might be that the marked one is
very marked (meaning that it's very rude/patronising/overly friendly/formal to use it) - but if there are any situations in which you can imagine the marked one being used with the intention of having such an effect, then that kind of does fit the model. If not, then that's also a known type of system, though not the one I thought applied to Romance languages generally...
clawgrip wrote:In Japanese, a lack of any pronoun is the default, and is thus the unmarked form. Avoidance of pronouns of any kind is preferable, and a lacking of pronouns is suitable for any social relationship. This means that any use of a pronoun/name/title is marked, because your choice will always be based on your social relationship with that person. I'm not sure if this fits what you want since the unmarked pronoun is actually no pronoun, but there you have it.
Interesting, thanks - I'll look into the Japanese system, as it does sound potentially relevant.