<!-- image -->

## A DDRESS PRONOUNS IN A DIASYSTEMATIC PERSPECTIVE

Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh University of Copenhagen kirstenkragh@hum.ku.dk

Erling Strudsholm University of Copenhagen struds@hum.ku.dk

## Abstract

Our paper concerns different strategies of communication with respect to formality and politeness, and how these differences relate to the diasystematic dimensions. Our contrastive approach involves forms of address in French and Italian compared to Danish, German, and English norms and usage. Both Romance and Germanic languages have two systems of address pronouns with different levels of formality. There are, however, significant differences in usages in the respective languages, both  typological  and  interlinguistic.  Different  language  areas  have  different conventions for communication and politeness, and we believe that address forms reflect  such  socio-cultural  differences.  Our  analyses  of  these  differences  are anchored in the diasystematic dimensions as proposed by Eugenio Coseriu, with special focus on the diaphasic variation and its intertwinement with diastratically conditioned factors.

Keywords: Address pronouns, French, Italian, English, German, Danish, diasystematic dimensions, diacultural variation

## 1. Introduction

Our paper concerns different strategies of communication with respect to formality and politeness, and how  these differences relate to the diasystematic  dimensions.  Our  contrastive  approach  involves  forms  of address pronouns in French and Italian compared to Danish, German, and English norms and usage.

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

Both  Romance  and  Germanic  languages 1 have  two  systems  of address pronouns with different levels of formality (Schøsler and Strudsholm 2013). There are, however, significant differences in usage in the  respective  languages,  both  typological  and  interlinguistic.  Different language areas have different conventions for communication and politeness, and we believe that address forms reflect such socio-cultural differences  (Durst-Andersen  2011,  Hofstede  2001,  Kragh  et  al.  2016). There is, nonetheless, a general need for expressing politeness rooted in social  distance,  which  is  often  related  to  power.  This  need  is  indeed reflected in the pronominal systems in certain languages. The languages presented here have certain features in common, but they have, however, developed  in  different  ways.  How  can  that  be?  It  seems  that  linguistic politeness is determined by specific conventions in a given society. Can we set up a cultural barometer?

Our analyses of the differences are anchored in the diasystematic dimensions as proposed by Eugenio Coseriu (Völker 2009), with special focus on the diaphasic variation and its intertwinement with diastratically conditioned  factors,  where  the  power  dimension  plays  a  relevant  role. 2 With respect to these two dimensions, we distinguish between formality as diaphasically  dependent  on  the  situation,  and politeness and power as diastratic issues indicating the distance between speaker and listener. 3 In this study, we aim, however, to go a step further. We propose to test the applicability of the diasystem when working across language borders. We assume that the interlinguistic approach poses new challenges which the diasystem with the above-mentioned parameters does not take into account. We propose to include the Hofstede model, with its cultural dimensions, by referring to Perkins (1992), who analyses the relation between culturalbound and linguistic properties by considering a dialogue, which indeed Interpersonal variation Intrapersonal variation Variationistic dimension Time Location Society, culture Style, level, register Medium Type of variation Language change local, spatial Geographic, regional, Social

1 By Romance languages, we refer exclusively to French and Italian, and we do not take any other Romance languages into consideration. By Germanic languages, we refer exclusively to English, German, and Danish. Of these, only modern German and Danish have two systems. We no longer find the formal variant in modern English.

2 These two dimensions also relate to the diatopic dimension, which concerns the geographic variation.

3 We distinguish between social distance and power as two different parameters. Social distance identifies reciprocal relations (horizontally) and power identifies non-reciprocal relations (vertically).

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

Table 1. Diasustematic narameters of variation interpretation hy Gadet reproduced hy

implies the use of address pronouns, as a culture-bound situation (see also Kragh and Strudsholm 2015).

## 2. Diasystematic frame

With respect to the diasystem and its parameters of variation, we refer to the extended version as presented by Gadet (2007/2003):

Table 1: Diasystematic parameters of variation, interpretation by Gadet, reproduced by Kragh and Lindschouw (2013:8).

As long as we take the intralinguistic approach, language by language, we are able to account for both system and usage. As regards usage, we refer to the diasystem. According to Berruto (1987), each language has its own diasystem and as long as we study one single language, this approach is ideal. However,  when  comparing  usages  across languages, i.e. an interlinguistic approach, new factors arise with the consequence that the diasystematic dimensions do not fulfil the requirements.

## 3. Address forms in the pronominal systems

In  general,  in  a  communication  situation,  there  is  a  speaker  and  an addressee. Typically, the speaker refers to him or herself by first person singular I / ich / jeg / je and io ,  and to the listener by second person singular you / du / du / tu or tu . If the speaker speaks not only for himself but also on behalf of others, he uses first person plural we / wir / vi / nous or noi and if the listener is more than one person, he uses second person plural you / ihr / I / vous or voi .  This  usage  represents  the  grammatical  paradigm illustrated in Table 2 , but varies according to the communication situation.

Diasystematic level

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

Table 2: Overview of personal subject pronouns.

|          |                     | English   | German   | Danish   | French    | Italian   |
|----------|---------------------|-----------|----------|----------|-----------|-----------|
| Singular | First person person | I         | ich      | jeg      | je        | io        |
|          | Second              | you       | du       | du       | tu        | tu        |
|          | Third person        | he/she    | er/sie   | han/hun  | il/elle   | lui/lei   |
| Plural   | First person        | we        | wir      | vi       | nous      | noi       |
|          | Second person       | you       | ihr      | I        | vous      | voi       |
|          | Third person        | they      | sie      | de       | ils/elles | loro      |

Specific  circumstances  can  trigger  alternative  uses  of  the  system;  for instance,  in  formal  situations.  Both  Germanic  and  Romance  languages offer specific forms which may be considered as obligatory in situations with  social  distance  between  the  speaker  and  the  listener  ( courtesy ),  in contrast to informal situations characterized by trust . This kind of variation concerns both the diaphasic, the diastratic, and the diatopic dimensions. Moreover, the inventory of formal pronoun forms varies across languages.

## 3.1. English

Standard modern English has only one set of address pronouns with you in both singular and plural forms of second person, and in both formal and informal contexts:

Table 3: Address pronouns in English.

|          | forms of trust   | forms of courtesy 4    |
|----------|------------------|------------------------|
| singular | you              | you thou (archaic use) |
| plural   | you              | you                    |

Up until  the  eighteenth  century,  the  English  formal  deferential  singular form thou was commonly used. 5 This form is now largely archaic, and in modern English, there is no longer a specific formal form of the address

4 We consider the terms courtesy and politeness as synonyms, but in this study, we use courtesy to describe the linguistic forms, and politeness to describe the sociocultural context.

was informal and

5 In Shakespeare's time thou was used for the singular and you for the plural. Furthermore, you also denoted formality and respect, whereas thou intimate (Cable 2002:111).

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

pronoun; in most contexts you is used, irrespective of the level of formality. However,  the  old  formal  form thou is  still  used  in  various  dialects, primarily  in  Northern  parts  of  England  as  well  as  in  formal  religious contexts (Evans 1969, Head 1978:160):

- (1) You think that's wrong ?
- (2) Did Jesus Christ ever say thou shalt  not  smoke? (Bill  Heine  radio phone, 185-1994, BNC)

## 3.2. German

Modern German has, in contrast to English, a bipartite system of address pronouns:

Table 4: Address pronouns in German.

|          | forms of trust   | forms of courtesy   |
|----------|------------------|---------------------|
| singular | du               | Sie                 |
| plural   | ihr              | Sie                 |

The forms of courtesy are identical to the third person plural form, sie , which  again  is  identical  to  the  third  person  singular  feminine  form. Different  from  the  third  person  usage,  the  address  forms  have  a  capital letter.

In a historical perspective, in the Middle Ages, second plural form Ihr was used as an address pronoun to a person who was higher in rank. In the second half of the sixteenth century, the inventory of the formal address pronouns is extended by the third person singular forms in masculine Er and feminine Sie . The modern use of Sie - used when addressing both male and female persons in both singular and plural - does not appear until the end of the seventeenth century (Besch 2008).

In spite of tendencies in Germany to increased informalization (cf. for example Besch 2008:2599-2600), the distinction between informal and formal addressing is still highly reflected in modern German society, where du is standard only in family-related and other intimate contexts. In most other contexts, Sie is  the  standard form, at least until closer relationship between the speaker and addressee is established (Hickey 2003), illustrated in these two examples:

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

- (3) Sie erhalten mit dieser E-Mail die Daten zu Ihrem Auftrag, den Sie soeben auf unserer Webseite getätigt haben
2. 'With this e-mail you will receive the data for the order you have just placed on our website'.
- (4) Kommst du jetzt, Peter?

'Are you coming, Peter?'

## 3.3 Danish

Like German, Danish has a bipartite system of address pronouns with du and I as forms of trust and third plural De as a form of courtesy, both in singular and in plural.

Table 5: Address pronouns in Danish.

|          | forms of trust   | forms of courtesy   |
|----------|------------------|---------------------|
| singular | du               | De                  |
| plural   | I                | De                  |

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, third plural De displaced third singular han and hun , and second plural I as polite address pronouns, most likely under the influence of the German Sie (Dahlerup 1993/19191956). The use of the second plural pronoun I as a marker of courtesy dates back to the thirteenth century (Lundeby 1995). Around 1970, the informal du almost completely replaced the formal De (Lundeby 1995), especially in oral contexts. In formal written language, the polite forms are still used, just as there are special rules in the Danish parliament and in connection with inquiries to royalties (Trap-Jensen 1995). In modern Danish we notice a  tendency  to  use  second  person  singular du ,  instead  of  second  person plural I , in collective messages and enquiries, in all probability under the influence of English. In a recent study on address forms and politeness, Bjørn Andersen (2015) concludes that especially among younger people, the use of the polite De is on its way back.

- (5) Nu kan du

'Now you

- igen bestille tid til PCR-test can make an appointment for a PCR test again'
- (6) De bedes  venligst bekræfte Deres accept  af  bestemmelserne  i bilaget

' You are kindly asked to confirm your acceptance of the provisions of the annex'

## 3.4. French

French has, parallel to German and Danish, two sets of address pronouns: an informal and a formal set.

The second person singular form tu is used in informal situations when the addressee is a single person. This use corresponds to the second person plural form, vous , which is used in informal contexts when there is more  than  one  addressee.  The  plural  form, vous ,  can,  however,  also designate  one  single  addressee.  In  such  cases,  the  subject  complement (adjectives or participles) relating to the addressee agree with this in gender and number (see also Gaglia 2022:103-104).

- (7) Vous êtes mort ou quoi ? dit une voix à l'extérieur
2. 'Are you dead or what? Says a voice from outside' (Benoziglio, 1980, Frantext)
- (8) Vous êtes rentrée, tout échauffée d'avoir couru, la sueur au front, les boucles défaites et la goutte au nez

'You have returned, totally exhausted from having run, sweat in your front  head,  the  curly  hear  in  a  mess  and  a  drop  from  the  nose' (Chandernagor, 1981, Frantext)

Table 6: Address pronouns in French.

|          | forms of trust   | forms of courtesy   |
|----------|------------------|---------------------|
| singular | tu               | vous                |
| plural   | vous             | vous                |

This use of the second person plural form, instead of the singular form, is called vouvoiement , in contrast to tutoiement , which is the term signalling the  use  of  the  second  person  singular  form.  The  polite  use  of vous ( vouvoiement ) is often referred to as a corollary of the royal plural nous which goes back to the era of the Roman emperors who used NOS when talking  of  themselves  (Molinelli  2018).  However,  the vouvoiement is already used in Latin by Ovide. In Old French, it seems that tu and vous were used arbitrarily without fixed rules. They could even appear in the same text passages alternating with each other. Under the influence of the court, the polite form prevailed in the seventeenth century, and during the

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

Ancien Régime , so-called 'honest people' 6 would not use tu with each other but  only  when  addressing  an  ordinary  person  (Grevisse  and  Goosse 2008:837).

In modern French, the vouvoiement marks a certain distance and is used  in  particular  between  people  who  do  not  know  each  other  or  to  a person to whom the speaker owes respect. In spite of these standard rules, there  is  also  a  certain  amount  of  diatopic,  diastratic,  and  diachronic variation.  In  certain  contexts,  for  instance  in  specific  companies  in  the twentieth century, the tutoiement could be forbidden along with swearing and  quarrelling. Conversely,  some  poets  would,  particularly  in the nineteenth century, address God or a royal by tu . Conventionally, it is the older or most prestigious part who initiates the change from vous to tu . Although there is a tendency, also in France, to be more informal, there is still a rather conservative usage (Armstrong and Pooley 2010). The polite form s'il vous plaît is fixed and used in both formal and informal situations.

## 3.5. Italian

Like German, Danish, and French modern Italian has a bipartite system of address pronouns:

Table 7: Address pronouns in Italian.

|          | forms of trust   | forms of courtesy                    |
|----------|------------------|--------------------------------------|
| singular | tu               | Lei/lei Ella (solemn) voi (regional) |
| plural   | voi              | voi Loro (very formal)               |

Second singular tu is used as a confidential form when addressing people who know each other well:

## (CORIS)

- (9) E adesso sanno che anche tu sei qui 'And now they know that you are here too'

Third singular lei is used as the form of courtesy, when addressing people of respect or with whom you are not particularly familiar:

6 ' Les honnêtes gens ' is considered as the intellectual elite.

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

## (10) Lei è stato molto gentile (CORIS)

'You have been very kind'

There are two other less common forms of address pronouns, voi and Ella . Second plural voi used for referring to a single person was quite common until a few decades ago. The use of voi as a courtesy address pronoun was widespread  until  the  nineteenth  century,  then  faded  and  was  gradually replaced by lei . After a useless attempt to impose it during the fascist era, voi is  today  mainly  used  as  a  regional  variety  in  Southern  Italy  (Bresin 2021:122 ff.), but it is also typical of commercial correspondence and, as an alternative to tu , in advertising, in recipes and the like, and is also found in translations from French ( vous ) or English ( you ).

- (11) Chiunque può sapere che voi siete collegato al sistema (CORIS) 'Anyone can know that you are connected to the system'

Like in French, there is a logical concordance between the referent and the subject  complement,  but  no  grammatical  concordance  (see  also  Gaglia 2022:135).

Third  person  singular  feminine Ella ,  with  reference  to  a  single person, man or woman, is the form of utmost respect, is limited to highly formal or bureaucratic uses, and is usually written with a capital letter:

- (12) Ella è qui, signor Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, presidente della Repubblica per volere divino (CORIS) 'You are here, Mr. Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, president of the Republic

by divine will'

In  plural,  the  common  address  pronoun  is  second  plural voi ,  both  as  a confidential form and as a form of respect:

- (13) Perché voi del caso (CORIS)
2. siete tutti qui e avete l'autorità per prendere le decisioni 'Because you are all here and you have the authority to make the

appropriate decisions'

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

As a more formal variant, loro can be used:

- (14) Nel rinnovare Loro i sensi della mia stima, rimango a disposizione per ogni eventuale chiarimento in merito all'elaborato di cui sopra (CORIS)

'In renewing to you the assurances of my esteem, I remain at your disposal for any possible clarification of the abovementioned work'

- (15) Cerchiamo i cappelli!'. ' Lor signori?', disse. 'Ma sono lì, signori, i cappelli!' (CORIS) ''Let's look for the hats!' 'Gentlemen?', he said. 'But there they

are, gentlemen, the hats!''

The verb must agree with the address pronoun used: second person singular when using the tu , third singular when using lei or Ella , second plural when using voi , and third plural when using Loro .

On the other hand, there is an oscillation as regards the concords of adjectives or participles: in the most formal and refined use they go to the feminine, but commonly the concords are made following the interlocutor's sex.

- (16) Ed Ella è,  signor  professore,  così  saviamente modesto da  non pretendere ch'io la reputi tale (CORIS)

'And you, Mr. Professor, are so wisely modest that you do not expect me to consider you as such'

In formal letters, when you want to express deference, the address pronouns of respect and the other pronouns referring to the interlocutor are written with a capital initial. Already in the third century, Latin VOS was used when addressing  higher-ranking  persons.  This  usage  is,  e.g.,  found  in  the fourteenth century, in Dante, who used voi when addressing persons whom he would show respect. Voi was used by subjects who address their Lords and  among  equals  belonging  to  the  higher  strata.  Formerly  it  was  not unusual to find examples of the wife saying voi to the husband, and until the 1900s, children said voi to  their  parents (Rohlfs 1968:181-183). The use of third singular feminine goes back to the fifteenth century, probably

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

influenced by Spanish, with reference to vostra eccellenza 'your excellency' or vostra signoria 'your lordship'.

- (17) Le restituiamo il manoscritto, ringraziando La comunque della Sua fiducia (CORIS)
2. 'We return the manuscript to you; however, we thank you for your trust'
- (18) La S.V. è invitata al talk show che avrà luogo questa sera alle ore 23.00 presso gli studi di Tele-Arcadia. (CORIS)
4. 'Your Lordship is invited to the talk show that will take place this evening at 11.00 pm at the Tele-Arcadia studios.'

The polite address pronoun Lei is generally used with strangers; likewise, it  is  the  norm  to  use  the  formal  pronouns,  ' dare  del  Lei '  to  persons  in positions of authority (e.g. the student to the teacher) or to persons of a greater age. In Italian, there is a difference in whether you speak or write together.  Persons  who  normally  use  the  informal  pronouns  in  an  oral context will often use the formal set when they write to each other (Bates and Benigni 1975).

## 3.6. Summary in a typological and interlinguistic perspective

Table 8: Address pronouns in Germanic and Romance languages.

|         |                | Singular                                | Plural                           |
|---------|----------------|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| English | trust courtesy | you you                                 | you you                          |
| German  | trust courtesy | du Sie (=third person plural)           | Ihr Sie (third person plural)    |
| Danish  | trust courtesy | du De (third person plural)             | I De (third person plural)       |
| French  | trust courtesy | tu vous (second person plural)          | vous vous (second person plural) |
| Italian | trust courtesy | tu Lei/lei (third person fem. singular) | voi Loro (third person plural)   |

We can conclude that there are interlinguistic differences in the systems, which  are  rooted  in  the  typological  differences  between  Romance  and

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

Germanic languages. As regards the Romance languages, Gaglia (2022:1516) distinguishes between four different types:

- I. Zweigliedriges System mit Numerus-Kontrast
- II. Zweigliedriges System mit Person-Kontrast
- III. Zweigliedriges System mit Person- und Genus-Kontrast
4. IV.
5. Dreigliedriges System mit Numerus- und Person-Kontrast

Modern French, with the tu -vous distinction, belongs to type I, and modern standard  Italian,  with  the tu -lei distinction,  belongs  to  type  III.  As illustrated above, some Southern Italian dialects belong to type I.

As regards the Germanic languages, these do not fit into Gaglia's classification.  As  seen  in  Table 8 ,  German  and  Danish  have  contrasts regarding  both  number  and  person  ( du / du (second  person  singular)  vs. Sie / De (third person plural)). Therefore, German and Danish would require adding a fifth type called Zweigliedriges System mit Numerus- und PersonKontrast . English has no contrast at all. Thus, we find a clear typological difference between Romance and Germanic languages.

From here, we proceed with the intercultural differences.

## 4. Politeness and power - hierarchical structure

The  research  on  politeness  is  extremely  extensive,  and  there  is  no consensus  about  how  to  define  the  phenomenon  of  politeness.  Leech describes  politeness  as  'communicative  altruism'  (2014:7  ff.),  i.e.  a behaviour in which two or more persons in a communicative community exhibit a form of non-wilful generosity towards each other.

Politeness is first and foremost a pragmatic phenomenon. It can be manifested  in  linguistic  behaviour,  in  non-linguistic  behaviour,  or  in  a combination  of  linguistic  and  non-linguistic  behaviour.  An  example  of non-linguistic politeness could be holding the door for someone else; if one simultaneously says please or let me ..., it is a polite act involving both linguistic and non-linguistic behaviour. Empirically, it is open to question whether  politeness  can  be  expressed  solely  by  linguistic  means,  but  an example that comes close could be to say thank you to the person holding the door for one.

According to Leech (2014), we can distinguish between two main approaches  to  politeness.  Firstly,  a  sociopragmatic  approach  with  the sociological aspects of politeness in focus; that is, under which circumstances and according to which cultural conventions the politeness

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

is unfolding. Leech (2014: 5) expresses it in the following way: 'there is often a sense of what is normal, recognized by members of society, as to how polite to be for a particular occasion'. 7 If one hopes to succeed with politeness,  it  is  therefore  important  to  hit  the  most  appropriate  way  of expressing politeness. Secondly, a pragmalinguistic approach focuses on how politeness is linguistically manifested (Leech 2014:ix, 13-18). These two approaches are not always easy to keep apart, and although our main interest is in the latter, both approaches play a role in our study.

One of the most influential theories on polite linguistic behaviour has  been  put  forward  by  Brown  and  Levinson  (1987/1978).  We  are, however,  more  inspired  by  another  line  of  thought  involved  in  various studies on politeness, namely, one presented by Brown and Gilman (1960) 8 about  the  so-called T/V -distinction:  the  choice  between tu and vous in French  and  the  principles  guiding  this  choice.  Following  Brown  and Gilman, this choice was regulated by two relations - power and solidarity -  and  these  two  concepts  each  correspond  to  two  of  the  diasystematic dimensions: the diastratic and the diaphasic dimensions. The speaker will, in each individual situation, estimate the hierarchical relation (power) and how close the relation is (solidarity).

According to Brown and Gilman (1960), an estimation of where the two interlocutors are placed with respect to the dimensions in the figure, in relation to each other in a concrete communication, is always included in the choice between tu or vous .

This  is  closely  related  to  the  fact  that  polite  behaviour  is  not absolute,  but  relative;  polite  behaviour  is  always  culture-bound  and situation-bound. What is considered polite behaviour differs from culture to culture. In certain cultures, lack of eye-contact is considered a lack of respect and therefore impolite. In other cultures, looking people in the eyes when talking to them is, on the contrary, considered disrespectful because it  signals that the person assumes equality, and it is seen as impolite for such a status to be granted in advance.

7 See Oliveira (2006) for a discussion of conventionalised versus negotiated usage.

8 We are aware that the address model of Brown and Gilman (1960) is not of recent date and has been subject to criticism. Especially their exclusively binary approach to address pronouns has been questioned since it does not take into account that several languages have 'more intricate systems of address' (King 2010:232), cf. also Gaglia (2022), who operates with a tripart system of pronouns, as well.

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

Cultural  differences  are  also  linguistically  manifested.  This  is illustrated by Mosegaard Hansen (1998:25), who states that the use of the modal verb kunne in Danish and pouvoir in French cannot be considered equally polite, even if those two words mean almost the same thing. There is a difference with respect to politeness between the Danish kan/kunne du godt skrive det her for mig and the French tu peux/pourrais me taper ce texte? Although  the  words  are  almost  the  same,  the  Danish  version  is, according to Mosegaard Hansen (1998), less polite than the French one.

Thus,  one  cannot  claim  that  one  culture  is  more  polite  than  the other. What is considered polite behaviour varies from culture to culture (e.g., Mosegaard Hansen 1998).

Let us now look at how Hofstede's model can account for this.

## 5. The Hofstede model

In Hofstede's model, countries are classified according to a list of cultural dimensions: power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence, of which power distance is particularly relevant for our study (Hofstede 2011, Kragh and Strudsholm 2018). 9 Power distance concerns the unequal distribution of power  in  a  society  and  the  extent  to  which  the  population  accepts  this hierarchical order.

As  regards  the  five  other  dimensions,  individualism  concerns people's self-image and the degree of interdependence. Countries can be considered more  or less individualist or more  or less collectivist. Masculinity is about competition, achievement, and success. A low score (feminine) indicates that the dominant values in society involve care and quality of life.  Uncertainty avoidance deals with the fact that the future cannot  be  known  and  looks  at  how  different  cultures  deal  with  this uncertainty. A low score indicates that a society accepts lack of knowledge about the future, and a high score means that a society is not comfortable with ambiguous situations. Long-term orientation links a society with its

9 We wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for pointing to the fact that 'Hofstede's model is based on a study conducted in the 1980s with mid-managers at IBM locations around the world. It was designed within the area of business studies rather than cultural studies. Although broadly adopted in business studies, it has also received wide criticism […] by cultural theorists.' Moreover, the model is criticised for its Eurocentric bias.

These limitations are of course taken into account in our testing of the model and will be further discussed in section 6.

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

own  past  and  a  respect  for  tradition.  Countries  that  score  high  on  this dimension take a pragmatic approach and encourage prudence, whereas those with a low score prefer to maintain traditions and norms. Indulgence concerns  the  degree  to  which  people  try  to  control  their  desires  and impulses.  Scoring  high  on  indulgence  indicates  that  the  population  is impulsive,  enjoys  life,  and  encourages  'thrift  and  efforts  in  modern education  as  a  way  to  prepare  for  the  future'  (https://www.hofstedeinsights.com),  in  contrast  to  more  restrained  cultures  which  are  more controlled and morally disciplined.

In  the  following,  we  illustrate  the  differences  between  the  UK, Germany, Denmark, France, and Italy with respect to the six dimensions included in Hofstede's model. 10 All statements about the specific cultures should be taken with caution, as they are based on generalisations and often reflect stereotypes, which is of course a major weakness of the model.

## 5.1. Power distance

Denmark is in the very low end, whereas France with a score of 68 is placed fairly high. Just below France we find Italy with a score of 50 and closest to Denmark are England and Germany, both with 35 on the power distance scale.

In France, children are raised to be emotionally dependent on their parents and, later on, on their teachers and superiors. Power is generally placed in Paris or in other big cities and is centralised in companies and government  where  the  hierarchical  system  has  several  levels.  Powerful people  have  often  attended  'les  grandes  écoles'  -  the  most  prestigious educational institutions in France.

10 All quantitative data reproduced in the tables, as well as the rather generalised statements about the different cultures, are from https://www.hofstede-insights.com, retrieved November 2021. The scores presented in our study all concern countries whose scores are considered valid, cf. ''Only validated scores' gives you the 'official' country scores from studies that we consider valid.' (https://geerthofstede.com/hofstedes-globe/).

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

## Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

Figure 1: Power Distance score according to Hofstede.

<!-- image -->

According to the model, Italy is between France on the one side, and UK and  Germany  on  the  other  side.  On  the  one  hand,  Italy  tends  to  prefer equality and a decentralisation of power and decision-making, based on teamwork and an open management style like the UK and Germany; on the other hand, Italy also resembles France by maintaining, to some extent, the power distance. This intermediate position may reflect regional differences in Italy.

Denmark's  position  at  the  lowest  end  of  the  scale  illustrates  its reputation for having a flat hierarchical structure; power is decentralised; Danes  do  not  lead,  they  coach,  and  employees  have  a  high  degree  of autonomy. In contrast to the French people, Danes believe in independence and equal rights and prefer, in general, an informal atmosphere based on direct  and  inclusive  communication.  Germans,  as  well,  have  a  strong tradition of a direct and participatory communication and meeting style and of respecting co-determination rights. Germany is supported by a strong middle class and Germans expect expertise from their leader(s).

## 5.2. Individualism

On the individualism scale, all the studied countries are placed rather high. The UK has the highest score (89), closely followed by Germany with 76, Denmark, with a score of 74, France with 71, and Italy with 67.

Being an individualist society means that there is a preference for loosely-knit social frameworks.

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

## Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

In the UK, the route to happiness is through personal fulfilment, and children are taught from an early age to find their own unique purpose in life. People take care of themselves and their immediate family.

Germans also tend to focus on a strong family life limited to the closest  family  members.  They  prefer  direct  and  honest  communication, also when it hurts, and in German society, loyalty comes with duty and responsibility,  which  goes  hand-in-hand  with  a  strong  belief  in  selfactualisation.

In Denmark as well, people are expected to take care of themselves and their immediate families only.

In France, people are supposed to take care of themselves and their nearest  family.  The  complexity  of  having  this  individualist  culture, together  with  the  high  score  on  power  distance,  is  manifested  in,  for instance, the emotionally strong family ties which also imply a stronger respect for the elderly. In addition, the French people normally pay formal respect to their boss, due to the high degree of power distance, but may at the same time do the opposite behind his or her back. In France, there is a rather clear distinction between family life and work life, and the French people respect, in general, the central government as an impersonal power centre which cannot so easily invade their private lives.

Figure 2: Individualism score according to Hofstede.

<!-- image -->

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

## Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

With the highest score, Italy is a real individualist culture - in particular in Northern Italy, less-so in the South. Italians are motivated by their own personal objectives in life. Family and friends are important for their social life, yet, they are good at using their professional friends for introducing them to important and powerful people who are good to know. This seems, however, also to be more widespread in the North than in the South.

## 5.3. Masculinity

With scores of 70 and 66, respectively, Italy, the UK, and Germany are true masculine  societies,  highly  success-oriented.  In  contrast,  particularly Denmark, with a score of 16 - but also, to a certain extent, France, with 43 points on the masculinity scale - are considered feminine societies.

In  France,  this  is  manifested  by  an  extensive  welfare  system (sécurité sociale) with benefits including a 35-hour work week and a strong focus on the quality of life. Whereas these benefits make a feminine culture in the upper class, the working class in France is more masculine. Italy, on the  other  hand,  is  an  entirely  masculine  society.  The  culture  is  very competitive and status symbols are important for signalling success.

Figure 3: Masculinity score according to Hofstede.

<!-- image -->

Denmark  is  diametrically  opposed  to  Italy  with  its  strong  focus  on inclusion,  consensus,  and  solidarity,  which  are  all  considered  feminine features. Work-life balance is important and free time is often prioritised over high salaries.

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

In spite of their close geographical relation, Germany is far from Denmark. Germany  is strongly masculine with a clear focus on performance and status.

## 5.4. Uncertainty avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance is low in Denmark (23) and Britain (35), rather high in Germany (65), and high in Italy (75) and France (86).

Denmark's and the UK's low score in this area means that Brits and Danes do not need a lot of structure and predictability in their work life. Plans can change overnight; new things pop up and the Brits and Danes are generally fine with it. Curiosity is natural and is encouraged from a very young age. This combination of a highly individualist and curious nation is also  the  driving  force  for  Denmark's  reputation  within  innovation  and design. This also emerges throughout the society in both its humour, heavy consumerism  for  new  and  innovative  products,  and  the  highly  creative industries it thrives in - advertising, marketing, financial engineering. At the workplace, the low score on uncertainty avoidance is also reflected in the  fact  that  the  Danes  tell  you  if  they  are  in  doubt  or  do  not  know something. Danes are comfortable in ambiguous situations in the workplace.

Figure 4: Uncertainty Avoidance score according to Hofstede.

<!-- image -->

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

## Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

With  its  score  in  the  high  end,  Germany  has  a  slight  preference  for uncertainty  avoidance.  In  line  with  the  philosophical  heritage  of  Kant, Hegel, and Fichte, there is a strong preference for deductive rather than inductive  approaches,  be  it  in  thinking,  presenting,  or  planning:  the systematic overview has to be given in order to proceed. In combination with their low power distance, where the certainty for making one's own decisions is not covered by the larger responsibility of the boss, Germans prefer to compensate for their higher uncertainty by strongly relying on expertise.

Italy's high score on uncertainty avoidance means that, as a nation, Italians are not comfortable in ambiguous situations. Formality in Italian society is important, and the Italian penal and civil code are complicated, rife with clauses, codicils, etc. What is surprising for the foreigner is the apparent contradiction between all the existing norms and procedures and the fact that Italians do not always comply with them. But in a bureaucratic country, one learns very soon who is important, and who is not, in order to more effectively navigate through the bureaucracy. In work terms, high uncertainty avoidance results in large amounts of detailed planning. The low uncertainty avoidance approach (where the planning process can be flexible within a changing environment) can be very stressful for Italians. The  combination  of  high  masculinity  and  high  uncertainty  avoidance makes life very difficult and stressful. To release some of the tension that is built up during the day, Italians need to have relaxing moments in their everyday life, enjoying a long meal or frequent coffee breaks.

French culture's high score in uncertainty avoidance is evident in the following: the French don't like surprises. Structure and planning are required.  Before  meetings  and  negotiations,  they  like  to  receive  all necessary information. Consequently, the French are good at developing complex technologies and systems in a stable environment, such as in the case of nuclear power plants, rapid trains, and the aviation industry. There is also a need for emotional safety valves, as a high score on uncertainty avoidance and the combination of high power distance and high individualism strengthen each other, so to speak. There is a strong need for laws, rules, and regulations to structure life. This, however, does not mean that most Frenchmen will try to follow all these rules, as is also the case in other Latin countries. Given the high score on power distance, which means that power-holders have privileges, power-holders do not necessarily feel

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

## Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

obliged to follow all those rules that are meant to control the people in the street. At the same time, commoners try to relate to power-holders so that they can also claim the exception to the rule.

## 5.5. Long-term orientation

Long-term orientation is low in Denmark (35), medium in the UK (51), medium-high in Italy (61) and France (63), and high in Germany (83).

Figure 5: Long-Term Orientation score according to Hofstede.

<!-- image -->

A low score of 35 indicates that Danish culture - and, to a certain degree, British - is normative. People in such societies have a strong concern with establishing the absolute truth; they are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results. High scores in this area show that French and Italian cultures are pragmatic; Germany's high score indicates that it is a pragmatic country as well. In societies with a pragmatic orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on the situation, context, and time. They show an ability to adapt their traditions easily to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results.

## 5.6. Indulgence

Indulgence is high in Denmark (70) and the UK (69), in contrast to France (48), Germany (40), and Italy (30), of which Italy is the lowest.

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

## Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

Figure 6: Indulgence score according to Hofstede.

<!-- image -->

Denmark's and the UK's high score in this area means that these two are indulgent  countries.  People  in  societies  classified  by  a  high  score  in indulgence  generally  exhibit  a  willingness  to  realise  their  impulses  and desires with regard to enjoying life and having fun. They possess a positive attitude and tend to be optimistic. In addition, they consider leisure-time important, act as they please, and spend money as they wish. France scores somewhat in the middle, as regards indulgence versus restraint. This, in combination with a high score on uncertainty avoidance, implies that the French people are less relaxed and enjoy life less often than is commonly assumed. The low scores in this area indicate that the German and Italian cultures  are  restrained  in  nature.  Societies  with  a  low  score  in  this dimension have a tendency to cynicism and pessimism. Also, in contrast to indulgent  societies,  restrained  societies  do  not  put  much  emphasis  on leisure-time and control the gratification of their desires. People with this orientation have the perception that their actions are restrained by social norms and feel that indulging themselves is somewhat wrong.

## 5.7. Summary in an intercultural perspective

The overall impression is that Denmark in all dimensions stands out from the four other countries, with individualism as the only exception.

We have raised the question if cultural dimensions are relevant for explaining  cross-national  differences  in  the  use  of  address  pronouns  in European cultures. Taking our point of departure in Hofstede's model of

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

cultural dimensions, we assume that the culture-specific way people deal with authority is an important factor in explaining cross-national differences  in  the  use  of  address  pronouns.  Among  Hofstede's  cultural dimensions, power distance concerning the acceptance of unequal distribution  of  power  is  particularly  relevant  for  our  analysis.  Power distance concerns the unequal distribution of power in a society and the extent  to  which  the  population  accepts  this  hierarchical  order.  In  high power-distance countries, professors, for instance, are highly respected by the  students,  while  in  low  power-distance  countries,  professors  and students are almost hierarchically equal. In the interpretation of Hofstede's model, suggested by Verma et al. (2016), the Nordic countries belong to the low power-distance societies, while Latin countries (France and Italy) are generally high power-distance communities.

We have studied the norms for the use of address pronouns in five countries with different languages  and  different  cultures.  However, Hofstede's model is intended to define cultural differences illustrated by behavioural characteristics but does not specifically include languages and different linguistic behaviour. We wish to emphasise that we have not taken into account the fact that one language cannot always be identified with one nation, and thus, differences in language use in different nations, e.g., English  spoken  in  the  UK  as  opposed  to  American  English,  or  French spoken  in  France  as  opposed  to  French  in  other  countries  (Belgium, Canada,  etc.). In addition, there have  been  legitimate  critics (e.g., McSweeney 2002, 2009) that the intranational variation is greater than that between nations. We are aware of these limitations, which to some extent weakens the use of Hofstede in our analyses.

However,  these  reservations  do  not  compromise  our  hypothesis, according to which differences in the linguistic codes reflect culture-bound differences. In addition to the obvious  typological similarities  and differences (French and Italian versus English, German, and Danish, cf. section  0),  we  have  found  language-specific  differences  in  the  use  of address  pronouns  which  seem  to  cross  the  typological  borders.  These distinctions  reflect  some  of  the  culture-bound  dimensions  presented  by Hofstede and support the hypothesis on a correlation between linguistic and culture-bound  variation.  Differences  in  power  distance  and  uncertainty avoidance  may  contribute  to  explain  the  differences  among  the  five countries.

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

## 6. Discussion

We  have  now  studied  address  pronouns  in  five  different  languages. Together with English and German, Danish is a Germanic language, while French and Italian are Romance languages with common roots in Latin. This  division  of  language  typology  is  the  starting  point  for  much comparative language research, but our results suggest that it cannot stand alone. The analyses have shown that there is a great deal of correlation between language type and the system of address pronouns (cf. section 0), yet  there  are  some  striking  differences  in  its  use,  both  within  the  three Germanic  and  the  two  Romance  languages.  Not  surprisingly,  we  have found similarities between Danish and English, but also between German and the two Romance languages: French and Italian.

In  all  the  studied  languages,  we  can  talk  about  a  diaphasic continuum that goes from the formal, over the neutral, to the informal level and  a  development  towards  informalisation.  In  a  comparison  of  the languages, one cannot just translate from column to column, e.g., there is no absolute agreement between the Danish du , which can be used in both neutral and informal contexts, and the German, French, and Italian du / tu / tu , which are usually only used in informal contexts. Just as in modern Danish, there is nothing rude about using du among adults who do not know each other;  in  German,  there  is  nothing  especially  polite  about Sie ,  which  is simply  the  starting  point  for  public  communication  among  adults  (Farø 2015:115). While du is considered the unmarked form in modern Danish, the polite pronouns are the unmarked forms in German, French, and Italian.

Thus, in terms of degree of formality, there is not always harmony between culture and language. The level of formality is a relative quantity that varies from culture to culture. Despite linguistic kinship, there may be differences  which  must  rather  be  attributed  to  cultural  factors.  These differences pertain to both intralinguistic variation and comparisons across languages.

In  the  use  of  address  pronouns,  we  can  see  both  universal  and language-  and  culture-specific  trends.  A  clear  universal  tendency  is especially linked to the diaphasic dimension, namely the softening of the formal level and who can take the initiative to soften up. The soaking takes place during communication. It is usually the top position in the hierarchy who can take the initiative to soften the formal tone, e.g., to suggest that

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

one should use the informal set of pronouns, duzen , være dus , tutoyer , dare del tu ;  if  the  other  person  takes  the  initiative,  it  can  have  inappropriate effects. The one at the top of the hierarchy may feel his position challenged, and this may result in the query being ignored. At the same time as the actual  role  distribution,  e.g.,  the  hierarchical  role  distribution  between teacher  and  student  is  (in  principle)  universal,  there  is,  however,  a difference in the perception of the distance between high and low in the UK, Germany, Denmark, France, and Italy. As for the diaphasic, it is also universal in that people who know each other well are more cordial and intimate with each other than people who do not know each other. On the other hand, the implementation of what is considered polite and formal is clearly language specific. In any communication situation, it is important to hit what is appropriate in the situation, taking into account the diastratic and the diaphasic dimensions.

The  diasystem  is  suitable  for  describing  variation  within  the individual language (every language has its own diasystem, according to Berruto  (1987)),  and  we  have  previously  mentioned  the  diasystematic dimensions which play a significant role in language variation. There is a clear  interrelationship  between  the  dimensions  of  the  diasystem,  in  the sense that written language, formal language, and high style form a kind of counter-pole to spoken language, informal language, and low style. There is  thus  a  connection  between  the  use  of  language  and  a  number  of extralinguistic factors. New forms of communication, not least the modern electronic means of communication, have an impact on language use and, consequently,  in  the  longer  term  also  on  norms  and  conventions.  Such influences are not only internal to language but also occur across languages and  cultures  and  are  thus  important  in  intercultural  communication.  In particular, the inclusion of the extralinguistic aspect explains the need to include dimensions other than those that only have to do with language kinship.  When  we  compare  across  languages,  there  is  a  need  for  a supplement to traditional diasystematic dimensions with parameters that take into account culturally bound differences. In this connection, we have found  it  relevant  to  test  whether  Hofstede's  cultural  dimensions  could contribute to fulfilling this gap. His theory is based on criteria other than the  purely  linguistic  ones,  but  since  it  was  designed  specifically  for business studies and not for general cultural studies, it is evident that it has its limitations.

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

Even though these are the same communication situations, they still manifest  themselves  differently  in  languages  that  represent  different cultures.  This  is  supported  by  the  observation  that  Italian  students  have difficulty  adapting  to  Danish  norms  for  contacting  their  teacher;  they categorically chose the formal pronouns and the use of titles, despite calls to soften the formality. They know their role as students and would find themselves in conflict between culture and language if they were to change their self-perception in relation to the recipient. Similarly, a Danish student may  have  difficulty  using  titles  and  polite  address  pronouns  without  it seeming jarring and in conflict with the cultural codes, because it signals a humility  towards  the  recipient  that  does  not  fall  on  the  Danish  student naturally.  In  all  languages,  there  is  a  greater  tendency  for  the  two communication  parties  to  adapt  to  each  other's  language  use.  In  a communication situation where the speaker and the listener are diastratically equal, there are usually no linguistic differences; while, on the other hand, linguistic differences can emerge when there are diastratic differences  between  speaker  and  listener  in  a  communication  situation. These differences vary greatly from culture to culture. In German, French, and Italian, the diastratic difference between teacher and student entails a higher degree of politeness than is the case in Danish and English. This difference is highly culturally bound and cannot be explained by traditional language  typological  parameters.  Linguistically,  there  is  thus  a  greater connection between the diastratic and the diaphasic in Germany, France, and Italy, as German, French, and Italian students are much more aware of the diastratic difference that lies in the hierarchical relationship between teacher and students and related linguistic differences. German, 11 French, and  Italian  students  thus  largely  adapt  their  language  to  this  situational relationship;  for  example,  in  the  use  of  titles  and  forms  of  inquiry.  In contrast, the relationship between students and teachers in Denmark is less hierarchical and thus much less formal, which is reflected linguistically in informal forms of inquiry: first name and no title (see also Kragh et al. 2016). In our paper, we have shown the differences, and in a comparative perspective it can be difficult to choose the right forms if you do not know exactly what you must choose from and what they each signify.

11 This seems striking, considering that Germany, compared to France and Italy, scores relatively low on the power distance dimension.

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

In-depth  knowledge  of  these  norms  is  very  central  in  intercultural communication, and there are numerous examples of failed communication that can be explained by a lack of this knowledge.

## 7. Conclusion

We have shown in our analyses that the diasystematic distinctions and their parameters are not sufficient to explain the differences across languages and cultures, and that we, in this context, need an additional dimension. Furthermore,  we  have  discussed  possible  relations  between  linguistic differences  and  culture-bound  factors,  and  we  have,  in  relation  to  this, found it useful to include a distinction which is not exclusively rooted in linguistic factors but also includes cultural observations. We have tested Hofstede's  cultural  model  and  found  that  -  in  spite  of  the  reservations mentioned above - it could contribute to establishing a useful platform for including cultural parameters  in a variationist  approach.  We  have, moreover, suggested some languageand culture-specific possible parameters, but we are aware that factors related to each individual person also play a role. What can be considered specific at the individual level, in relation  to  language  and  culture-specific  factors,  still  remains  to  be explored. It is, however, clear that the cultural mental universe does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with the typological distinctions. We therefore propose to add a diacultural dimension to the diasystem. Such a dimension could contribute to capture some of the similarities and differences we have presented in this article.

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

## References

- Andersen, Bjørn. 2015. Du og De. En undersøgelse af en af danmarkshistoriens største sprogkampe og nogle bemærkninger hertil. Michael Blædel (ed.) Hilseformer & høflighed . København: Modersmål-Selskabet, 93-111.
- Armstrong, Nigel and Tim Pooley. 2010. Social and linguistic change in European French . London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Bates, Elizabeth and Laura Benigni. 1975. Rules of address in Italy: A sociolinguistic survey. Language and Society 4 (3): 271288.
- Berruto, Gaetano. 1987. Sociolinguistica dell'italiano contemporaneo . Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica.
- Besch, Werner. 2008. Anredeformen des Deutschen im geschichtlichen Wandel. Werner Besch, Anne Betten, Oskar Reichmann and Stefan Sonderegger (eds.) Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung , vol. 3. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 2599-2628.
- Bresin, Agnese. 2021. Address variation in sociocultural context: Region, power and distance in Italian service encounters . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Brown, Penelope and Stephen C.  Levinson. 1987/1978. Politeness. Some universals in language usage . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Brown, Roger William and Albert Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.) Style in language . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 253-276.
- Cable, Thomas. 2002. A Companion to Baugh and Cable's a History of the English language . London: Taylor & Francis Group.
- Dahlerup, Verner. 1993/1919-1956. Ordbog over det danske Sprog . Vol. 3. København: Gyldendal.
- Durst-Andersen, Per. 2011. Bag om sproget. Det kulturmentale univers i sprog og kommunikation . København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
- Evans, William. 1969. "You" and "Thou" in Northern England. South Atlantic Bulletin 34 (4): 17-21.

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh

## Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

- Farø, Ken. 2015. Gak til korpora og bliv viis. Dorthe Duncker, Eva Skafte Jensen and Ole Ravnholt (eds.) Rette ord. Festskrift til Sabine Kirchmeier-Andersen i anledning af 60-årsdagen . København: Dansk Sprognævn, 109-123.
- Gadet, Françoise. 2007/2003. La variation sociale en français . Paris: Ophrys.
- Gaglia, Sascha. 2022. Die Grammatik der Höflichkeitsanrede des Französischen, Italienischen und Spanischen . Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
- Grevisse, Maurice and André Goosse. 2008. Le bon usage . 14 ed. Bruxelles: De Boeck - Duculot.
- Head, Brian F. 1978. Respect degrees in pronominal reference. Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of human language , vol. 3. Standford, California: Standford University Press, 151211.
- Hickey, Raymond. 2003. The German address system. Binary and scala at once. Irma Taavitsainen and Andreas H. Jucker (eds.) Diachronic perspectives on address term systems . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 401-425.
- Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations . Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
- Hofstede, Geert. 2011. Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings in phychology and culture 2 (1).
- King, Jeremy. 2010. The role of power and solidarity in politeness theory: The case of Golden age Spanish. Jonathan Culpeper and Daniel Kádár (eds.) Historical (im)politeness . Bern: Peter Lang, 231-263.
- Kragh, Kirsten Jeppesen and Jan Lindschouw. 2013. Introduction. Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh and Jan Lindschouw (eds.) Deixis and pronouns in Romance languages . Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1-15.
- Kragh, Kirsten Jeppesen, Eva Skafte Jensen and Erling Strudsholm. 2016. Åbninger og lukninger i e-mailkorrespondance på fire sprog. Globe: A journal of language, culture and

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

- communication (Special issue 1: Festschrift for Per DurstAndersen): 119-139.
- Kragh, Kirsten Jeppesen and Erling Strudsholm. 2015. Deiksis i sprog og kontekst. Deiktiske relativsætninger i et komparativt, kognitivt perspektiv. Skandinaviske sprogstudier 6 (3): 134-157.
- Kragh, Kirsten Jeppesen and Erling Strudsholm. 2018. Antibiotics in France and Italy: A linguistic analysis of policies and practices compared to Danish standards. Carsten Strøby Jensen, Søren Beck Nielsen and Lars Fynbo (eds.) Risking antimicrobial resistance: A collection of one-health studies of antibiotics and its social and health consequences . London: Palgrave Macmillan, 41-60.
- Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The pragmatics of politeness . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Lundeby, Einar. 1995. Intimisering og brutalisering. Noen nye trekk ved norsk språkbruk de siste halvhundre år. Mål og Mæle 18 (4): 10-17.
- McSweeney, B. 2002. Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith - a failure of analysis. Human Relations 55.
- Mcsweeney, Brendan. 2009. Dynamic Diversity: Variety and Variation Within Countries. Organization Studies 30: 933957.
- Molinelli, Piera. 2018. Sociocultural and linguistic constraints in address choice from Latin to Italian. Kate Beeching, Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli (eds.) Positioning the self and others: Linguistic perspectives . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 51-79.
- Mosegaard Hansen, Maj-Britt 1998. Sproglig høflighed. RIDS 143.
- Oliveira, Sandi Michele de. 2006. A strategic model of address. Irma Taavitsainen, Juhani Härmä and Jarmo Korhonen (eds.) Dialogic language use . Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 147-158.
- Perkins, Revere D. 1992. Deixis, grammar, and culture . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

## Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh Erling Strudsholm

Scandinavian Studies in Language, 14(2), 2023 (117-147)

- Rohlfs, Gerhard. 1968. Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti. Morfologia . Torino: Einaudi.
- Schøsler, Lene and Erling Strudsholm. 2013. Preservation, modification, and innovation. Paradigmatic reorganisation of the system of personal pronouns - from Latin into Modern Italian. Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh and Jan Lindschouw (eds.) Deixis and pronouns in Romance languages . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 49-68.
- Verma, Anju, Ann Griffin, Jane Dacre and Andrew Elder. 2016. Exploring cultural and linguistic influences on clinical communication skills: a qualitative study of international medical graduates. BMC medical education 16 (162).
- Völker, Harald. 2009. La linguistique variationnelle et la perspective intralinguistique. Revue de linguistique romane 73: 27-76.