Current studies point out that vocative phrases encode the social relation between speaker and addressee by the interaction of various means, i.e., prosody, lexical options, morpho-syntactic operations. As a contribution to this body of research, this paper focuses on reversed vocatives, and develops two main arguments: (i) vocative phrases provide the default domain for the morpho-syntactic encoding of speaker’s social superiority; and (ii) reversed vocatives are a case in order, where the syntactization of the kinship rank ensures the speaker’s upper-hand in the social relation. Formally, the mapping of the kinship feature entails syntactic head splitting, so the analysis confirms that the derivations concerning the conversational field conform to the general split-and-remerge options available to functional heads (on a par with D, C, T fields).
The morpho-syntactic processing of the addressee received increased attention in recent studies that focus on allocutive or on honorific elements merged in the clause. In this respect, dedicated particles or verb endings mark not only the biological traits of the addressee (i.e., gender or age with allocutives; see
While the encoding of social relations through allocutive agreement in the clausal domain attracted the attention of a number of scholars working on a variety of languages (see the contents of this volume), less attention has been paid to the encoding of similar information within the nominal domain, particularly in the forms of direct addresses that qualify as Vocative Phrases (VocP), in which the speaker overtly identifies the addressee and their social relation (
Following this line of research, this paper focuses on two questions: (i) What is the mechanism that encodes disapprobation in VocPs, and (ii) how does that extend to the complex VocP structures known as
Most data come from standard modern Romanian, where VocP displays morphological complexity on an apparently optional basis: the vocative noun may or may not display vocative case inflection (
(1)
a.
Dan/
Dan
Dane,
Dan.
ce
what
mai
more
faci?
do.2
‘Dan, how are you?’
b.
Radu/
Radu/
Radule,
Radu.the.
ce
what
mai
more
faci?
do.2
‘Radu, how are you?’
c.
(Măi)
Dan/
Dan
Dane,
Dan.
Radu/
Radu/
Radule,
Radu.the.
ce
what
mai
more
faci?
do.2
‘Dan/Radu, how are you?’
d.
(Măi)
ce
what
mai
more
faci?
do.2
‘How are you?’
In addition, the kinship rank of the speaker may also be lexicalized through
(2)
Dane
Dan.
mamă,
mother
ce
what
mai
more
faci,
do.2
puiule?
baby.chicken.the.
Romanian
‘Dan, how are you, my baby?’
In (2),
The working hypothesis is that VocP contains a formal inter-personal [i-p] feature whose checking and valuation varies at intra- and cross-linguistic levels, as shown in Hill (
Building on this proposal, this paper argues that reversed vocatives as in (2) arise from an instance where the [i-p] value is fixed for the identification of the kin status. Unlike the allocutive markers that merge in the clausal domain, which generally signal biological gender and/or honorificity and deference, reversed vocatives serve to systematically assert the speaker’s kinship rank superiority over the addressee. Honorific particles such as seen in the clausal domain in Japanese (
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 summarizes the formalisation of vocatives as structures that map the addressee. Section 3 summarizes the formalisation of the information on the social status and presents the basic structure of VocP in (14), such as proposed in Hill (
This section summarizes the formal analyses of vocative phrases such as available in current literature. Briefly, building on the observations in Moro (
Fink (
(3)
a.
Guysi, can youi/*k believe themk/*i?
English
Voc
b.
The guysi, can you*i/k believe themi/*k?
English
Top
c.
Fetelori,
girls.the.
le*i/k
them.
puteţii/*k
can.2
crede?
believe
Romanian
Voc
‘Girls, can you believe them?’
d.
Fetelei,
girls.the
lei/*k
them.
puteţik/*i
can.2
crede?
believe
Romanian
Top
‘The girls, can you believe them?’
Hill (
Another peculiarity of vocative phrases to be accounted for was that many languages display dedicated vocative particles that have an intrinsic 2nd person reading, and which may either alternate or cooccur with a vocative N/NP, as shown in (1c) and further in (4) (a cross-linguistic list of such particles is available in
(4)
a.
(Bre)
mamaie,
grandma.
te
you
rog
beseech.1
eu
I
să
mergi la doctor.
go.2
Romanian
‘Grandma, I implore you to see a doctor.’
b.
(Vre)
jaja,
grandma.
ti
what
kanis
do.2
eki?
there?
Greek
‘Grandma, what are you doing there?’
These particles are obligatory for a noun to be interpreted as a vocative in some languages (i.e., Bantu affixes;
In (4a), VocP verifiably involves N-to-Voc triggered by the uninterpretable [2p] feature of Voc, since the noun displays the vocative case ending. The morpheme
There are tests that confirm the morpho-syntactic status of the vocative particle, as opposed to considering it a post-syntactic phenomenon (
The placement tests indicate that there is a formal feature within VocP that triggers the merging of vocative particles concurrently with N-to-Voc. This feature is identified as [i-p], and it belongs to the feature bundle associated with Voc (i.e., [2p],[i-p]).
Vocative particles cannot be separated from the vocative noun by intervening interjections or constituents, as shown in (5), whereas speech act particles shown to merge on the clausal spine (
(5)
a.
(Mda)
bre
(*mda)
tataie,
grandpa.
un’
where
te
duci?
go.2
Romanian
‘Hm, grandpa, where are you going?’
b.
*Bre
un’
where
te
duci
go.2
tataie?
grandpa.
Intended: ‘Where are you going, grandpa?’
(6)
a.
Hai
(mda)
bre
(*mda)
mamaie,
grandma.
e
is
bine.
good
‘Ok, hm, grandma, everything is fine.’
b.
Hai,
e
is
bine,
good
bre
mamaie.
grandma.
‘Ok, everything is fine, grandma.’
c.
*Hai
bre,
e
is
bine,
good
mamaie.
grandma.
Intended: ‘Ok, everything is fine, grandma.’
Related to the obligatory adjacency shown in (5) is the property of the vocative particle to select the nominal phrase. This concerns not only the matching of semantic properties (e.g.,
(7)
a.
pedja,
kids
ti
what
ine
are
afta?
these
VS
*Pedja
kids
Greek
‘Hey kids, what is this?’
b.
mamaie, ….
grandma.
VS
*Mamaie
grandma.
Romanian
(8)
a.
Stefane
Stefan.
VS
*
Bulgarian
b.
mogatsak
my.husband.
VS
*
mogatsake,…
my.husband
Setwana
Further evidence for the c-command position of the vocative particle within VocP comes from coordination, as in (9): the particle selects the Coordination Phrase containing the two noun phrases, since it cannot be repeated on the second constituent while maintaining the prosodic unit (i.e., only one high pitch). Reversing the order of constituents yields ungrammaticality, as in (9d), indicating that the particle is necessarily higher and c-commanding or else it cannot be co-referent with the vocative nouns.
(9)
a.
Vre
Maria
Maria
ke
and
(*vre)
Kosta,…
Kosta
Greek
‘Maria and Kosta,…’
b.
Bre
tată
father
şi
and
(*bre)
unchişorule,….
uncle.the.
Romanian
‘Father and uncle,….’
c.
Bre
majko
mother.
i
and
(*bre)
leljo,…
aunty.
Bulgarian
‘Mother and aunty,…’
d.
[Tată
father
şi unchişorule]i,
and uncle.the.
nu
not
plecaţi,
leave.
(*brei).
Romanian
‘Father and uncle, don’t leave.’
By contrast, speech act particles merged on the clausal spine occur lower than a coordinated vocative, as
(10)
(Măi)
fraţilor
brothers.the.
şi
and
cumnaţilor,
brothers.in.law.the.
să
ne
înţelegem.
agree.1
Romanian
‘Brothers and brothers-in-law, let’s find an agreement.’
The choice of a vocative particle is not free, as it has to be appropriate for the type of personal relation while also displaying the morphological form that agrees with the gender of the addressee. In Romanian, for example,
In sum, the data indicate that the vocative particle is syntactically computed in the derivation of VocP: it displays agreement with the relevant nominal phrase and remains adjacent to it. Its optionality indicates that it is not required for the checking of [2p] but for the checking and valuation of a concurrent formal feature (labelled as [i-p]) that classifies a social relation. That is, when the particle is absent, N-to-Voc checks both [2p] and [i-p], but the latter remains unvalued, and the nature of the personal relation is inferred from other linguistic or extra-linguistic information. When the particle is merged, [i-p] is not only checked but also valued by it, for an unambiguous reading concerning the speaker’s relation with the addressee. This approach provides a uniform account on the internal structure of VocP cross-linguistically: while all languages generate VocP based on the same feature bundle (i.e., [2p],[i-p]), the checking and valuation of these features leaves room for a wide range of variations.
This section further clarifies the ways in which vocative nouns and vocative particles are used in conjunction or separately to check and value [2p] and [i-p]. The gist is that either the noun or the particle is sufficient to allow the derivation to converge, but they may also share the checking and the valuation tasks. In particular, the interpretation is slightly different with each derivational option, which supports the idea of having [i-p] in addition to [2p].
Cross-linguistically, languages in which the vocative particles are free morpheme use these items either on obligatory or on optional basis, and allow them to occur in conjunction with vocative nouns, as shown in the examples so far, or independently, as in (11).
(11)
a.
Bre,
te
you
rog
beseech.1
eu
I
să
mergi la doctor.
go.2
Romanian
‘Grandma, I implore you to see a doctor.’
b.
Vre,
ti
what
kanis
do.2
eki?
there?
Greek
‘Grandma, what are you doing there?’
c.
Yaa
(Layla),
Layla
dade
mother
amma-ye?
where-
Arabic
‘Layla, where is mother?’
The paradigm in (11) indicates that the vocative particle can check the bundle of features on Voc, and may or may not also value the [i-p] feature. The latter ability depends on whether an informal reading is also intrinsic to the particle, in addition to the addressee reading (yes for Greek and Romanian
Romanian nouns marked for vocative case not only check [2p],[i-p] but also value the latter in the absence of a dedicated particle. That, however, does not exclude a particle. Consider (12).
(12)
a.
Dan,
Dan
vino
come.
azi.
today
= neutral
Romanian
‘Dan, come today.’
b.
Dane,
Dan.
vino
come.
azi.
today
= informal
‘Dan, come today.’
c.
Măi
Dane,
Dan.
vino
come.
azi.
today
= very informal
‘Dan, come today.’
The unmarked form (12a) gives no information on the inter-personal relation – only the intonation may fill up that gap. The marked form (12b) signals informality, irrespective of intonation, and the degree of informality would be increased by the addition of a vocative particle (12c). That is, the particle and the vocative case ending share the task in the valuation of [i-p].
The inference from Longobardi (
Two considerations are in order: First, vocatives do not always come as bare nouns, but they can also be complex DPs that indicate the addressee (the fake vocatives of
(13)
a.
*Băiat,….
boy
Romanian
b.
Băiat
boy.the
vino
come.
te
you
rog.
pray.1
‘Young man, please come.’
c.
Băiete,
boy.
vino
come.
te
you
rog.
pray.1
‘Young man, c’mon, come please.’
d.
Măi
băiat,
boy
fii
be.
cuminte.
wise
‘My boy, smarten up.’
e.
Măi
băiatule,
boy.the.
ce
what
faci?
do.2
‘My boy, what are you doing?’
In Romanian, certain common nouns cannot occur in their bare form as vocatives (13a): they must display the definite article (13b), or the vocative case ending (13c), or the vocative particle (13d), or all of these options at once (13e). These examples indicate that all these marking options are interchangeable, that is, they perform the same function in relation to the noun. This function concerns the qualification of the inter-personal relation between speaker and addressee. The preceding data have already shown that the vocative particle and the vocative case ending indicate different degrees of informality, and that the reading is the same for (13c, d). In the same vein, the presence of the definite article in (13b) is relevant for the qualification of the inter-personal relation: the definite article indicates a polite address (e.g., to a waiter) from a speaker who got the upper hand in a situation (e.g., a patron of the restaurant). This is different from the quasi formal address from an adult to a boy in (13c) and the informal address in a similar set up, in (13d). The cooccurrence of all these options in (13e) generally amounts to disapprobation. The point is that the presence of a vocative ending or a definite article on a vocative noun is not a matter of optional spellout, but it triggers a change in interpretation, indicating syntactic processing. Accordingly, the definite article is being recycled here, from being a 3rd person definiteness marker to being further grammaticalized as a bound vocative particle (i.e., it is stripped of its 3rd person feature), so its reading for informality comes off the syntactic configuration (i.e., its location in VocP).
Such data provide important insight in the structure of VocP: (i) It is not the case that some bare nouns are not morphologically able to be vocatives in Romanian – in fact they can, as in (13d). However, that class of nouns (e.g., nouns that spell out natural attributes: ‘boy’, ‘girl’, ‘child’, ‘old man/woman’) cannot be used without specifying the inter-personal relation between speaker and addressee. (ii) The presence of the definite article does not affect the 2nd person semantics, it only affects the reading of the inter-personal relation. Hence, the definite article has been reassigned to a different formal feature than the one associated with D. (iii) The pairing between morphological variations and interpretation indicates the presence of an underspecified formal [i-p] feature in VocP that takes its value from the item that checks it (vocative particle, vocative case ending, definite article). While feature checking is implemented by one item (e.g., N or particle), valuation can be cumulative, as shown for the disapprobation formulae in (13).
Summing up the information so far, VocP contains at least two formal features that map pragmatics to syntax, as in (14): [2p] mapping the direct address; and [i-p] mapping the type of social/inter-personal relation between the discourse participants. On the basis of data and tests such as presented so far, Hill (
(14)
DP/nP checks [2p], either by N movement to Voc, or phrasal movement to Spec, VocP, or long distance Agree between Voc and the embedded noun. The same may also account for the checking of [i-p] when [i-p] remains unvalued and underspecified (i.e., the interpretation depends on intonation and/or pragmatic context). This is a regular, unmarked vocative phrase. However, both [2p], [ i-p] or just [i-p] may also be checked and/or valued by vocative particles whose merging sites are indicated in (14): free morphemes merge as XPs in Spec, whereas bound morphemes merge as suffixes in Voc head.
Although these two features are present in the structure of VocP cross-linguistically, variation is expected in the options for feature checking and valuation. In particular, [2p] is well specified (i.e., for person value) and restricted to nominal goals (entities that qualify as addressees), whereas [i-p] comes as uninterpretable and underspecified in all the vocative data discussed so far. Hence, there is flexibility in the lexical and morphological options for items that check and value [i-p] (e.g., noun, vocative particle, vocative case ending, definite article or a combination of the above). Crucially, when optional mechanisms for valuing [i-p] are resorted to, the reading is anti-honorific in some way: familiarity, condescendence, disapprobation, all of which assert the speaker’s superiority or upper-hand in the conversation.
This is not to say that vocatives cannot express respect or positive addresses, which is routinely the case, for example, when professional nouns are selected for the structure (e.g.,
(15)
a.
Dane
Dan.
mamă,
mother
fii
be.
atent.
careful
Romanian
‘Be careful, Dan.’ (a mother addresses her son Dan)
b.
smæʕ-ɩ-nɩ
ja
mamæ
mother
Lebanese
‘Listen to me.’ (a mother addresses her daughter) (
c.
Mancia
eat.
a minestra,
the soup
u papà.
the dad
Sicilian from Palermo
‘Eat the soup.’ (a father addresses his child) (
In (15), the vocative seems to occur in doubles: while the addressee is identified by name (
Crucially, the speaker is never identified with regard to his/her name but only with regard to the kinship standing. Thus, the first observation is that the relevant nouns encode a social relation, not the [speaker] feature (i.e., not [1p]) that can be seen in the speech act area of the clausal structure. That is, this vocative construction cannot substitute a name to the kinship noun, nor can it refer to any possible speakers (e.g., a teacher, a stranger, a friend etc.), but only to those who qualify for a kinship relation. This is a cross-linguistic generalization, variation arising only in the composition of the lexical set: while ‘mother’ and ‘father’ occur across the board, other kinship nouns may vary from one language to another (e.g., ‘aunt’ does not occur in Romanian but it does in Arabic dialects, Georgian, Armenian, Albanian;
When it comes to intonation, reversed vocatives form one prosodic unit, with one high pitch. When both the addressee and the kinship nouns are present (15a, b), the pitch falls on the addressee noun/particle; when the kinship noun occurs by itself (15c), it carries the pitch.
Reversed vocatives display morpho-syntactic restrictions with respect to the form of the lexical items and to the permissible word order. First, the word order addressee > kinship noun is fixed within the prosodic unit, as in (16a), or else ungrammaticality ensues, as in (16b).
(16)
a.
(Măi)
Dane
Dan.
mamă,
mother
un’
where
te
duci?
go.2
Romanian
‘Dan, where are you going?’
b.
*(Măi)
mamă
mother
Dane,
Dan.
un’
where
te
duci?
go.2
Second, as long as the two items belong to the same prosodic unit, adjacency is obligatory. With two prosodic units, the vocative can be split, as in (17a), on the condition that the hierarchy is maintained; that is, the addressee c-commands the kinship noun or else ungrammaticality ensues, as in (17b).
(17)
a.
Dane,
Dan.
nu
not
te
mai
more
necăji,
upset
mamă.
mother
Romanian
‘Dan, don’t worry.’
b.
*Mamă,
mother
nu
not
te
mai
more
necăji,
upset
Dane.
Dan.
In fact, (17b) triggers a misleading analysis: ‘mother’ is parsed as the subject of the imperative, instead of the intended ‘Dan’. This indicates that the kinship noun must be kept away from 2nd person features, and its licensing somehow depends on the addressee noun.
Third, the complexity of the lexical items involved is very reduced. The kinship noun cannot be modified, as shown in (18a). The licit version comes as a frozen bare form. An exception occurs for the pragmaticized use of ‘dear’, as in (18b). However, ‘dear’ is an attribute of the addressee, not of the speaker (i.e., ‘dear son’ not ‘dear mother’), despite its insertion in the kinship phrase. Inflectional endings are disallowed on the kinship noun, as in (18c), so the noun is bare, unless it comes as a diminutive, in which case the definite article and the vocative case marking are obligatory, as in (18d). The inflected forms of the kin noun are generally preferred when the addressee is non-lexical (18d).
(18)
a.
*Dane
Dan.
mother
loving
vino
come.I
la
to
masă.
table
Romanian
Intended: ‘Dan, come to eat (your loving mother tells you that)’.
b.
Dane
Dan.
mother
dear
vino
come.I
la
to
masă.
table
‘Dan (mom’s dear boy) come to eat.’
c.
*Dane
Dan.
mother.the
vino
come.I
la
to
masă.
table
d.
Vino
come.I
la
to
masă,
table
dad.the.
?Dănuţ
Dan.
mom.
vino….
come.I
‘Come to eat (dad tells you that)’// ‘Dan come (mom tells you that)’
The examples in (18) indicate that the kinship noun has a DP structure, since an adjective (18b) and a definite article (18d) can be merged with N (although the adjective modifies the speaker).
On the other hand, the addressee noun is systematically bare with reversed vocatives. DP/NPs rule out the construction, as shown in (19b) (hence the placement of ‘dear’ in (18) with the kinship noun, which is phrasal, instead of being merged with the vocative noun).
(19)
a.
[Dănuţa
Dănuţa
mea,]
my
vezi
mind.I
ce
what
faci.
do.2
Romanian
‘My dear Dănuţa, pay attention to what you are doing.’
b.
*[Dănuţa
Dănuţa
mea]
my
mother
vezi
mind.I
ce
what
faci.
do.2
c.
Dănuţo
Dănuţa.
mother
vezi
mind.I
ce
what
faci.
do.2
‘Dănuţa, mind what you are doing (I’m telling you as your mother).’
In (19a), a regular VocP contains a DP that identifies the addressee (DP moved to Spec, VocP). The DP structure is signalled by the presence of the possessive pronoun, which merges only in DP fields. The same DP rules out the reversed vocative in (19b). However, if the possessive pronoun is deleted, as in (19c), the reversed vocative is grammatical, with or without the vocative case ending on the addressee noun. This indicates that the addressee noun systematically undergoes head (versus phrase) movement when reversed vocatives apply.
As a final observation, for a vocative phrase to qualify as a reversed vocative, the kinship noun is obligatorily present. On the other hand, the addressee noun is not obligatorily lexical (e.g., (18d)), yet the expression is unmistakably interpreted as a direct address to a person other than the one indicated by the kinship noun. Along these lines, reversed vocatives are built on the basis of the same feature set as in regular vocatives ([2p] and [i-p]), but with a markedness component that has to be identified.
The inquiry into the markedness that generates a reversed vocative must establish, first, the domain in which the triggering formal feature occurs. So far, the observations hint to the nominal domain, in the vicinity of vocative nouns. However, one may object that the triggering formal feature could rather be associated with the clausal domain (e.g., bundled with [speaker] or [addressee]) and require the same adjacency effects in relation to VocP merged to check the [addressee] feature. That would be a reasonable assumption, since honorific particles, also reminiscent of social ranking, were shown to occur as sentence final particles (
– If the kinship DP merged separately from VocP on the clausal spine, it should not be able to optionally carry the vocative case ending, or be modified by adjectives agreeing with the addressee (i.e., VocP is an impenetrable phase for inside agreement), contrary to the fact.
– The kinship noun provides information about the speaker, so it is expected to merge in a speaker phrase if a clause hierarchy is assumed. First, that would yield the wrong hierarchy, since the speaker is mapped higher than the addressee on the clausal spine (
– The type of movement to VocP (i.e., phrasal or head-to-head) should not be constrained by the presence of a kinship noun (contrary to the fact), if the kinship noun is external to the nominal phase.
– Independent merging on the clausal spine predicts that speech act particles should be able to separate the two items, which is not the case, as shown in (20c), contrasting with the optional placement of the speech act particle in (20a, b), where either relevant item occurs separately. This is a constituency test, leaving no doubt that the two items involved in the derivation of reversed vocatives belong to the same constituent.
(20)
a.
(Hai)
Dane
Dan.
(hai)
vino
come.I
la
to
masă.
table
Romanian
‘C’mon, Dan, come to eat.’
b.
(Hai)
mamă
mother
(hai)
vino
come.I
la
to
masă.
table
‘C’mon, come to eat (your mom tells you that)’.
c.
(Hai)
Dane
Dan.
(*hai)
mamă
mother
(hai)
vino
come.I
la
to
masă.
table
‘C’mon, Dan, come to eat (your mom tells you that).’
Once the clausal spine is excluded from consideration, the VocP domain remains the alternative for the generation of reversed vocatives. Building on the analysis of VocP in (14), that is, two formal features that map the addressee semantics as [2p] and the social relation as [i-p] bundled on Voc (see14)), it follows that reversed vocatives involve a further manipulation of the [i-p] feature that triggers the merging of a kinship noun. In these constructions, the trait that makes the [i-p] feature different from a regular vocative is its strict specification; that is, while in regular vocatives [i-p] is underspecified and can be checked and valued by a variety of items (generating a variety of familiar and/or disapprobation readings), in reversed vocatives [i-p] is strictly reserved for kinship ranking. Hence, [i-p] is reanalyzed as [kin], and VocP is marked.
Along these lines, the markedness of a VocP that supports a reversed vocative arises from the dissociation of [2p] and [kin]: the two features do not bundle on Voc, as in (14), since N-to-Voc, vocative particles that may check [2p] do not qualify to check [kin]. Instead, a noun with kinship semantics is introduced, in a split VocP structure, as in (21).
(21)
In (21), [2p] and the [kin] version of [i-p] are mapped to separate Voc heads. The noun spelling the addressee undergoes N-to-Voc, and obligatorily checks Voc1 for [2p], which is the feature that qualifies VocP as an argument in the speech act projection at the left periphery of clauses. That is, due to this feature, VocP becomes visible to the [addressee] role feature mapped on the clausal spine (e.g, as AddresseeP in
Notably, (21) conforms to the general property of heads to split when the features associated with them are (for various reasons) checked by different lexical items. In this particular case, Voc splits when [i-p] comes specified as [kin], but remerges when [i-p] is underspecified and can be checked in a bundle with [2p]. Similar split/remerging derivations have been noticed with most functional heads, especially in the process of language change (e.g., in
A note on vocative particles is in order: These particles are not excluded from (21), although [kin] is checked by a different item. The familiarity that the particle introduces in regular vocatives is already present in (21), since the kinship noun has an inherent specification in that respect. In (21), the particle has the effect of enhancing the speaker’s eagerness in the negotiation with the kin addressee. This may indicate a cumulative valuation of [kin], or alternatively, a separate bundling of [kin] with an underspecified [i-p]. This type of cooccurrence is infrequent, but grammatical, and may signal a further markedness development within VocP.
Technically, the DP status of the kinship item (see (18d)) and its merge in a Spec position blocks the DP movement of the addressee noun to Spec, VocP1, but it does not interfere with its head-to-head movement to Voc1; hence, the restriction on vocative noun modification illustrated in (19b). Since this configuration leaves Spec, VocP1 available, a vocative particle may directly merge at that location; hence, the optional presence of the particle in (16)/(21). The local Spec-head agreement that obtains when the addressee noun moves through Voc2 explains the possible inflectional copy of the vocative case ending. Although both the addressee and the kin nouns may display this ending (18d), the default option is to place it only on one of them, preferably on the addressee noun.
Cross-linguistic variation with reversed vocatives is superficial: it concerns the set of kinship nouns and inflectional options (presence or absence of vocative case endings, of vocative particles, definite articles or possessives), but there is no evidence that would challenge the underlying structure in (21).
This paper provided mostly Romanian data to argue that the default domain for encoding disapprobation or the speaker’s superior ranking over the addressee is the vocative phrase rather than the clausal field dedicated to the mapping of the conversational pragmatics. However, as shown in this section, observations along these lines abound in the literature on vocatives, although the point hasn’t been nailed down so far regarding the contrast with the use of the clausal space for the default mapping of honorifics. For more clarity, this paper does not claim that the expression of respect for higher ranks is not possible through vocative phrases (actually, the opposite is stated), but that speakers who intend to express disapprobation or social superiority of some kind would more likely than not opt for a VocP structure to do that.
In this respect, the grammaticalization of the pronoun ‘you’ to a vocative particle is well attested as a means of encoding disapprobation especially in languages that do not display dedicated vocative particle or articles to implement it, as we saw for Romanian in section 3. English
Reversed vocatives also occur in various languages, especially in the Middle East and the Balkans. For example, Georgian, illustrated in (22), shows the same use of kinship nouns as seen in Romanian.
(22)
ar
not
ga-m-agon-o,
aunt.
šen-i
your-
t’iril-i!
crying-
Georgian
‘Don’t let me hear you crying, aunt [addressing nephew or niece of husband]!’
(from Abuladze & Ludden 2013: 33)
Boeder (
Formally, nothing blocks the mapping of rank inferiority (anti-honorifics) or disapprobation in the clausal domain, and vice-versa for the nominal domain. However, the preference for vocatives as the medium for expressing disapprobation or other anti-honorific sentiments is a cross-linguistic fact.
This paper looked at the ways vocative phrases encode the expression of inter-personal relations between speaker and addressee. The basic assumption was that the derivation of vocative phrases relies cross-linguistically on the computation of two features: [2p] and [i-p]. With respect to [2p], which encodes the addressee semantics, variation arises mainly from the option for feature checking mechanisms (i.e., +/– movement of phrases or heads) and sometimes from lexical choices (e.g., nouns or dedicated vocative particles). On the other hand, [i-p], which encodes the inter-personal relation between speaker and addressee, leaves room for more variation insofar as the intrinsic properties may also vary, from underspecified to rigidly specified for a certain type of social relation. This variability accounts for the possibility of reversed vocatives in addition to regular vocatives in the same language.
The question to which this discussion is relevant concerns the identification of the phrasal domain to which information on the social relations of the two discourse participants are mapped as formal features. Formality and honorifics were shown to be expressed in the clausal domain in various languages, either through the merging of dedicated morphemes or through the manipulation of verb inflection (e.g., as sentence final addressee particles in
By contrast, this paper pointed out that the type of social relations expressed in the nominal domain by means of dedicated morphemes or case inflection within vocative phrases systematically range from informality to total disapprobation. This was shown to take place in Romanian vocative phrases by the intervention of vocative particles, vocative case marking or definite articles. Therefore, a contrast arises with respect to the mapping domains for honorifics and anti-honorifics by means of functional (versus substantive) lexical items: the former favour the clausal spine, whereas the latter abound in vocative phrases.
Details on the theoretical frameworks and the analysis of VocP in relation to the clause can be found in Hill (
Non-obligatory in the sense that the constructions remain grammatical when these items are omitted.
In some regional varieties of Italian and in some dialects of Central and Southern Italy (for example, the dialect of Palermo, Sicily, and the dialects spoken in Palma Campania and Marano, near Naples), the DP structure of the kinship noun is always visible, either through the presence of a definite article or a possessor, as in (i), from Iovino & Rossi (
(i) Mangia eat.I la minestra, the soup (a) papà (tuo). of dad your ‘Eat your soup.’ (endearing address from a father to his child)
These vocatives were mentioned in other works, more recently in Savoia (
Grammaticalization through reanalysis is formalized in van Gelderen (
The author has no competing interests to declare.