. ._.\*‘

 

 

* LIBRARY
Michigan State
#University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

POLITE SPEECH: A SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF CHAUCER
AND THE GAWAIN-POET

presented by

Hyesoon Lim Eun

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in English

)Q 2L1: V
U Major professor

 

 

 

Date Oct.13. 1987

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

MSU

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

 

LIBRARIES remove this checkout from
up. your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
‘ stamped below.
{WM‘N
SEP 2 3 1991
253

4‘" 2 1&4997‘

\

/
\

 

 

 

POLITE SPEECH: A SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF

CHAUCER AND THE GAWAIN‘POET

BY

Hyesoon Lim Eun

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of English

1987

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Professors of my Doctoral
Committee, Dr. Howard Anderson, Dr. Lister Metheson and Dr.
Marcellette Williams for their help and support in
completing this dissertation.

I am especially grateful to Dr. James Stalker, my
dissertation director, for his comments, advice and
guidance.

Special thanks are also due to Dr. John Yunck for the
time spent reading the manuscript and for his comments in
spite of his ill health.

Thanks are also extended to Dr. M. Teresa Tavormina for
her helpful suggestions.

- Of course I would like to thank my daughter, Barohny,

for her patience and for always being there.

 

ABSTRACT

POLITE SPEECH: A SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF CHAUCER
AND THE GAWAINHPOET

BY

Hyesoon Lim Eun

Using sociolinguistic theory, the polite speech of
Chaucer and the Gawain—poet has been analyzed in terms of
the two singular pronouns, various vocatives and different
syntactic forms of request. Through their variations in the
use of the second singular pronouns ye and thou, the
characters in these works show their attitudes toward each
other as well as their relative social status. In order to
analyze these relationships, the distinctive use of the two
singular pronouns ye and thou is classified into four
categories of politeness; honorific, humble, neutral and
sarcastic.

Vocatives were also analyzed in symmetrical and
asymmetrical situations to show the relationships among the
characters. Calling someone by his personal name, a kinship
term such as brother, suster, cosyn, nece and uncle or both
indicates that their relationships are friendly or hostile
whereas honorific titles such as lorde, sire, maister, lady,
dame and madame were employed in polite speech to show

social distance. On the other hand, professional or rank

 

labels were normally used as neutral vocatives even though
they were often employed to show animosity between
professional enemies with respect to their occupation.

Different syntactic forms of request such as
imperatives, statements and interrogatives were used to
define the situation in which they occur. Though they all
have the illocutionary force of requests they have different
expressive values depending on the situation in which they
are spoken. Generally speaking, the more indirect a speech
is, the more polite it is considered in an appropriate
situation.

Above all, social context is very important in
interpreting polite speech both at the lexical and at the
syntactic level. Depending on the social context, polite
speech can be interpreted as sarcasm or as an insult.

Chaucer and the Gawain-poet took great advantage of the
linguistic varieties which the language of their time, late
Middle English, could provide in showing their views on
issues such as ’gentilesse,’ ’courtly love,’ ’ marriage,’
'friendship’ and 'courtesy’ in their own ways.

Through the examination of social factors determining
the use of polite speech in Chaucer and the Gawain—poet, I
tried to find out the social value of these linguistic

features in the society of the late Middle English period.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION ................ ... ..................... 1
II. THE DISTINCTIVE USE OF THE SECOND SINGULAR ......... 24
PRONOUNS YE AND THOU
The honorifiCrpolite Ye ........ - .................... 27
The humble-polite Ye ................................ 50
The neutral—polite Ye .............................. 57
The sarcastic—polite Ye ............................ 68
III. VOCATIVES .......................................... 79
Personal names and kinship terms ................... 81
Professional or rank labels ....................... 95
Honorific titles .................................. 101
IV. REQUESTS .......................................... 145
Direct requests ................................... 151
Indirect requests ........................ . ........ 168
V. CONCLUSION. ....................................... 193

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 201

I. INTRODUCTION

Polite speech is used to keep social distance in public
situations in Modern English. Besides keeping social
distance, late Middle English employed a much wider range of
features to mark politeness from honorific address to
sarcastic address, and from socially distancing to socially
intimate. These markers, although relatively absent in
Modern English, are retained in some other languages,
including Korean. Although the language is different, the
principles remain much the same. Therefore I, as a native
speaker of Korean, am much more sensitive to the use of
these markers than Modern English speakers because my ear is
more attuned to the use of intimate versus distancing
pronouns, the use of vocatives to give honor or insult and
the phrasing of requests which are socially appropriate.
Among these items I am basically aware of the different
coded social features.

There are a great many social features which are coded
in the rules for the selection of a certain linguistic
pattern. One selects the appropriate linguistic features
which mark the politeness value of an utterance according to

various complex and elusive social factors such as the

 

2
relative status of the speaker and the addressee, as well as
the speaker’s attitude towards the addressee.

Language can be used for various functions. In one
traditional View, the functions of language are cognitive,
evaluative and affective. The cognitive function is the use
of language to express ideas, concepts and thoughts. The
evaluative function is that language which conveys attitudes
and values, and the affective function of language is to
transmit emotion and feeling.1 As one of the modifications
to the traditional classification, Michael Halliday proposes
three general functions which "to some degree supplement and
cut across the three traditional functions" (Roger Bell,
Sociolinguistics, p.85); the ideational, or the expression

of content, the interpersonal, aimed at the establishment

 

and maintenance of social relations, and the textual

‘ function whereby language provided links with itself and

{ with the situation in which it is used. Any utterance can
fulfill more than one function.

Polite speech is a social attitude of the speaker
expressed through a certain selection of linguistic markers
or forms in a social relationship, so it has to do with the
social context in the use or choice of language rather than
the capacity of language to evoke ideas, or the expression
of ’content.’ Politeness in speech may be indicated by a
wide variety of linguistic forms, but for this study I have
focused on three drawn from the morphological, lexical and

syntactic levels: the use of the second singular personal

 

3
pronouns ye and thou, vocatives, and request forms dependent

on the social context.

Halliday (1978) divides the social context in which
language occurs into two categories: social and situational.
Social patterns include such social aspects of language use
as the establishment of boundaries in interpersonal
relations, as well as the social status of the speaker and

the addressee. Situational patterns are the settings in

ywhich language is used.

There have been some systematic studies in modern
contemporary languages focused on how politeness is marked
through linguistic features, though they are few. The major
contribution is that of Brown and Gilman (1960), who
examined the use of the two second person pronouns (referred
to for convenience as T and V, following the Latin Tu and
Vbs) in some of the Indo—European languages. They argue in
their well-known article "The Pronouns of Power and
Solidarity" that the symmetrical and asymmetrical use of the
two pronouns varies along with the dimensions of solidarity
and power. They also argue that nonreciprocal patterns of
address have given way, through time, to symmetrical ones,
with the T form now being used by both interlocuters to
indicate solidarity, and the V form being used by both to
indicate social distance. They suggest that the importance
of expressing status difference through pronoun usage has

diminished in recent times relative to the importance of

 

4
expressing degrees of solidarity. The shift reflects basic

changes in value systems.

Brown and Ford (1961) also suggest in the study of
forms of address in American society that there is very
little expression of status differences in the current use
of address forms. They looked at modes of address used in
American plays and collected data on actual usage and self-
reported usage in American English. They analyzed three
patterns: reciprocal use of first name, reciprocal use of
honorific title before last name, and the nonreciprocal
situation where one person uses first name and the other
uses an honorific title before last name according to the
relationship between speaker and addressee. Their study
showed that the use of title before last name indicates
distance and deference, while the first name is used to
express both intimacy and condescension. Brown and Ford’s
study also showed how the development of a personal
relationship affects the progression from mutual use of
title before last name to nonreciprocal use of address, to
mutual use of first name. However, in the Middle English
k period, social class differences played a very important
1 role in the use of address forms.

One other linguistic treatment of politeness is that of
1 Robin Lakoff (1972), who emphasizes the social context of
i1the utterance in determining the choice of politeness
‘markers. Focusing on modal auxiliaries as devices for

‘politeness, she argues that the degree of politeness of an

 

5
utterance can be changed depending on the situation in which

it occurs. An auxiliary verb which is considered polite in
one context can be interpreted as impolite in another
context. For example, under ordinary circumstances, the
modal verb 'must' imposes an obligation, whereas the modal
verb ’may’ allows the addressee to do something. Therefore,
the use of ’may' is considered more polite than that of
’must.’ However, the degree of politeness can be reversed
if such sentences as ’you must have some of this cake’ and
’you may have some of this cake’ are spoken by a hostess at
a party.2 As shown in her examples, in order to be able to
predict how rules are going to apply, one has to to able to
identify the assumptions about the social context of an
utterance as well as any other implicit assumptions made by
the speaker .

Susan Ervin-Tripp (1976) shows that a number of
different types of speech acts can be expressed in a variety
of syntactic forms. She identified six types of directives,
ordered approximately according to the relative power of
speaker and addressee: need statements, imperatives,
imbedded imperatives, permission directives, question
directives and hints. According to her analysis the first
two categories, need statements and imperatives, are used to
inferiors or familiar equals, while, at the other extreme,
question directives and hints are used when the task seems

to be difficult to ask someone to do. The two middle

 

 

6
categories, imbedded imperatives and permission directives,

are used to superiors or unfamiliar addressees.3

The concept of politeness itself was discussed in
considerable detail by Brown and Levinson (1978). After
examining the various types of linguistic expression used to
convey politeness in a wide variety of languages, they offer
a detailed pragmatic model which describes the quality of
social relationships with respect to politeness.4 They
contend that social context or situation is the most
important in interpreting polite speech, even though
specific forms are often considered more polite than others.

As little research as there is focused on politeness
markers in current English, there are no studies of polite
speech in Middle English. By investigating the literary
language of any period from a sociolinguistic point of view,
one can see how the language reflects the society of that
period and how the language can be exploited to express its
morality and its value. Through the synchronic analysis of
the markers of some aspects of polite speech in Middle
English literature, it is possible to explore the literary
effects which were present in the state of the language.

In analyzing polite speech as represented in the
literature of Late Middle English, I assume, as Marie
Borroff (1962) does in her book Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight, that the characters in the literature use the
language of everyday life in ’real’ situations. She argues

in her study of style that the fictional speaker uses "words

 

 

 

 

7
and phrases that the author himself might have used in

everyday life " (35), apart from metrical form and word
order. She explains that "the extent to which the language
of literary works reproduces the language of everyday life
is precisely what is to be determined " (35).

Since Russian Formalists and the members of Prague
School such as ijenbaum, Sklovskij, Jakobson, and many
other literary critics suggest that literature is
linguistically autonomous because it consists of intrinsic
properties which distinguish it from other kinds of
discourse, it has been traditionally assumed within literary
criticism that literary and non—literary discourse (or
poetic and non-poetic) should be distinguished.

However, I agree with Mary Louise Pratt’s argument in
Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse that "it is
both possible and necessary to develop a unified theory of
discourse which allows us to talk about all the things
people do in literature in the same terms we use to talk
about all the other things people do with language" (xiii).
Pratt develops her argument against the attempt to build the
poetic/ordinary language opposition into linguistic theory,
claiming "literary discourse must be viewed as a use rather
than a kind of language" (xiii). As Pratt suggests,
"socially-based, use-oriented linguistics is a prerequisite
toward sealing the breach between formal and sociological
approaches to literature" (xix). The only differences

between the language of literature and of non-literature lie

 

 

8
in how language is used in a given utterance and context.

She demonstrates "how some of the general principles of
language use worked out by sociolinguists such as William
Labov and Emmanuel Schegloff, and speech act theoreticians
such as John Searle and H. Paul Grice can be used to
describe what writers and readers are doing with the
language when they are participating in works of literature
" (xiii). Agreeing with Pratt, Michael Halliday (1978:57)
proposes that any theory of language use should serve to
describe literary language to the same extent it can
describe ordinary language. Searle (1972) contends that
both literary and non-literary language consist in
performing speech acts of a quite specific kind called
"illocutionary acts."5 Ohmann (1972) argues that literary
works are discourses with the usual illocutionay rules
suspended.6 As Ohmann (1974:54) puts it, many literary
works are "imitation speech acts."

Stanley Fish (1980) also makes no distinction between
literary language and ’ordinary’ or ’real world’ language.
He says that "the very act of distinguishing between
ordinary and literary language...leads to an inadequate
I account of both " (101). Therefore there is only one
distinction which will be made between ordinary and literary
language. -

In the application of sociolinguistic theory to the
literature, I have found that literature has some advantage

over non-literature in analyzing the linguistic features

 

 

9
relating to social factors. The author will often supply

words descriptive of the character’s background, such as
those dealing with social status, age, education or else.
Above all, the most important advantage of analyzing speech
used in literature is that such speech offers patterns that
are understood by the audience and reader in that age. The
case for using literature as a basis for a linguistic
analysis has been well established (Page 1972; Halliday
1967; Chatman and Levin 1967; Saporta 1960; Jakobson 1960).
Compared with lively research in modern literature, there
are not many studies in Middle English literature from a
sociolinguistic point of View; As far as the second
singular personal pronouns are concerned, there have been
some studies focused on their usage in Chaucer and the
Gawain—poet. Finkenstaedt (1963) analyzed the pronoun usage
of the Wife of Bath’s Tale, Norman Nathan (1956), of the
Friar’s Tale, William Evans (1959), of Sir Gawain and the
Green Knight, Charles C. Walcutt (1935), and Everett C.
‘Johnston (1962), of Troilus and Criseyde. As for vocatives,
however, there is no systematic study at all. William
Stowell (1908) dealt with the honorific titles in French in
'his book Old-French Titles of Respect in Direct Address,
which is the only work on vocatives I can refer to. At the
syntactic level some speeches in Sir Gawain and the Green
_Khight have been studied with respect to 'courtesy’ by A. C.

Spearing (1964) and Cecily Clark (1966). With scanty

 

10
research of this field, I attempt to explain some linguistic

features to mark politeness in Chaucer and the Gawain—poet.

The distinctions of the second person pronouns ye and
thou as singular, and various vocatives are discussed in
terms of social patterns. Request forms which range from
the most direct to the least direct are interpreted with
respect to the situational context in which they are used.

These linguistic variants have been selected with the
help of Concordance to Chaucer's work and other Middle
English poetry,7 and A Middle English Dictionary (Francis
Henry Stratmann’s dictionary, rev. by Bradley, Oxford:
Clarendon Press;1891), from direct discourse in Late Middle
English literature, particularly, from two poets, Chaucer
and the Gawain—poet, to analyze politeness in speech.
Because I am dealing with direct discourse, I will take into
account only the micro-conversational aspect of a work of
literature--the conversations between the fictional
characters within a work--rather than macro-conversation,
the larger communication between the author of a work and
his audience.

My discussion of polite speech is limited to the works
of Chaucer and the Gawain—poet because they represent the
second half of the fourteenth century, which belongs to late
Middle English literature.8 As far as polite speech is
concerned, it has greater importance in late Middle English

literature than in that of any other period in the history

of English literature.

 

 

 

11
The late Middle English period was considered to be the

most important in the history of the medieval English
language and its literature. As Elizabeth Salter (1983:1)
comments on this period in Fourteenth Century English
Poetry, the late Middle English period was "the zenith of
medieval civilization" and "the greatness of which was
reflected in its literature." Compared with the earlier and
later medieval period in which English poets were "almost
silent," this period was very alive in poetry.r As Salter
also notes, "No later age has ever utilized poetry quite so
naturally and so relentlessly " and "the whole range of
medieval life—inner or outer-was expressed in poetry; it
served practical needs and refined appetites with equal
enthusiasm and fidelity" (1)-

For three hundred years after the Normans conquered
England in 1066, most literature was written in French or
Latin. The upper classes spoke French, but the common 1
people continued to speak English. Around the middle of the
‘fourteenth century English finally received the official
:recognition of the upper class, as V. T. Scattergood notes:

‘ In 1362 English was made the official language of

the law and in the same year the Chancellor first
opened Parliament with a speech in English.

(Politics and Poetry in the Fifteenth Century, p.13)
‘With the development of English there was also a greater
transition in the social and economic spheres of effective .
Lpolitical power, than in the immediately earlier and
'subsequent periods. The outstanding features of the century

Lwere the broadening of the basis of the social hierarchy,

12
the rise of the bourgeoisie, and the working out in detail

of the concept of limited monarchy. The traditional
vertical structure of the society was mixed with the
horizontal structure because of the sudden appearance of a
new group, the middle class promoted by the expansion of
trade. With increasing prosperity, the middle class,
developed to a position of affluence and prestige between
the hereditary nobility and the lower commons. The fluidity
of social status is reflected in the literature in that
_period through the use of linguistic variants.

Late Middle English allowed great variation in all
aspects of language because there was no standard English
in the forms of a norm of correctness to which one should
adhere.

Particularly, in grammar the second person plural
pronoun ye began to be used to refer to a singular person, a
usage which originates in the use of ye as a term of
politeness. Thus, synchronic study of the distinctive usage
of the two second singular personal pronouns ye and thou’in
this period helps to explain their diachronic development.
Much of the English literature of this period is, if not
straightforward translation, at least imitative of foreign
works. Through translation and imitation many foreign words
entered the language. Thus the writers could take a good

advantage of the diverse aspect of language to their

purpose.

   

 

13
As Doyle (1963) notes in The Social Context of Medieval

English Literature, almost all medieval literature is
ultimately didactic, overtly or covertly. One of the aims
of literature of this period was the education of its
audience in matters of current theological, political and
ethical interest. Besides entertainment, the purpose of
writing was to instruct the audience or reader by
"instilling and encouraging a moral code." Jackson (1960)
comments on the aim of writing in medieval literature as
follows:
Much literature has been produced by authors who felt
that society needed their help in overcoming its evils.
Most satirists are would-be improvers of their social
milieu. The more didactic authors of classical
antiquity appealed strongly to medieval readers, since
they had a purpose, announced or unannounced, to
improve morals and lash out at wickedness.
( "The Reasons for Writing Literature." in Literature
of the Middle Ages, p.37)
By presenting the relationship of the characters in their
works through their use of language, the Middle English
writers tried to show their morality in order that they
might teach the audience (or readers), concentrating on the
language in terms of diversity rather than uniformity.
Teaching social value from the author’s point of view is the
important aspect of medieval literary works. Therefore
literature was used as a tool of encouragement to critique
and change the values of the social system and the morality
of that society.
Above all, the greatest ideal of this age, upheld by

every writer was ’courtesy’(cortaysye). As D. S. Brewer

 

 

 

 

14 .
observes, a characteristic of much medieval literature was

’courtesy':

All viable societies necessarily practice some forms of

self-control and mutual help among their members, some

forms of decency and gracefulness in daily social
intercourse. This necessity in part took the form, in
medieval European feudal society, of courtesy.

(Chaucer and His Contemporaries, 1968, p.310)
Considering ’courtesy’ as a word describing a relationship
between persons, one of the chief ways that courtesy is made
known is through the speech by which relationships are
expressed and regulated.

Among others who represent late/Middle English
literature, Chaucer and the anonymous author of Sir Gawain
and the Green Knight are writers whose main interests are on
the social and moral level. Besides the fact that they were
the great masters of language in the late Middle English
period, they were considered the greatest didactic poets
and they were both interested in 'courtesy.’ They put much
emphasis on ’courtesy,’ one of the expressions of which is
through the speech in their poems. In Chaucer, 'courtly
love"and ’gentilesse' are reflected in the use of courteous
speech. In the Gawain-poet, the setting of Sir Gawain and
the Green Knight is in the courts where ’courtesy’ is
demanded. The two courts of Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight, Arthur’s and Bercilak's are each represented as the
height of ’courtesy.’ In order to focus my analysis, I

have chosen to concentrate on some works of Chaucer and the

Gawain-poet, particularly on the Canterbury Tales and’

 

 

 

 

 

15
Troilus and Criseyde by Chaucer, and Sir Gawain and the

Green Knight by the other poet.
Since the depiction of courtesy is a reflection of the

author’s perception, some time must be devoted to biography.

.Geoffrey Chaucer is known as the man who helped make
the English language what it is today. He was probably born
about 1340.9 He was the son of a well-to-do wine-merchant;
member of the King's personal household; courtier;
diplomatic envoy to France and Italy; high customs official
and later a member of Parliament. He lived much of his life
in the City of London, therefore his language is the dialect
of East Midlands. As reflected in his works, he knew many.
of the area’s most important men. He was dependent on
French authority, and instead of turning to the native
alliterative verse, he wrought, by critical cultivation, to
reform and establish an English style, so he is called the
father of English poetry. He also made the English
language polite and courteous. As George H. Cowling (1971)
observes, "no English dialect, before Chaucer wrote, was
quite definitely the language of polite and courtely verse"
(181).

The Canterbury Tales and Troilus and Criseyde are
considered the representative works of Chaucer on which his
reputation rests. The weight of these two works makes all
the others, that is, what is written by and about Chaucer,

significant and interesting, even though there is

 

 

 

l6
diminishing objective coincidence between his minor works

and what is known of his life (Fisher, p.952).

The Canterbury Tales is about a pilgrimage. This was
the one social function in medieval life that would bring
people of different social castes together on a footing of
equality. Though the exact time when Chaucer first
conceived the idea of writing the Canterbury Tales is not
known, it is generally thought that he had begun it either
in 1385 or in 1386. The sources of the tales are found in
other European literature, yet the work as a whole is
markedly English. Chaucer gave vivid character sketches of
all kinds of people, high and low. The characters in the
canterbury Tales are so real and varied that they represent
the whole range of humanity in medieval England. Each tale
has significance in relation to other tales, but also in
relation to the interlude between the tales, to the
character of its own teller, and to the characters of the
other Canterbury Pilgrims who tell the other Tales and who
are imagined to make up the audiences. Characters are
individuals and at the same time are moral and social
representatives. These Tales are the entertainment the
Pilgrims provide for each other and at the same time they
are a fuller revelation of themselves, their interests,
attitudes and antagonisms.

Through their language interaction with each other in
the Canterbury Tales, Chaucer shows their social

relationships as well as their social rank in that

 

 

 

l7
hierarchical society. His shifts of style reflect the

changing relationship, not only between fictional
characters, but also the poet and his literary tradition.
About the same time the Canterbury Tales was completed
between 1390 and 1393, Chaucer was working on Troilus and
Criseyde, which is considered as "the first modern novel"
(John Speirs, p.20). Though somewhat lesser in importance
now, it "was referred to more often and praised more highly
than the Canterbury Tales" (Robinson, p.309). Though the
story was known to be derived from an Italian poem, Il
Filostrato written by Boccaccio, Chaucer modified the story
by adding and reducing some parts. In particular the
relationships between characters in the story were quite
differently described from those in 11 Filostrato, such as
the friendship between Troilus and Pandarus, and Pandarus
and Criseyde. The medieval convention of courtly love is
also handled critically in the poem. My interest in Troilus
and criseyde is how the relationships between the characters
and their attitude toward each other are shown through the
use of language, such as friendship and courtly love in
hierarchical society.

Chaucer’s love vision poem, Parliament of Fowls, was
written in a form°which was popular in that period. It
reflects the hierarchy of all ranks and provides good data
for analyzing how language reflects social status and marks
politeness. This poem is believed to have been begun in May

1382 and was therefore ready for St Valentine's day, 14

 

 

18
February 1383. As a form of love—visions, this poem is

concerned with the question of who makes the best lover
among the birds, who stand as representatives of all living
species, from the noblest to the lowest. The birds compose
a hierarchy of worth comparable to, though not exactly
matching, that of fourteenth-century society, with the hawks
and eagles highest, representing the highest’ knightly
class, and the other groups of birds lower in the scale.
Nature, the vicar of God, endorses this hierarchy, and the
most worthy birds have the right to choose their mates
first.

Another great poet of Chaucer's time is the Gawain—
poet, whose name and identity are not known. He may take
his place beside Chaucer as a commentator upon his time.

He shares with Chaucer and other writers in that period a
recognition of the hierarchical nature of society. The poet
himself is thought to have been highly educated, familiar
with courtly French literature as well as English
alliterative poetry, and deeply learned in Scripture and
controversial religious questions. His most notable trait,
however, is his sympathetic understanding of the

aristocratic life and his admiration for its highest ideals

 

of civilized conduct. Though it is still not proven that
the other poems such as Pearl, Purity, and Patience are
written by the same poet, I share the general view that the

poems are the work of a single writer, the Gawain-poet.lo

 

19
These four Middle English poems are preserved in a

single manuscript now in the British Museum, known as Cotton
Nero A.x: Pearl, Purity, Patience, and Sir Gawain and the
Green Knight, listed in the order in which they appear in
manuscript. The date of the manuscript is about 1400, and
internal evidence suggests that the four poems were composed
between 1360 and 1395, in the dialect of the Northwest
Midlands. It is generally assumed that the simpler poems are
the earlier, and the more complex later, thus the
alliterative poems, Pearl and Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight, which are more complex than the earlier two, can be
considered to be latest.ll I
The alliterative romance poem, Sir Gawain and the Green

Knight, a primary source for this study, is considered "one
of the great poems of the Middle Ages" and is built upon
'courtesy.’12 The focus of the poem is to maintain the
honor of the Arthur’s Court and the order of chivalry. Even
‘though it has its own sources, it is considered a totally
different type of poetry apart from its French romantic
roots. Because as John Speirs (1966) already notes in
Medieval English Poetry, the Beheading Game and the
Temptation, the two major elements of the plot, are not

found in combination in any conceivable source, although

they are found separately elsewhere. The value of

’courtesy’ is defined in the poem through the two elements

of the plot which are considered moral tests for its hero,

Gawain.

 

 

20
Pearl consists of a dialogue between a dreamer-father

and his daughter, Pearl, who had died in infancy and had
been redeemed by Christ. This poem is basically a dream or
vision allegory in the popular medieval tradition. Though
there are still many discussions about dialect, authorship,
elegy versus allegory, theology and symbolism in the poem,
my concern focuses on the relationships between the dreamer—
father and his two—year old daughter through the language
they are using in the poem. The dreamer-father is
instructed by or arguing with his glorified daughter
throughout Pearl. In showing respect to his daughter the
father uses ye to her, which makes their relationship
ironic. However, their normal father-daughter relationship
is also shown in the use of the pronouns, thou to the
daughter and ye to the father, when they are talking about
worldly things.

In subsequent chapters, I examine the ways these two
authors used polite speech to mark the social status of the
characters, comment indirectly on their characters’
relationships, and judge the social system they write about.
By showing interesting insights about the characters of the
same or different social rank, and about the various
situations with respect to the important themes of the
period, each author reveals his linguistic flexibility by
choosing the best linguistic variants.

I will analyze polite speech of direct discourse in the

Canterbury Tales, the Parliament of Fowles and Troilus and

 

 

. 21
Criseyde by Chaucer, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and

Pearl by the Gawain—poet. In doing so, I will take into
account from a sociolinguistic viewpoint the distinctive use
of the second person singular pronouns ye and thou; the use
of various vocatives such as calling someone by his personal
name alone and/or by kinship terms or non-honorific common
nouns, professional or rank labels, or the honorific titles;
and the use of the different syntactic request forms, based
on the speech acts theory developed by J. L. Austin (1962)

and John R. Searle (1969).

Notes

lRoger T. Bell, Sociolinguistics, p.82. Leech and
Short, Style in Fiction, p.30. They introduce three
influential theories about the functions of language. The
first one is I.A. Richards’ four types of function; sense,
feeling. tone and intention. The second is the one by
Jakobson who distinguishes six functions; referential,
emotive, connotive, phatic, poetic, ans metalinguistic. As a
more recent one Halliday’s three way classification is
considered.

2Robin Lakoff, "Language in Context," Language, 48
(1972), pp.907—27.

3Susan ErvinLTripp, "Is Sybil there? The Structure of
Some American English Directives," Language in Society 5
(1976), pp. 25-66

4P.Brown and S.Levinson (1978),"Universals in language
usage,"In E.N.Goody, ed., Questions and politeness:
Strategies in social interaction.

5John R. Searle (1975),"The Logical status of fictional
discourse." New Literary History 6, 2, pp. 319-322.

6R. Ohmann, "Speech, Literature and the Space Between,"
New Literary History 4 (1972), pp. 47-63.

7J. S. P. Tatlock and A. G. Kennedy, A Concordance of
the Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer( Washington, 1927).

Barnet Kottler and Alan M. Markman, A Concordance to
Five Middle English Poems: Cleanness, St. Erkenwald, Sir
Gawain and the Green Knight, Patience, Pearl (Pittsburgh,
1972).

8The late Middle English was usually thought of as the
period of Chaucer.

91 rely mainly on Fisher and Robinson for Chaucer’s
biography.

22

23

10Believing that the Gawain—poet wrote the other three

poems, Larry Benson mentions as follows:

"If it could be proved that they were written by two,
three, or four different authors, we would still have
to assume that those authors knew, admired, and echoed
one another’s work, and we would merely have replaced
"the school of the Gawain-poet."

(Art and Tradition in Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight,l965, p.xi.)

11D. S. Brewer, "The Gawain-poet; A General Application

of Four Poems," EIC 16 (April 1967) 130—142.

12John Speirs, p.221.

II. THE DISTINCTIVE USE OF THE SECOND SINGULAR PRONOUNS

YE AND THOU

The second person singular pronoun you in modern
English developed from the Middle English ye which was
originally only plural. Though the distinction between ye
and thou does not exist in Modern Standard English any more,
a synchronic study of ye and thou in Late Middle English
literature from a sociolinguistic point of view can help to
explain the historic development and the survival of ye as a
Isingular pronoun as well as explaining how it took over the
function of thou. The use of the plural pronoun ye to refer
to a singular person appeared in the Middle English Period.
Used with increasing frequency, it finally expelled the
original second singular pronoun thou from Modern Standard
English.1 Besides the phonological reasons for this change2
the replacement of the original singular pronoun thou by the
plural pronoun ye can be explained sociolinguistically with
respect to politeness.

In Old English there were two second person pronouns,
the plural 3e and the singular‘éu, besides the dual pronoun

git.3 In the early Middle English period, because of partly

24

 

25

the influence of French, the language of the court, the
plural form of the second personal pronoun, ye, with its
oblique case you and possessive youre, began to replace the
singular forms thou, thee, thyfn).4 At the beginning it was
employed to refer to a singular person in a very limited way
similar to the use of the polite vous in French. In French
the plural vous had already been used as a respectful or
polite form of address.5

The French practice of using vous influenced the
English use of ye with a singular referent. However, the
rules governing the selection of thou or ye as the
appropriate form of address were not the same as those
determining the alternation between tu and vous in French.
A comparison of English translations with their French
equivalents shows that there is no regular, mechanical
substitution of a thou for a tu and a ye for a vous.6

Many scholars have studied the English usage of the
second singular person pronouns ye and thou independent of
the French influence. Studies of the function of the second
singular person pronouns ye and thou have been done by
Kennedy (1915), who writes on the thirteenth century usage,
and Stidtson (1917), who writes on the fourteenth century
usage. Based on their discoveries, Nathan (1957) writes on
Chauder’s usage of ye and thou in the Friar’s Tale. Walcutt
(1935) and Johnston (1962) study the use of the second-
person pronoun in Troilus and Criseyde. The most detailed

analysis of the usage of the two second singular pronoun is,

 

 

26
however, the one by William W. Evans, Jr.(l959), who

examines the pronoun usage of the Gawain-poet in Sir Gawain
and the Green Knight. In his dissertation he asserts that
ye as the singular pronoun is "the norm in his romance,"
though "the historical singular—thou—was still the norm in
colloquial speech."7 According to his conclusion, the
Gawain-poet departs radically from fourteenth—century
English reality in which the two second person singular
pronouns were used altogether.

Finkenstaedt (1963), however, focuses on Middle English
usage of the two singular pronouns from the sociolinguistic
point of view.8 He contends that the plural form ye was
used as ’marked' for politeness when it referred to a
singular person, in contrast with the 'unmarked' form thou,
which was the normal second singular person pronoun in
Middle English. As the plural ye encroached increasingly on
the territory of the singularthou, ye became 'unmarked'
with regard to any pretensions to politeness by the end of
the sixteenth century.9 By Shakespeare's time the situation
was completely reversed; that is, thou was used as marked,
implying contempt or insult in contrast with the ’unmarked'
ye.10 Contempt is alSo shown in Coke's berating of Sir
Walter Raleigh; "All that he did was by thy instigation,
thou Viper; for I thou thee, thou Traitor" (Finkenstaedt,
p.148). Gradually decreasing in use, thou became obsolete
in the standard language in the eighteenth century except

for poems and addresses to God ( Finkenstaedt, p.195).

 

 

27 .
According to Kennedy's examination (p.90), the use of

the plural ye as a pronoun of address to a singular person
first appeared in English literature in the thirteenth
century (around 1252). As the literature developed, the
singular meaning of ye began to replace the singular form
thou more frequently, as authors highlighted contrasts
between characters and situations in the conversation of
late Middle English literature.

Since thou alone was used as the second person singular
pronoun in Old English and in earlier Middle English; the
usage of ye as the second person singular pronoun along with
thou in late Middle English literature could become a
sociolinguistic tag. By using this tag the author could
express the speaker’s respect or humility towards the
addressee or relative social distance between speaker and
addressee. The author could indicate sarcasm on the part of
the speaker. Or, finally, the author may use any
combination of these usages. Thus, I classify the usages of
singular ye into four general categories in terms of
relative politeness: honorific, humble, neutral, and

sarcastic.

The honorific-polite ye:
The first usage category of the polite form of ye is
used to show the speaker’s respect for the addressee or to
exalt an addressee who is superior in terms of social

station, age, learnedness or morality. I will call this

 

 

28
usage 'honorific-politeness.’ The second singular pronoun

ye was first used in the asymmetrical speech situation, a
situation in which the speaker uses ye to his superior and
receives thou from the latter. This usage is well explained
by W.W. Skeat:

Thou is the language of a lord to a servant

...whilst ye is the language of a servant to a lord.

(The Complete works of Geoffrey Chaucer, p. 175)
However, this asymmetrical use of the honorific-polite ye
expanded to other relations between superior and inferior.
Thus I will use the word ’superior’ in terms of the ’power’
semantic of Brown and Gilman who examine the relationship
between the polite and familiar pronouns of address in
several European languages using the dimensions of power and
solidarity. According to Brown and Gilman, "there are many
bases of power-physical strength, wealth, age, sex,
institutionalized role in church, the state, the army or
within family " (Language and Social Context, p.255). I
will apply the word ’superior’ not only to social status,
but also to age, learnedness and morality.

The fact that Chaucer and the Gawain-poet have their
characters use the honorific-polite ye asymmetrically to
their social superiors shows the vertical relationship
between speaker and addressee in their works, reflecting the
hierarchical society of that period. In the Canterbury
Tales Chaucer has the Host use ye to his social superiors:

to the Knight and his son the Squire, who belong to

 

 

29
nobility, and to the Monk and the Prioress, who are members

of the upper ranks of their religious orders.

In contrast to his use of the polite ye to his social
superiors, the Host addresses his social inferiors or his
equals with thou: the Miller, the Reeve, the Cook and the
Canon’s Yeoman who represent the working class; the low
clergy: the Parish Priest,11 the Nun’s Priest who
accompanies the Prioress, and the Pardoner whose profession
is the-most contemptible, the Summoner, a functionary of the
ecclesiastical courts and the Pardoner’s friend and
travelling companion, and the Manciple, who may be
considered a lower stratum businessman.

This asymmetrical use of ye and thou is also shown in
the Parliament of Fowls, in which the second falcon
addresses the royal falcon with ye, indicating the natural
superiority of the birds:

Another tersel egle spak anon,

Of lower kynde, and seyde, "That shal nat be!

I love hire bet than ye don, by Seynt John,

Or at the leste i love as wel as ye,

And longer have served hire in my degre.(449-53)

On the other hand, thou is used by the falcon to the duck,
his inferior:

"Now fy, cherl," quod the gentil terselet,

"Out of the donghil cam that word ful right!

Thow canst nat seen what thyng is wel beset.

Thow farst by love as oules don by lyght:

The day hem blent, but wel they sen by nyght.

Thy kynde is of so low a wrechednesse

That what love is thow canst nat seen ne gesse.
(596-602)

 

 

30
This asymmetrical use of the second singular pronouns shows

the hierarchical relationship between the speaker and the
addressee.

In the same way, in Troilus and Criseyde Pandarus
usually uses the polite ye to his social superiors who are
Trojan royalty, who in turn always use thou to Pandarus.12
Pandarus uses the polite ye to Helen (II,1268), Deiphebus
(II,1406; 1420) and to Troilus, but only in public
situations,13 whereas he receives thou from them.

The Gawain-poet also emphasizes the hierarchical
relationships of characters through the asymmetrical use of
the second singular person pronouns ye and thou. He employs
the polite ye to show the respectful attitude of a speaker
towards an addressee who is a social superior. In Sir
Gawain and the Green Knight Gawain addresses King Arthur
with ye (343-344), whereas he addresses a number of
relatively minor characters who are his inferiors in social
status with thou. He speaks to the porter at Bercilak’s
castle using thou (811) and addresses a servant likewise
(2127). This correct usage of the second singular pronoun
ye and thou shows Gawain’s good manners as a perfect knight.
All the examples above show the correct parameters of usage
of the honorific-polite ye to superiors.

In contrast to the speaker who observes the norm of
usage of the polite ye to his superior, the speaker who
breaks the norm indicates that he has no manners, or that he

is challenging the social status of the addressee, or both.

 

 

31
In contrast to Gawain’s usage of the polite ye to the King,

 

the Green Knight at first appearance consistently uses thou
in speaking to his superior, King Arthur:

Bot for be 103 of be, lede, is lyft vp so hy3e

And by bur3 and by burnes best ar holden,

Stifest vnder stel-gere on stedes to ryde,

be wy3test and be worbyest of be worldes kynde,
Preue for to play wyth in ober pure laykez (258-662)

 

And then he continues his speech with thou showing both bad
manners and an attempt to manipulate his position.

A speaker might deliberately address an obvious social

 

superior as thou in an attempt to put himself into a certain
position in relation to the addressee. Thus, the Green.
Knight’s use of thou to the King Arthur could be

interpreted to demonstrate that the latter does not deserve

 

 

his respect and deference. This breaking of the norm of
pronoun usage shows not only the rudeness of his attitude
but also his challenge to King Arthur’s perception of the
social situation because if he had used the polite ye, he
would have acknowledged Arthur’s social superiority.14
Another example of breaking the norm of the honorific-
polite usage of ye to a social superior can be taken from
the speeches of the Guide who escorts Gawain to the Green
Chapel. He switches from his previous ye into thou to his
obvious social superior, Gawain, in his second speeches.
Like the Green Knight, the Guide ignores the ordinary
conventions of society by breaking the norm of second person

pronoun usage. Mabel Day argues the Guide is the Green

 

T—_—#

32
Knight himself 'in the likeness of a servant’ in part

because of his use of the the familiar thou.15

In his analysis of the second personal pronouns in Sir
Gawain and the Green Knight, Evans concludes that the
Gawain-poet shows the speaker’s personality as well as the

speaker’s attitude towards the addressee through pronominal

 

 

 

usage.16 The use of the honorific-polite ye to social

 

superiors reflects the hierarchical society in which the
ordering of society in degree is "natural“ and God-ordained,
as Chaucer himself confirms through the Parson’s mouth:
God ordeyned that som folk sholde be moore heigh in
estaat and in degree, and some folk moore lough, and

that everich sholde be served in his estaat and in his
degree.(X,770)

 

However, what is important in the usage of the honorific-

 

polite ye in these later Middle English poems is the notion
of 'superior’ which Brown and Gilman call the ’power
semantic.’ The basis of the notion ’superior’ can be other
'than social status. Therefore the use of the honorific-
polite ye is affected not only by social status but also by
age, learnedness, sex in marriage and morality.

Age is another factor which affects the speaker’s
attitude in the poetry of that period. If the addressee is
relatively older than the speaker or the speaker and
addressee are parent and child, the older addressee or the
parent usually receives the polite ye from the younger
speaker or child (Kennedy, p.87).

Chaucer contrasts the correct usage of the honorific-

polite ye to the older with the breaking of this usage norm

 

 

 

 

 

33
to reveal his characters’ personality. In the Friar’s Tale

the summoner uses thou to the widow:

Thou olde virytrate !

I trowe thou hast som frere or preest with thee.

(III,1582-83)

Here the summoner is shown by the Pilgrim Friar to be rude
and disrespectful. The summoner’s use of thou to the old is
contrasted with the devil’s use of the honorific-polite ye
to her:

Now Mabely, myn owene moder deere,

Is this youre wyl in earnest that ye seye?

(III,1626-27)
The story teller, the Pilgrim Friar, intends to show the
Pilgrim Summoner’s bad manners by having the summoner in his
Tale violate the norm of usage of the honorific-polite ye to
the old, in contrast to the devil's use of the polite ye to
the same person, the old widow.

And also in the Pardoner’s Tale, the young boy uses ye
to one of the patrons of the inn (VI,671), as is proper.
This is contrasted with the three rioters who use thou to
the old man whom they meet on the way. One of them says:

...What, carl with sory grace,

Why artow a1 forwrapped save thy face?

Why lyvestow so longe in so greet age?

(VI,717—19)
Another rioter also uses thou to the old man:
"Nay, olde cherl, by God, thou shalt nat so."

Seyde this oother hasardour anon;

"Thou partest nat so lightly, by Seint John!

Thou spak right now of thilke traytour Deeth,

That in this contree alle oure freendes sleeth.

Have heere my trouthe, as thou art his espye,

Telle where he is, or thou shalt it abye,

By God, and by the hooly sacrement!
For soothly thou art oon of his assent

 

 

 

 

34

To sleen us yonge folke, thou false theef!"
(VI,750—59)

This shows their rude attitude or bad manners toward the
addressee, the old man, by ignoring the normal usage of the
polite pronoun ye to the old.

The use of the honorific-polite ye because of the
relative age of the speaker and addressee takes precedence
over its usage on the basis of social class. For example,
the Knight in the Wife of'Bath’s Tale addresses the old ugly
woman as ye when he first meets her beginning with.My leeve
mooder (III,1004), in spite of his higher social position.
And the knight receives thou from her interspersed with ye
because of his high status:

Plight me thy trouthe heere in myn hand,...

The nexte thyng that I requere thee,

Thou shalt it do, if it lye in thy myght,

And I wol telle it yow er it be nyght.

(III,1009—12)
Similarly, other speakers put themselves in a superior
position by using thou to the younger. The Franklin uses
thou to the young Squire, the Knight’s son:
...thou hast thee wel yquit
And gentilly. I preise wel thy wit.
(V,673—74)
The Squire is "of twenty yeer of age" (I,81) and the
Franklin is as old as "whit was his berd as is the dayesye"
(1,332). Though the young Squire is of higher social
position than the Franklin,17 the Franklin uses thou to the
Squire simply because of the Squire’s youth.

In the Merchant’s Tale, January addresses his younger

brother Justinus as thou (IV,1566;1570), whereas he receives

 

 

 

 

35
ye from his brother according to the norm of the pronoun

usage to the old.

In parent-child relationships, the parent is expected
to receive ye from his or her child who is, in turn,
addressed as thou. In the Man of Law’s Tale, Constance
addresses both her father and her mother as ye whereas
Constance use thou to her child. In the Physician’s Tale,
the knight Virginius addresses his daughter, Virginia, as
thou whereas Virginia uses the honorific—polite ye to her
father:

Yif me my deeth, er that I have a shame;

Dooth with youre child youre wyl, a Goddes name!

(VI,249-50)
In the Clerk’s Tale, Griselda says thou to her child when
she is going to deliver her first baby to an officer.

Fareweel my child! I shal thee nevere see.

But sith I thee have marked with the croys

Of thilke Fader-blessed moote he be!-

That for us deyde upon a croys of tree,

Thy soule, litel child, I hym bitake,

For this nyght shaltow dyen for my sake.

(II,554—60)
In Chaucer the norms of ye usage are upheld for both age and
social status unless the teller of the tale has in mind to
insult a fellow Pilgrim.

The Gawain-poet also applies this usage of the
honorific-polite ye to showing the changing relationships,
worldly and religious, between the dreamer-father and his
daughter, the Pearl—maiden. In the beginning of the

conversation between father and daughter in the poem Pearl

the dreamer-father uses thou to his child and receives ye

 

 

 

36
from the latter as we would normally expect between father

and daughter. Here is an example of the dreamer-father’s

speech:
0 perle, ...,in perle3 py3t,
Art bou my perle bat I haf playned,
Regretted by myn one on ny3te?
Much longeyng haf I for be layned
Syben into gresse bou me agly3te.
Pensyf, payred, I am forpayned,
& bou in a lyf of lykyng ly3te

In Paradys-erde, of stryf vnstrayned!
(V,241-48)

The child answers him with ye:-
Sir, 3e haf youre tale myse tente
To say youre perle is al awaye
bat is in cofer so comly clente
As in bis gardyn gracios gaye,
Hereinne to lenge for euer & play,

ber mys nee mornyng neur here.
(V,257-62)

And then the dreamer—father begins alternate using thou and
ye to his daughter. When he is talking about worldly
things, he uses thou to his daughter. Otherwise he will
switch to ye, even in the middle of conversation.

In the same way the maiden Pearl alternates using ye
and thou though the use-of thou prevails. After the use of
ye to her father which is based on the normal father-
daughter relationship in the opening conversation, the
maiden Pearl switches into thou, which is the reversal of
the usage found in an ordinary parent-child relationship.
This reverse use of pronouns shows the changed relationship
between the dreamer—father and the maideh; it shows the
religious relationship between the two in which she is

deified rather than that of a worldly parent and child.

 

 

 

 

37
In Troilus and Criseyde, Criseyde addresses her uncle

Pandarus with the honorific-polite ye without any single
exception. When she meets Pandarus in her place, she
receives him ("Ey, uncle myn, welcome iwys") and starts her
conversation, using the honorific-polite ye:

...This nyght thrie,
To goode mot it turne, of yow I mette. (II,89-90)

And then she continues to use the honorific-polite pronoun
ye to the end of the story.

As all these examples show, the norm of the usage of
honorific-polite ye to the old can be used to reveal the
relationships between characters such as those of parent-
child or young and elder. By observing the norm of the
honorific-polite ye in terms of age the speaker reveals his
good manners, whereas his bad manners can be revealed by
breaking the norm of usage.

In addition to social status and age, learnedness in
the addressee is another factor that affects the use of the
honorific-polite ye. The Host uses ye to the two members
who are learned, the Clerk (1,840; IV,2) and the Man of Law
(III,1286:1300) though the nature of their learning differs.
The title ’clerk’ in the Middle Ages was used to refer to a
man who had taken "minor"(as opposed to "holy") orders in
the Church and hence could read, write, and perform certain
subordinate ecclesiastical duties. The Man of Law is also
described as a learned man in The General Prologue

In terms haddee he caas and doomes alle

That from the tyme of Kyng William were yfalle.
Therto he koude endite and make a thyng,

 

 

 

 

 

In c
thOL
cons

ChaI

 

 

38
Ther koude no Wight pynche at his writyng;

And every statut koude he pleyn by rote.
(I,321-27)

In contrast to the use of ye to the learned, the Host uses
thou to the pilgrim Chaucer and the Physician who are
considered representatives of not-so-learned professions.
Chaucer, the Pilgrim, is described as slow-witted, easily
frightened, and having little desire for knowledge or
power.18 The Host does not know him, but at the close of
the tale of the Prioress asks him, "What man artow? "
(VIIy695). The Physician is also considered a not-so-
learned man though "he was a verray parfit praktisour"
(I;422). In the General Prologue his study.is mentioned
after a long list of his medical knowledge: "His studie was
but litel on the Bible" (1,438).

Another factor which plays a role in pronoun usage is
the sex of the person in marriage relations. In the
marriage relations the husband is superior to his wife,
which reflects the inferior social position of women in the
medieval period. A wife is completely subordinate to her
husband.

In the Tale of Melibee the learned dame Prudence
usually addresses her husband as ye with several cases of
thou, in.which she shows off her superiority in terms of
learnedness rather than the relationship of marriage, while
Melibeus mostly uses thou to her. In the same way, in the
Shipman’s Tale the merchant constantly addresses his wife as

thou whereas he receives ye from his wife. And in the

 

 

Seco

asyn

exam

und
bre

sin

 

 

 

 

39
Second NUn’s Tale Cecilia addresses her husband, Valeria, as

ye, while she receives thou from her husband. Through the
asymmetrical use of the second person pronouns these
examples show the woman’s inferior position in that society.
However, Chaucer shows the different relationships or

undesirable personalities of his characters by having them
break the conventional norms in using the second person
singular pronouns. In the Canterbury Tales after the Tale
of.Melibee the Host quotes his wife’s thou to him:

And if that any neighebore of myne

Wol nat in chirche to my wyf enclyne,

Or be so hardy to hire to trespace,

Whan she comth hoom she rampeth in my face,

And crieth, 'False coward, wrek thy wyf !

By corpus bones, I wol have thy knyf,

And thou shalt have my distaf and go spynne!

(VII,1902-8)

This use of thou by wife to husband reflects the opposite
position of the ordinary relationship of marriage and thus
his wife’s bad manners, because she breaks the norm of
convention in the use of this pronoun.19

In the Tales of the so-called Marriage Group the
relationships between wife and husband are shown through the
usage of the second person singular pronouns ye and thou.
The Marriage Group is usually said to begin with the Wife of
Bath’s prologue and ends with the Franklin’s Tale. The
traditional order is first, the Wife of Bath, whose prologue
opens this marriage discussion; the Friar’s Tale and the

Summoner’s Tale which are not concerned with marriage; the

Clerk’s Tale; and the Merchant’s Tale. After the Squire’s

 

 

Tale;

marr

add:
beca
howe

use

wit
whl'
Wa.

re

 

 

40
Tale, which must be regarded as another interlude, the

marriage debate is ended by the Franklin.20

The knight in the Wife of Bath’s Tale, as noted above,
addresses the ugly old woman as ye when they meet first
because of her greater age (III,1008). After they marry,
however, he switches into thou (III,1100) from his previous
use of ye, whereas the woman addresses him continuously as
ye. An extreme example of this subordinate position of the
wife in marriage is well described in the Clerk’s Tale in
which the obedient Griselda always addresses her husband,
Walter, as ye with the respectful title lord and always
receives thou and her personal name from her husband, even
though Walter addresses her by the honorific-polite ye
during the test. In the same way, in the Merchant’s Tale,
January addresses his wife as thou while his wife May uses
ye to her husband. Even when he addresses his wife in the
elevated poetic language of the Song of Solomon, he still
uses thou:

The turtles voys is herd, my dowve sweete;

The wyntwe is goon with alle his reynes weete

Com forth now, with thyne eyen columbyn.

(IV,2139-41)
The above examples all show the inferior position of women
in the marriage relationship, as was commomly accepted at
the time.
However, contrary to the conventional use of the

pronoun in marriage relations, in the Wife of.Bath’s Tale
the Wife of Bath concentrates upon the conditions for a

successful married life. She preaches that the superiority

 

 

 

 

of t
the
tow;

OPP‘

dom
mar
beg

to

 

41
of the wife is the essential condition for success. Through

the use of thou to her husbands she sets up her antagonism
toward the antifeminists. She is portrayed as a radical
opponent of inherited values, whereas Griselda's behaviour
is seen as the result of social determinism in a male-.
dominated society. Thus, Chaucer’s advice for a successful
marriage is given in the Franklin’s Tale, where at the

beginning the knightly husband, Arveragus, promises always

 

 

to obey his wife, Dorigen, just like a lover in the courtly

love tradition, while his wife also promises to be his

 

"humble trewe wife "(V,758). In his Tale the Franklin tries

to show the ideal relations between a man and wife, based on

 

a reconciliation between the convention of courtly love and
the terms of a workable marriage through the use of ye to
each other; C. Hugh Holman (1951) finds Chaucer applauding
the wisdom of Dorigen and Averagus in abandoning ’maistrie’
to arrive at a deep rich love.

Even though social status, age and learnedness are all
factors which help set the norm of use for the honorific-
polite ye, the most important factor affecting the usage of
the honorific-polite ye is morality. The use of the

honorific—polite ye in moral situations is dependent upon

 

 

 

the speaker's judgment of the addressee’s moral purity. The
use of the honorific-polite ye based on the determination of
morality often takes precedence over every other factor.
Chaucer, in particular, put the first priority on morality

in his poetry, which makes his poetry didactic, based upon

 

 

 

 

the

8813

Pa]

10‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

42
the judgement and approval of the many Pilgrims, but

especially the Host. .

When the Host in the Canterbury Tales calls upon the
Parson for a story, he uses thou because of the Parson’s
lower social position at that period:

...artow a vicary,

Or arte a person? Sey sooth, by thy fey.

Be what thou be, ne breke thou nat oure pley,

For every man save thou hath toold his tale.

Unbokele and shewe us what is in thy male,

For trewely me thynketh by thy cheree

Thou sholdest knytte up wel a greet mateere.

Telle us a fable anon, for cokkes bones!
(X,22-29)

However, after the Parson says he will not tell a fable but
rather give a sermon, the Host is impressed and switches
into the honorific-polite ye out of respect for the Parson’s
morality:

Sire preest,...now faire yow bifalle!

Telleth,...youre meditacioun.

But hasteth yow, the sonne wole adoun;

Beth fructuous and that in litel space,

And to do wel God sende yow his grace.

Sey what yow list, and we wol gladly heere.
(X,68-73)

The opposite case is shown in the way the Host addresses the
Monk. He first addresses the Monk as ye, because of the
latter’s higher social status. However, since the Monk
shows that he is not morally upright, the Host uses thou to

the Monk:

I vow to God, thou hast a ful fair skyn;
It is a gentil pasture ther thow goost.
Thou art nat lyk a penant or a goost.
Upon my feith, thou art som officer.

Som worthy sexteyn, or som celerer,

For by my fader soule, as to my doom
Thou art a maister whan thou art at hoom,
No poure cloysterer ne no novys,

 

 

 

{DI

And he
rever1
previ
moral
unfit
Monk
succe
or t<
manu
This

guis

Lat
hig

ten

agt

P0

43
But a governour, wily and wys,

And therwithal of brawnes and of bones,
A wel farynge persone for the nones.
(VII,1932-42).
And he continues using thou to the line VII,1951. Though he
reverts to ye again, the first shift to thou from the
previous ye shows the Host’s attitude towards the low
.morality of the Monk. The Monk lives a lusty life,

unfitting a monk, and thus he loses the Host’s respect. The

 

Monk is also described in the General Prologue as a worldly
successful man who sees no reason to stick to his Cloister
or to follow the dull routine of prayer, study, fasting, and'
manual labor which should be his primary responsibility.

I This rebuke by the Host is subtle and delivered under the
guise of "murye word" starting with the customary ye:

But, by my trouthe, I knowe nat youre name.

What shal I calle yow my lord daun John,

Or daun Thomas, or elles daun Albon?

Of what hous be ye, by youre fader kyn?

(VII,1928-31)
Later, however, the Host reverts to ye again because of the
higher status of the Monk. This is a case in which morality
temporarily takes precedence over social status.

Sometimes religious morality also takes precedence over
age as well. A good example can be taken from the elegy
poem Pearl in which, in the vision form favored by medieval
writers, the dreamer—father laments the death of his two
year-old-daughter, Pearl. In this poem the spiritual
daughter, who is now in the position of teacher is

considered the superior of her worldly father who is in the

position of her pupil, though the dreamer-father uses thou

   

 

to h
rela
daug
thn

OPP

 

 

44
to his daughter Pearl when the topic concerns their worldly

relationship. The ordinary relationship between father and
daughter is reversed because of Pearl’s death and shown
through her continual use of thou toward her father, as
opposed to her father's use of ye toward her.

The Pilgrim Franklin also switches from thou to ye to
the young Squire, the Knight's son, when he learns of the
Squire’s impressive accomplishments. At first he had
addressed the Squire with thou because of his young age
(V,686). After hearing the Squire, however, the Franklin//
thinks of his own son, and the comparison between the two
young men is very much to his son's disadvantage, so he uses
ye out of respect:

I have a sone, and by the Trinitee,

I hadde levere than twenty pound worth lond,

though it right now were fallen in myn hond,

He were a man of swich discrecioun.

(V,682—85)
Each poet’s concept of morality relates to the issue which
each considers most important, gentilesse for Chaucer and
cortasye for the Gawainepoet. For Chaucer, gentilesse is a
moral ideal, independent of external social rank. It is
personally chosen, and evinced in personal behavior. With
respect to gentilesse, moral superiority sometimes also
takes precedence over gender in the marital relationships.
The Knight in the Wife of‘Bath’s Tale addresses his wife

with the honorific-polite ye instead of his customary thou,

(the conventional address of husband to wife—as I explained

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

earlier)
gentile:
1]
Chi
An.
I
F0
The ma:
Grisel<

NWhen

her fa

His u:
Grisei
for h
his h
he me

to he

45
earlier), after he is impressed by her sermon about

gentilesse:

I put me in youre wise governance;
Cheseth youreself which may be moost plesance
And moost honour to yow and me also.
I do no fors the wheither of the two,
For as yow liketh it suffiseth me.
(III,1231-35)

 

 

The marquis in the Clerk’s Tale addresses the peasant-girl

Griselda by the honorific-polite ye when he first meets her

 

("Where is youre fader, o Griseldis? "), though he uses to

her father the conventional pronoun thou:

 

If that thou vouche sauf, what so bityde,
Thy doghter wol I take, er that I wende,
As for my wyf, unto hir lyves ende.
(IV,306-8)
His use of ye to his social inferior, the peasant-girl
Griselda, reflects the admiration he had already developed
for her when he had observed her from afar ("commendynge in
his herte hir wommanhede,/ And eek hir vertu"). And after
he marries her, he continues using the honorific-polite ye
to her while he is testing her fidelity to him:
I seye, Grisilde, this present dignitee,
In which that I have put yow, asd I trowe,
Maketh yow nat foryetful for to be

That I yow took in povre estaat ful lowe,
For any wele ye moot youreselves knowe.(IV,470-74)

 

He sometimes switches into thou which is the conventional
pronoun from husband to wife, though W.W. Skeat explains in
his works of Geoffrey Chaucer, "it is a slight but
significant sign of insult, offered under pretense of
reporting the opinion of others."21 Finally, Walter uses

only thou in addressing her:

 

iIII...-IIIIIIIIII-I---——

 

 

dvaHwO—a

And he
exclu
usage
'mark
pronc
shoul
prev:
insu
Cler

that

Sum
sec
Fr;
boa

my

 

 

46

This is ynogh, Grisilde myn,...

Be now namoore agast ne yvele apayed.

I have thy feith and thy benyngnytee

As wel as evere womman was assayed,

In greet esaat and pourliche arrayed.

Now knowe I, dere wyf, thy stedfastnesse.

(IV,1051-56)
And he continues thou to the end of the story. This
exclusive use of thou is a great contrast to the previous
usage of ye. Considering that the singular-polite ye is
’marked' for politeness, and thou is the norm of usage for a
pronoun to a wife from a husband: then, the use of thou
should be interpreted in that context. Therefore, the
previous thous in the same story cannot be a ’sign of
insultL’ Rather, through the alternation of ye and thou the
Clerk, the teller of the Tale, emphasizes Griselda’s virtue,
that is, her patience in the marriage relationship.

The speaker’s own morality affects whether he judges
the addressee as his superior, revealing the willingness of
the speaker to use the socially polite and acceptable form
of the second person pronoun when the speaker feels that it
is otherwise inappropriate.

The Pilgrim Friar shows in his tale that the Pilgrim
Summoner is stupid and vicious through his choice of the
second singular pronoun ye or thou. The summoner in the
Friar’s Tale addresses the devil as ye when the latter
boasts of his great wealth saying "I have gold and silver in
my cheste":

"Brother," quod he, "where is now youre dwellyng

Another day if that I sholde yow seche?"
(III,1410-ll)

 

 

 

 

 

 

because
wealth
19). E
streltt
into t
summon
wealth
judgme
honori
super
think

best

to tl
"I at
beca
evil
meet
chat
the
for

wit

47
because he thinks the devil is his superior in terms of

wealth and then he continues with the polite ye (III,1417—
19). But later, when the devil says "My wages been ful
streite and ful smale" (III,1426), the summoner switches
into thou: "tel me thanne thy name" (III,1444). The
summoner switches thou and ye depending on the addressee’s
wealth. If the addressee is rich, (which is the speaker’s
judgment by the former's words) the summoner uses the
honorific-polite ye because he thinks the addressee is his
superior. In the same way, he switches into thou when he
thinks the addressee is poor, and thus, his inferior, or at
best his equal.

The same summoner in the story also uses the polite ye
to the devil when the latter identifies himself as a fiend:
"I am a feend; my dwellyng is in helle...."(III, 1448),
because he thinks that the devil is his superior in terms of
evil. In contrast, the summoner uses thou when he at first
meets the devil, because he appears to be but an ordinary
character. By using the honorific-polite ye to the devil
the summoner shows his low morality because of his respect
for wealth and evil. For Chaucer wealth has nothing to do
with gentillesse. Thus the Pilgrim Friar’s intention is to
betray the Pilgrim Summoner's vice, shown by his respect for
wealth and evil, and his stupidity, shown by his judging a
person (here the devil) by his appearance and words. The
Friar Pilgrim does so by having the summoner in his tale

switch between the honorific-polite ye and the familiar thou

 

 

as he n
devil.
H<
difflc
becaus
togeth
class
the Ge
highe:

moral

shown
Summc
tell:
Host
Chau
Mill
know
tel]
coux
to
Pro

dis

Pi]
br:

Pr

 

 

48
as he makes different assumptions when he speaks to the

devil.

However, there are many occasions on which it is
difficult to decide which factor has priority over another,
because in this period social class and morality often go

together, that is, high class peOple are moral while lower

.class people are immoral. For example, as Chaucer shows in

the General Prologue, the Pilgrim Knight, who belongs to the
highest social station is described as a man of perfect
morality: "He was a verray, parfit gentil knyght" (1,72).
The lower class is assumed to have a lower morality, as
shown in the characters of the Miller, the Reeve, the
Summoner and the Shipman. The Miller is rough and rude; he
tells his tale without being asked and in spite of the
Host’s urging him to wait; he quarrels with the Reeve.
Chaucer apologizes in advance for any indecency in the
Miller’s Tale by saying that the "Millere is a cherl, ye
knowe wel this” and therefore as a matter of course, he will
tell "a cherle’s tale in his manere." The Reeve, who is a
counterpart to the Miller, has become the manager or bailiff
to some great landowner. He is described in the General
Prologue as an unattractive lean man of unpleasant
disposition (’a sclendre colerik man’). The Summoner, who
is one of the most loathsome and dangerous of all the
pilgrims, is an example of moral corruption. He receives
bribes and will let a potential prisoner remain free to

practice licentiousness if his "palm is well oiled."

 

 

And t
. ye tc
refus
tell:

LolL

detl

the

has
vi!

SO(

di

B,

 

 

49
And this is why the Host does not use the honorific-polite

ye to him. The Shipman is also anything but devout when he
refuses to listen to a tale from the parson. When the Host
tells the whole company "we schal han a predicacioun/ This
Lollere herre wil prechen us somwhat," the Shipman says:22

Nay, by my fader soule, that schal he nat.

...he shal nat preche.

He shal no gospel glosen here ne teche.

We leven alle in the grete God.

(II,1168-80)
So, the choice of the honorific-polite ye is in part
determined by the speaker’s perception of the morality of
the addressee.

Though medieval society was rigidly divided on the
basis of class, this division leads to a conception of
virtues and vices which is neither purely ethical nor purely
social, but a mixture of the two. However, Chaucer also
shows that external status has nothing to do with gentilesse
as the Parson and Plowman are good examples of gentilesse in
spite of their low social status. Chaucer most explicitly
dissociates gentilesse from rank or degree in the Wife of
Bath’s Tale to show that those of noble birth like the
Knight in the Tale do not always behave nobly:

And nel hymselven do no gentil dedis

Ne folwen his gentil auncestre that deed is,

He nys nat gentil, be he duc or erl,

(III,1155-57)
And noble behavior is not confined to the aristocracy, which
is what the Franklin argues in his Tale.23

As all the above examples have shown, the honorific-

polite ye is chosen when the social status is higher for the

 

 

 

 

 

 

address
believe
reverse
appropi
provid
necess
This 1

not CC

ye to
struc

these

spea
Howe
ratl
the
ove
the

hum

ab

 

50
addressee, but that choice may be set aside if the speaker

believes that the addressee is of a lower moral status. The
reverse seems true also, namely that the familiar thou,
apprOpriate for subordinates, can be replaced with ye,
provided the speaker believes the addressee has great (not
necessarily superior) qualities of virtue and morality.
This latter use then would be complimentary because it is
not common.

Through the asymmetrical use of the honorific-polite
ye to superiors, we can see not only the hierarchical
structure of the society but also the moral lessons which

these poets want to impart to the audience or the reader.

The humble-polite ye:

The polite ye is also used to show humility on the
speaker's part regardless of the status of the addressee.
However, this humble-politeness is focused on the speaker
rather than the addressee who is exalted through the use of
the honorific—polite ye. Humble-politeness might be
overlapped with the first category, honorific-politeness, in
the sense that the addressee could be also exalted. Yet, in
humble-politeness the speaker humbles himself regardless of
his status in relation to the addressee.

Good examples can be taken from the lover’s use of_ye
in courtly love. Courtly love demands an attitude of

abject, patient adoration on the part of the male lover as a

 

 

 

 

serva

but n

of T1
love
spit
the

and

ext]
dam

Hec

 

 

 

 

 

- 51
servant, though the lady's use of ye is not humble-polite

but neutral-polite, which I will explain a little later.

In Troilus and Criseyde, which depicts the courtly love
of Troilus and Criseyde, Troilus consistently addresses his
love Criseyde as ye with several exceptions of thou 24 in
spite of her inferior position in social rank. Troilus is
the King’s son and Criseyde is the former wife of a nobleman
and the daughter of a priest. Criseyde is not only in an
extremely precarious social position but also she is the
daughter of a/traitor and in need of the protection of
Hector in order to maintain any position in Trojan society
at all.

In the same way, Chaucer emphasizes the abjectness of
the male courtly lover in the Knight’s Tale by having his
characters observe the norm of the usage of the humble-
polite ye. In the Knight’s Tale the courtly lover Arcite
addresses his love, Emelye as ye in his long speech when he
is dying (1,2765-96). Unlike the other Tales in which the
convention of the honorific-polite ye is observed, the
Knight’s Tale which is all about courtly love has no
honorific—polite ye where it would be expected. For
example, the Duke, Theseus, who occupies the highest
position in the court, is usually addressed as thou by his
inferiors, including women, and Arcite and Palamon. Arcite

uses ye to his lady in the courtly situation and Duke

Theseus also uses ye to his sister Emelye and even to

 

Palam<

addre:

And

 

 

52
Palamon, to whom otherwise thou would be used. First he

addresses his sister Emelye:

Suster, this is my fulle assent,

With al th’avys heere of my parlement,

That gentil Palamon, youre owene knyght,

And ever hath doon syn ye first hym knewe,

That ye shul of youre grace upon hym rewe,

And taken hym for housbobde and for lord.

Lat se now of youre wommanly pitee.

He is a kynges brother sone, pardee

And though he were a poure bacheler,

Syn he hath served yow so many a yeer,

And had for yow so greet adversitee,

It moste been considered, leeveth me,

For gentil mercy oghte to passen right.
(1,3075-89)

And then to Palamon:

I trowe ther nedeth litel sermonyng

To make yow assente to this thyngu

Com neer, and taak youre lady by the hond.
(I,3091-93)

 

In the Knight’s Tale all characters observe the convention
of the humble-polite ye though the honorific—polite ye is
not observed, suggesting that the narrator (and Chaucer)
intend to emphasize the humility of the courtly lover and
his situation.

In the scene of imitation of courtly love this humble-
polite ye is also employed, which heightens the ironic
effect of the passage. In the Miller’s Tale "on the
fateful night," the vain parish clerk, love-sick Absalon
addresses his beloved Alisoun as ye:

What do ye, honycomb, sweete Alisoun,

My faire bryd, my sweete cynamome?

Awaketh, lemman myn, and speketh to me!

Wel litel thynken ye upon my wo,

That for youre love I swete ther I go.

This 5
since
Befor(

’quit

By us
Mille
love
from

char

cou:
spe
par
hin

Kni

 

 

 

 

53
This scene could be interpreted as parody of courtly love

since his customary pronoun to her is thou (I,3766,3771).
Before he tells his story, the Miller promised that he would
'quit' the Knight’s Tale which was about courtly love:

By arms, and by blood and bones,

I kan a noble tale for the nones,

With which I wol now quite the Knyghtes tale.

(I,3125-27)

By using the humble-polite ye like a courtly lover, the
Miller might think his story is also considered as a courtly
love story. Thus the irony of the Miller’s Tale "results
from the application of a courtly vocabulary to an inelegant
character or situation."25

The humble-polite ye, besides being used by the
courtly lover, is also used to show the personality of the
speaker in Chaucer and the Gawain-poet. The Gawain-poet in
particular shows his hero’s, Gawain's, humility by having
him use the humble-polite ye to his addressee, the Green
Knight. Though Gawain’s customary pronoun to the Green
Knight is thou, he switches to the humble-polite ye when he
feels humility. After he fails in the challenge to the
Green Knight, he feels humility and confesses his fault with
the use of the humble-polite ye to the Green Knight:

I biknowe yow, kny3t, here stylle,

Al fawty is my fare,

Letez me ouertake your wylle

And efte I schal be ware.

(2385-88)

Chaucer also uses the humble—polite ye to show his

characters’ personalities. For example, among all the

Pilgrims the Friar and the Franklin are described as the men

 

who mi

usage

necee
Summc
Pilq

Prol

In I
the

hum

inf

 

 

54
who most want to give a good impression to others; their

usage of the humble-polite ye reflects this desire.

The Pilgrim Friar can be as courteous and humble as
necessary when it profits him to be so. The friar in the
Summoner’s Tale uses ye to layman Thomas, which reflects the
Pilgrim Friar's character as described in the General
Prologue:

And over al ther as profit sholde arise

Curteis he was and lowly of servyse.

(1,249-50)

In his Tale the Pilgrim Summoner here also intends to insult
the Pilgrim Friar by the friar’s hypocritical use of the
humble-polite ye. Thus the Pilgrim Summoner has the friar
in his Tale use the humble-polite ye to Thomas, who is his
inferior, to humble himself whenever he needs to do so:

What nedeth yow diverse freres seche?

What nedeth hym that hath a parfit leche

To sechen othere leches in the toun?

Youre inconstance is youre conquioun.

Holde ye thanne me, or elles oure covent,

To pray for yow been insufficient?

Thomas, that jape nys nat worth a myte.

Youre maladye is for we han to lyte.
(III,1955-62

The friar also uses the humble—polite ye in other places:
(III,1976—1984; 1999-2000). The friar, however, will
usually in the same conversation put himself in a superior
position by switching from the humble-polite ye to thou.
This can be seen when he is preaching to the same person,

Thomas:

Nere thou oure brother, sholdest nat thryve.
In oure chapitre praye we day and nyght

 

 

To
Th3

Th!

Th‘

The Pil
General
II

S<

The Pi
' second
.hypocr
1

whom ]
Cheri
addre

cont:

highs

Fran]

To t

Con:
surj
Who
hum

be

 

 

 

55
To Crist that thee sende heele and myght

Thy body for to weelden hastily.
(III,1944-46).
Thomas, of me thou shalt nat been yflatered;
Thou woldest han oure labour al for noght.
(III,1970-71)
The Pilgrim Friar’s language skill is also mentioned in the
General Prologue:
In alle the orders foure is noon that kan
So muchel of daliaunce and fair langage.
‘ (I,210~11)
The Pilgrim Summoner shows through the friar’s usage of the
second pronoun that the friar in his Tale shares
hypocritical humility with the Pilgrim Friar.

In the same way, the Franklin uses ye to the Host,
whom he wants to impress with his gentilesse towards the
cherl26 who treats him as inferior. Thus the Franklin
addresses the Host as ye, and the latter uses thou to him,
contrary to the normal usage, since the Franklin is of
higher status than the Host.27 When the Host calls on the

Franklin for a tale, he uses thou:

Telle on thy tale withouten wordes mo.
(V,702)

To this the Franklin replies with the humble-polite ye:
Gladly, sire Hoost,...I wole obeye
Unto youre wyl. Now herkneth what i seye.
(V,703-4)
Considering the Franklin’s aspiring to gentilesse, it is no
surprise that he would show his humility even to the person
who insulted him.28 As A. C. Spearing puts it, this

humility, almost "an obsequiousness" towards the Host, can

be seen as "an exaggerated parody of gentil behaviour" (10).

 

In tr
marrf
use 1
conv'
sect
is 5
wife
of V
the
pro
cou
tre
p0]
em}
ke

si

ar
L15

MI

hf +fi. ‘5

56
In the same way, in his Tale he shows humility even in

marriage relationships by having a husband (here Arveragus)
use the humble-polite ye to his wife instead of the
conventional use of thou. As I explained in the first
section of this chapter on honorific-politeness, the husband
is supposed to be addressed by his wife as ye whereas the
wife is addressed as thou, reflecting the inferior position
of women in the society of the period. At the beginning of
the Franklin’s Tale, the knightly husband, Arveragus,
promises always to obey his wife, Dorigen, just like a
courtly lover, and his wife also promises to be his "humble
trewe wife." Thus they address each other with the humble-
polite ye in order to have a happy marriage. Chaucer

emphasizes humility, as a great virtue in the period as the

 

 

 

0

key to a happy marriage through the use of the second person
singular pronoun ye.

Besides the two Pilgrims, the Friar and the Franklin,
another Pilgrim, the Merchant, shows humility through the
use of the humble-polite pronoun ye in his Tale. In the
Merchant’s Tale January addresses his two brothers, Justinus
and Placebo with two different pronouns. He uses thou to

his one brother, Justinus, according to the conventions.

 

However, he switches into ye when he speaks to his other

 

brother, Placebo, who is not his superior in any of the
categories of status. As his name alludes, Placebo flatters
January by telling January only what will please him.

Placebo means 'I shall please.’ Thus January wants to show

   

 

his 1
humb.
infe
advi
conv

man .

The

Pie

He
he
'us

b1

 

 

 

 

 

,l__g
57

his humility to his younger brother, Placebo, by using the
humble-polite ye even though the latter is younger and
inferior in social rank. After he listens to Justinus’s
advice, with which he is not satisfied, January uses the
conventional thou to Justinus, whose name means 'the just
man.’ First he says to Justinus, using thou:

Wel, and hastow ysayd?

Straw for thy Senek, and for thy proverbs.

I counte nat a panyer ful of herbes

Of scole-terms. Wyser men than thow,

As thou hast herd, assenteden right now

To my purpos.

(IV,1566—1571)
/

Then he switches into ye when he shifts his speech to
Placebo:

Placebo, what sey ye? (IV,1571)
Here January shows a humble attitude towards Placebo,
because he is content with his words. Otherwise he would
'use thOu to Placebo, just as he does to his other younger
brother, Justinus. Through January’s use of the humble-
polite ye to Placebo we can see not only the personality of
the speaker in the story, January, who believes only what he
wants, but also the personality of the teller of the Tale,
Pilgrim Merchant who lacks the wisdom to know what is true

and the humility to accept it.

 

Thus the humble-polite ye is frequently used to show
the speaker’s humility towards the addressee regardless of
the latter's social status, learnedness, age, sex and

morality, though some of these uses are hypocritical.

 

 

addre
used
addri
infe
one
pror
spe:
neui
to
and
shc

be

th

ho

PC

 

 

 

58
The neutral-polite Ye:

Besides showing respect or humility towards the
addressee, the second person singular pronoun ye is also
used by the upper classes as a neutral, unemotional form of
address between social equals or sometimes even to
inferiors, whereas the lower classes normally use thou to
one another. In other words the second person singular
pronoun ye is employed to maintain social distance between
speaker and addressee.‘ This category will be called
neutral-politeness. Since the use of the plural pronoun ye
to indicate only one person is influenced by the use of ’tu’
and 'vous' in French literature,29 its usage in this way
shows that the speaker belongs to the high class or wants to
be regarded as such.

' This neutral-polite ye shows the respectful attitude of
the speaker but does not exalt the addressee as the
honorific—polite ye, or humble the speaker as the humble-
polite ye. In other words, the neutral-polite ye is used as
a distancing device. First, the neutral-polite ye is used
to a stranger whereas the pronoun thou is used to a familiar
person. The Gawain-poet uses the neutral—polite ye to show
the speaker’s courtesy towards the addressee who is a
stranger. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight Gawain
constantly uses the polite ye to Sir Bercilak who returns
his polite address. Gawain also uses the neutral—polite ye

in response to Bercilak’s neutral—polite address. When

 

 

 

Berci

polit

Gawa

Howe
usir
Gret
the
tho
rev
Gav
pre
Gn
pe
th

 

 

59
Bercilak sees Gawain in his court, he addresses Gawain

politely by using the neutral-polite ye:
3e are welcum to welde as yow lykez
pat here is; al is yowre awen,
to haue at yowre wylle and welde (835-37)

Gawain replies to this by the use of the neutral-polite ye:

Graunt mercy,...
per Kryst hit yow for3elde.(838-39)

However, the Green Knight shows himself as a rude knight by
using thou to King Arthur and Gawain when he appears as the
Green Knight at the court of King Arthur.' In contrast to
the rude attitude in Arthur’s court through the use of the
thou to King Arthur and Gawain, in his own court, Bercilak
reveals himself as the man of good birth by addressing
Gawain by ye although he sometimes slips into the normal
previous thou. This ’slip’ helps identify Bercilak as the
Green Knight. The Green Knight shows a different-
personality before and after he identifies himself through
the different use of the second singular personal pronouns
ye and thou. Before he identifies himself to Gawain, he
always uses thou to Gawain, as he had done as the Green
Knight in Arthur’s court. After he reveals himself to
Gawain, however, he shows courtesy by keeping the usage
convention of the neutral polite pronoun ye. Another
example of the neutral-polite ye to a stranger is seen in
the speech of the Pilgrim Knight. Even though a
hierarchical relationship is shown in the asymmetrical use
of vocatives, the Pilgrim Knight in the Canterbury Tales

uses ye to anyone he might be expected'to address. Because

 

of hi
party
the 1
birtl
nobil
Host
lowe
Pars
that
actt
pib
Coo

unm

sez
cow
lo
la

ht

 

 

 

 

60
of his social class, virtually every other member of the

party should be addressed as thou. This use of ye even to
the lower classes shows that the speaker is a man of good
birth. In contrast to the polite use of ye from the
nobility to the Host, the lower social orders address the
Host and one another as thou. The representatives of the
lower classes --the Cook, the Shipman, the Pardoner, the
Parson, and Chaucer the Pilgrim--all address the Host as
thou. They address one another as thou though there are
actual exchanges only between three pairs of lower class
pilgrims: the Reeve and the Miller, the Manciple and the
Cook, and the Cook and the Host. Therefore thou is the
unmarked normal form among lower class people.

Second, the neutral-polite ye is used to the opposite
sex. In contrast to the use of the humble-polite ye of the
courtly lover, the use of ye on the lady's part in courtly
love can be explained in terms of neutral politeness. The
lady in courtly love does not have to exalt her lover or
humble herself like the man in courtly love. The lady in
courtly loveis supposed to maintain a respectable distance
from the lover by using the neutral-polite pronoun ye.

In Troilus and Criseyde Criseyde addresses Troilus by
the neutral-polite ye with three exceptions of petrified
phrases or contractions.30 Criseyde also uses the neutral—
polite ye to Diomede who, in turn addresses her with the

humble-polite ye according to the norm of courtly love.

 

soci

Dori
her
Dor
Aur
I w

AS

Th

b1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

61
In the Franklin’s Tale Dorigen addresses Aurelius, her

social inferior who falls in love with her by ye:

'Is this youre wil,’ quod she,’and sey ye thus?

Nevere erst,’ quod she,’ne wiste I what ye mente.’

(V,980-81)

Dorigen’s use of the polite ye to her social inferior shows
her good manners to any one regardless of his status.
Dorigen also addresses Aurelius by his name, whereas
Aurelius addresses her by the honorific title madame, which
I will explain further in the next chapter on vocatives.
As Arthur Kennedy explains regarding this neutral-polite ye:

...by the time of Crestien de Troyes (c.1170), the

plural form is commonly employed between equals as well

as to superiors as a sign of good breeding.( 23-24)
The use of the neutral-polite can be a marker of good
breeding.

The neutral-polte ye is also used in formal or public
situations while the other second pronoun thou is used in
informal or intimate situations. Unless the relationship
between speaker and addressee is intimate or close, the
speaker wants to be polite to the addressee regardless of
the social status of the addressee by using the polite
singular pronoun ye.

Thus the neutral-polite ye can be an indicator of

 

formality. The neutral-politeness has the same function as

that of formality in the sense that both politeness and

formality convey a sense of distance, though politeness and

formality are in principle different. Leech and Short

(1980) point out that a formal style is associated with the

 

distanc
best be

address

mwee

By usi
superi
rathe1
polit«
situa
the a
Crise
of be
main‘

he i

wisi

pol:

EXh1

Th:

 

62
distance of serious public communication of language "on its

best behaviour."32 In the Franklin’s Tale, the Clerk
addresses his servant-squire by the neutral—polite ye:

To him this maister called his squire,

And seyde him thus: ’15 redy oure soper?

Almoost an houre it is, I undertake,

Sith I yow bad oure soper for to make.’

(V,1209-12)

By using the neutral-polite pronoun ye to his social
superior the philosopher wants to keep the situation formal
rather than private. Unlike the other categories of
politeness, the speaker uses the neutral-polite ye in public
situations even if the relationship between the speaker and
the addressee is close and intimate. In Troilus and
Criseyde Pandarus uses ye to his niece, Criseyde, in spite
of being her elder relative. This reflects his wish to
maintain the impression that he is of good breeding and that
he is aware of it.33

However, he switches into thou to Criseyde when he
wishes to emphasize intimacy as her uncle rather than
politeness as her uncle. One occasion occurs when he is
exhorting her to accept the attentions of Troilus:

And also thenk wel that this is no gaude;

For me were levere thow and I and he

Were hanged than I sholde be his baude,

As heygh as men myghte on us alle yse.

I am thyn em; the shame were to me

As wel as the, yf that i sholde assente

Thorough myn abet that he thyn honour shente.

(II,351—57)

The other occasion on which he addresses Criseyde as thou is

when h'
she is

and Tr

_ _._4 dc‘f‘ 3

Here

cases
reini
polit

form:

the
the
that
reci

frie

add

pub

In
cox

C0]

 

63
when he is trying to comfort Criseyde after she learns that

she is to be exchanged for Antenor and thus must leave Troy
and Troilus.

"And thow, my suster, ful of discomfort,"

Quod Pandarus, "what thynkestow to do?

Whi ne hastow to thiselven som resport?

Whi woltow thus thiselve, allas, fordo?

Lef al this werk, and take now hede to

That I shal seyn, and herkene of good entente

This which by me thi Troylus the sente."

. (IV,848-54)

Here he is in the role of a compassionate uncle. In both
cases the close relationship between niece and uncle is
reinforced by the use of thou instead of the distancing
polite address ye except for purpose of rhyme and petrified
forms.32

Thus, the pronoun thou is used among the high class if
the situation calls for intimacy rather than politeness. In
the Knight’s Tale, the two knights, Palamon and Arcite, use
thou to each other from the beginning to the end. This
reciprocal use of thou consistently shows their close
friendship.

In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight King Arthur
addresses his wife Guinevere, with neutral-polite ye in
public:

Dere dame, to-day demay yow neuer;(470)
In private Arthur would be expected to use thou to her, the

conventional usage of the second pronoun to the wife. In

contrast to the use of the polite ye in public, the knights

in Arth
pa

In Sir

to the

'14me

with

By hi
love,
from
reve;

of p

alte

com

And
40)
alt

CO]

 

64 -
in Arthur’s court address each other as thou in private:

...Bi Kryst, hit is scape
pat pou, leude, schal be lost, pat art of lyf noble!
' (675)
In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight Gawain invariably uses ye
to the Lady:

Iwisse, worpy,...3e haf waled wel better,

Bot I am proude of pe prys pat 3e put on me,

And, soberly your seruaunt, my souerayn I holde yow,

And yowre kny3t I becom, and Kryst yow for3elde.

(1276—80)
with a single exception for alliteration:34
Now iwysse,...I wolde I hade here
be leuest ping for/by luf pat I in londe welde,
(1801-02)

By his continuous use of ye in a situation of non-courtly
love, Gawain shows not only that he wants to keep distance
from the Lady who is trying to tempt him, but he also
reveals himself as a courteous knight who observes the norms
of politeness.

In contrast with Gawain’s use of ye, the Lady
alternates between the neutral—polite ye and the
conventional thou. She begins with the neutral-polite ye:

God moroun, Sir Gawayn,

3e ar a sleper vnsly3e, pat mon may slyde hider;

Now ar 3e tan as-tyt! Bot true vus may schape,

I schal bynde yow in your bedde, pat be 3e trayst’

(1208-1211)
And she continues this ye over more than thirty lines (1223—
40). Then she switches into thou (1250) and subsequently

alternates between ye and thou until the end of the

conversation in their first meeting.

Int

The
bef
Thi
int
Ga!
po
Ga
ta
cc

b2

 

65
In the second encounter, the Lady begins with the

polite ye and uses it constantly, except for one thou:
Sir, 3if 3e be Wawen, wonder me pynkkez,
Wy3e pat is so wel wrast alway to god,
And if mon kennes yow hom to knowe, 3e kest hom of
youre mynde;
pou hatz for3eten 3ederly pat 3isterday I ta3tte
Bi alder-truest token of talk pat I cowpe.

(1481-86)
In the third encounter she begins with thou:

A! mon, how may pou slepe,
bis morning is so clere? (1746)

Then switches into the polite ye and uses it until shortly
before her departure, when she once again lapses into thou.
This alternation can be explained in terms of formality and
intimacy. The Lady is trying various means of tempting
Gawain, switching back and forth between familiarity and
politeness. Through the use of thou, the Lady invites
Gawain to do the same and to allow their relationship to
take on intimacy rather than formality. However, Gawain’s
continuous use of ye forces her to return their conversation
back to a more formal level, so she switches back to the
polite ye.

In Troilus and Criseyde Pandarus distinguishes the

public situation from the private one by using the different

pronouns to the same person. Troilus and Pandarus address

each other as thou from Book I through Book V, which

reflects their close relationship as friends in spite of

their different social rank. However, Pandarus always

switches into ye in the presence of others, that is, in a

public situation. Besides the use of the honorific—polite

ye to T
Troilu
Troilu

Helen,

And a

Chauc
Tale.
meet:
his
poli
the
firs

pol:

How

he

gi:

 

 

 

66
ye to his social superior (I,553), Pandarus addresses

Troilus by the neutral-polite ye on formal occasions. When
Troilus is visited at his sickbed by Pandarus, Deiphebus and
Helen, Pandarus uses ye to Troilus:
And it youre will be,
That she may take hire leve, er that she go?
(III,1688-89)

And also in the presence of Criseyde Pandarus use ye again:

God do boot on alle syke!

Se who is here yow comen to visite.

(III,61-2)

Chaucer also uses the neutral-polite ye in the Summoner’s
Tale. The friar usually uses the neutral-polite ye when he
meets laymen regardless of their social status to show off
his good education or good manners. He uses the neutral-
polite ye not only to the the lord of the village he uses
the neutral-polite ye, but also to the lower class. When he
first meets the sick layman, Thomas, he uses the neutral-
polite ye:

"Thomas,...God yelde yow! ful ofte

Have I upon this bench faren ful weel

Heere have I eten many a myrie meel."

(III,1771-73)

However, the friar switches to thou in order to pretend to
be intimate with Thomas to achieve his purpose of receiving
gifts from him:

Thomas! Thomas! so moote I ryde or go,

And by that lord that clepid is Seint Yve,

Nere thou oure brother, sholdestou nat thryve.

In our chapitre praye we day and nyght

To Crist, that he thee sende heele and myght

Thy body for to weelden hastily.
(111, 1942-47)

 

 

Just
gift
swit

the

Tr
anc
Pa:
in'
wh

Pr

 

 

 

 

67
Just as the friar has pretended intimacy in order to obtain

gifts from Thomas, Thomas also pretends intimacy by
switching to thou from his customary ye in order to trick
the friar:

And in thyn hand thou shalt it have anon,

On this condicion, and oother noon,

That thou departe it so, my deere brother,

That every frere have also muche as oother,

This shaltou swere on thy professioun,

Withouten fraude or cavillacioun.

(III,2131—36)

Thomas and the friar use the second singular pronouns ye
and thou to show their hypocritical intentions.

Particularly, the friar uses the neutral-polite ye and the

 

intimate thou freely even in the same sentence, confirming
what is said about his language skill in the General
Prologue.

In the Second Nun’s Tale,-Cecilia addresses Almache
with the neutral-polite ye until the latter condemns her to
death. When Almache, an inquisitor, asks her using thou
("What maner womman artow? I axe thee though it thee
greeve,/ Of thy religioun and of thy bileeve.") she answers
him with the neutral-polite ye:

Ye han bigonne youre question folily,

...that wolden two answeres conclude

In 0 demande; ye lewedly.

(VIII,428-30)
However, she shifts into thou when Almache urges her to

renounce her religion on the pain of death:

...O nyce creature!
Thou seyest no word syn thou spak to me

This

Aime

the
sit1
as
oth
int
pri
sit
Sp.
to

sh

 

68
That I ne knew therwith thy nycetee;

And that thou were, in every maner wise,
A lewed officer and a veyn justise.
(VIII, 493-97)
This sudden shift from ye to thou shows Cecilia’s anger at
Almeche and thus her desire to insult him publicly.

Thus the use of the neutral-polite ye indicates that
the situation is formal, whereas its use in an inappropriate
situation can reveal the speaker's hypocritical intentions
as in the case of the friar in the Summoner’s Tale. On the
other hand, the use of conventional thou shows the close or
intimate relationship between speaker and addressee in
private or informal situation. But thou in formal
situations can be interpreted as "impolite" showing the
speaker’s intention to insult the addressee or his contempt

towards the addressee like the example of Cecilia’s sudden

shift to thou in the Second Nun’s Tale.

The Sarcastic-polite ye:

Lastly, the polite-ye can also be chosen by the speaker
to satirize the addressee or something which the addressee
represents, such as his or her occupation, manner or
attitude. Because of its connotation of politeness in
appropriate situations, the singular pronoun ye as used in
unexpected situations can be sarcastic or ironic. In such
cases, the use of the polite ye can of be interpreted as an
intention to insult, which the addressee does not always
recognize. This will be called ’sarcastic—politeness.’

The use of ye can be interpreted by members of the

 

 

lower
throu
conve
the (
Manci
tell

poli

This
meal
mor
ina

be

whe

By
in

of

 

 

 

69
lower classes as abusive. Such degradation may come about

through the exploitive use of the polite ye in order to
convey insult, that is, through sarcastic politeness. In
the Canterbury Tales, the sarcastic-polite ye is used by the
Manciple to the Cook. When the Cook is drunk and cannot
tell a tale, the Manciple insults him through the use of the
polite ye:
...wol ye justen atte fan?
Therto me thynketh ye been wel yshape!
gI trowe that ye dronken han wyn ape,
And that is whan men pleyen with a straw.
(IX,42-45)
This polite form of address does not fit the Cook by any
means since the Cook is of lower status and has low
morality. Thus the use of the polite form ye in an
inappropriate situation such as to describe the Cook should
be interpreted as sarcastic. .
In the same way the Host rudely interrupts the Franklin

when the latter mentions the gentilesse to which he aspires.

"Straw for youre gentillesse!" quod oure Hoost.
(V,695)

By using the sarcastic-polite ye the Host shows his
impatience with the Franklin. As Spearing points out "fear
of an extended moral disquisition, either too private or too
abstract," is "the Host's main motive for his interruption"
(10). Therefore, the use of the polite pronoun ye (youre)
should be interpreted as a sarcastic comments on the
Franklin’s gentillesse. Otherwise the Host would use his

customary thou to him.

 

T
ye frC
her fi

husbax

And 5

The
sump
car1
(II
int
sum
it
(II
of

hi

 

 

 

 

 

70
The Wife of Bath in the Canterbury Tales switches into

ye from thou when she is being sarcastic, as in her words to
her first husband, though she usually uses thou to her
husbands in accordance with her theory of maistrie:

Sire olde kaynard, is this thyn array?

Why is my neighebores wyf so gay?

She is honoured over a1 ther she gooth;

I sitte at hoom; I have no thrifty clooth.

What dostow at my neighbores hous?

Is she so fair? Artow so amorous?

What rowne ye with oure mayde, benedicite?

(III,235-241)

And she goes on:

By this proverbe thou shalt understonde,

Have thou ynogh, what thar thee recche or care

How myrily that othere folkes fare?

For certeyn, olde dotard, by youre leve,

Ye shul have queynte right ynogh at eve.

(III,328-32)

The only time the devil in the Friar’s Tale uses ye to the
summoner provides another example of sarcasm. When the
carter says "The devel have al, bothe hors and cart and hey"
(III,1547), the summoner cannot tell what the carter
intends, that is, entente from what he says. After the
summoner says to the devil, "Hent it anon, for he hath yeve
it thee,/ Bothe hey and cart, and eek his caples thre"
(III,1553-54), the devil replies sarcastically with the use
of the polite ye, which pronoun does not befit the summoner,
his social inferior:

Heere may ye se, myn owene deere brother

The carl spak oon, but he thoghte another.

Lat us go forth abouten oure viage;

Heere wynne I nothyng upon cariage.
(III,1567-69)

 

 

The dev:
conside:
the inf
pronoun
the wor
"incorl
sarcasr
summon«
is to
addres
the Pi
stupic

in the

SECOI‘I
and t
Midd]
to p<
have

humb

pers
of t
of

cha
ana

abc

 

71
The devil otherwise uses thou to the summoner, whom he

considers his social inferior. Since the only pronoun to
the inferior is thou, Norman Nathan in his analysis of
pronouns of the Friar’s Tale concludes that the use of ye in
the words of devil is "a slip of Chaucer’s pen" and
"incorrect."35 Instead, it should be interpreted as a
sarcasm, showing contempt for the summoner, which the
summoner does not recognize, because the devil’s intention
is to mock the summoner with the respectful pronoun of
address, ye. Furthermore, it is evident that the narrator,
the Pilgrim Friar, intends to show the Pilgrim Summoner's
stupidity through the use of ye of the devil to the summoner
in the Tale

So far, I have examined the distinctive use of the two
second singular pronouns thou and ye in the works of Chaucer
and the Gawain-poet, who are fairly representative of late
Middle English literature. For this analysis, with respect
to polite speech, the second singular pronouns ye and thou
have been divided into four usage categories: honorific,
humble, neutral and sarcastic.

In Chaucer, many characters of all ranks show their
personality as well as their relationships through the use
of the marked pronoun ye. The Gawain-poet, however, because
of the setting of his poems, has a limited number of
characters of lower rank. Therefore, we cannot reliably
analyze the pronoun usage of the lower class in the society

about which he writes.

 

 

 

theme
char:
The :
lite.
conc
sing
inte
Engi
pol
the
cha
pol
val
Mi<
be
po
th

SE

i:

 

 

72
The two poets emphasize various aspects of their works-

themes, issues, personal relationships-by having their
characters observe and break the norms of pronoun usage.
The fact that thou was used in Late Middle English
literature as an unmarked form concurs with Stidston’s
conclusion that thou was still the natural second person
singular form in the fourteenth century. Therefore we can
interpret the usage of ye as a singular in these late Middle
English poems to be a consciously marked form for
politeness. The use of the polite ye as a marked form in
the Late Middle English period played a great role in
changing common usage. Through the use of the honorific-
polite, the humble—polite and the sarcastic-polite ye, the
value of that society reflects in the literature of late
Middle English. Because of the use of the neutral—polite ye
between equals among the high classes the usage of the
polite ye was imitated by those below them, and spread down
the social hierarchy.

Therefore, in the works of Chaucer and the Gawain poet,
special significance is attached to ye to emphasize their
issues or themes with respect to polite speech rather than
to thou which is still the norm of the second singular
pronoun. Thou is unmarked as a second singular pronoun but
it becomes marked when it is used where ye is expected, for
example, when a wife addresses her husband. In other words,
the ye—thou pair operates together. Thou takes on

"impolite" uses whereas ye takes on "polite" uses. Through

 

 

 

 

the pro
singula

polite:

73
the process of marked thou in early Modern English, the

singular ye could survive because of its use to connote_

politeness in the late Middle English period.

 

 

 

 

cen'

NOtES

 

lIn standard speech thou survives down to the 18th
century.

2As for phonological reasons for disappearance of thou,
linguistic changes in verb conjugations should be
considered. The verb form with thou is marked by an
inflectional ending -est in the present tense, whereas the
verb form with ye is not. The verb was unmarked for the
first person singular and plural; second and third person
plural; the third person singular, the ending was -eth. But
by the end of the 16C the ending -s was regularly appearing
in standard English, especially in informal registers,
apparently spread from the northern dialects; and after the
Restoration the -eth forms gradually disappear altogether.
In contrast to the rest of the verbal paradigm, -est must
appear increasingly archaic; and from the phonetic point of
view more unwieldly, since it demanded an extra syllable
(although syncope was common); and could result in
awkward clusters (revisitest; cf. also past tense
‘promisedst, etc.)

3The dual pronoun git did not survive beyond the
thirteenth century.(MUstanoja, Middle English Syntax, 1960)

4Hereafter , for simplicity, I will use ye for three
forms, ye, you and youre; thou for thou, thee and
thy(n).

5Arthur Garfield Kennedy, The Pronoun of Address in
English Literature of the Thirteenth Century (Stanford
University, 1915) p.23.

6Patricia E. Mason,"The Pronouns of Familiarity and
'Respect in the Roman de la Rose and its Middle English
Translation." Literary and Historical Perspectives of The
.Middle Ages.(1982) pp.66—75.

7William W. Evans, The second-person Pronoun in Sir
Gawain and the Green Knight, 1959 and "Dramatic Use of the
Second Person Singular Pronoun in Sir Gawain and the
Green Knight," Studia Neophilologica, 39 (1967), 38—45.

74

 

 

 

Anre

p.29

to c
81.

did
soc:

Cha
Acc
pos
Eng
Gre
be

whc

n01
n01

ob

RE

 

75

8Thomas Finkenstaedt, "You and Thou. Studien zur
Anrede im Englischen." Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963.

9Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language,
p.293.

10Angus McIntosh," 'As you like it’: a grammatical clue
to character." Review of English literature 4. 1963, pp68-
81.

 

11Country Parson’s social position was not high and
did not enjoy exalted social prestige in fourteenth century
society.

12Everett C. Johnston, " The pronoun of Address in
Chaucer’s Troilus," Language Quarterly (1962) vol.l,no.1
According to Johnston’s assumption, "Pandarus’ social
position was that of the lesser Nobility in Chaucer’s
England: that is, above the knightly class yet below the
Greater Nobility. In today's England Pandarus would perhaps
be a baron or Viscount. Since he was an uncle of Criseyde
who was the former wife of a nobleman and was the daughter
of a priest. Even if Criseyde's possible noble position did
not automatically give Pandarus the same position, he could
not be of the lower class considering he was a close friend
of Troilus."

 

l3Pandarus uses most of the time thou to Troilus, his
obvious social superior, out of close friendship.

14Allan A. Metcalf, "Sir Gawain and You" The Chaucer
Review, vol.5 no.3.(197l) pp. 165—178.

15Evans introduces Mabel Day’s suggestion which, in
turn, follows Gollancz’s theory.

16Evans, pp.122-128.

17There has been some discussion as to what the word
’franklin’ implied about a man's social status. It means
literally a freeholder, one who possesses land absolutely,
not temporarily or in return for dues or services. By the
fourteenth century it seems to have come to be the name of a
class of landowners below the class of the nobility and yet
roughly the equivalents of gentleman.(Gordon Hall Gerould,
"The Social Status of the Franklin," in Chaucerian Essays,
p.33) In some circumstances perhaps a franklin would be
thought the social equal of a knight or an esquire, but this
Franklin, evidently a rich country squire, is clearly
outside the magic circle of chivalry represented by the
Knight and his son.

 

Stui<

argul
creai
attr
of t

hush

PIOF

Bat!

is
of

USE

 

76

18Baugh, "Chaucer the Man," in Companion to Chaucer
Stuides, Rowland, pp.12-13 He cites Marchette Chute’s
argument that Chaucer is "as much Chaucer’s literary
creation as any other pilgrim" and "the characteristics
attributed to him are not necessarily a faithful reflection
of the poet himself."

19Stidston observes that a wife used ye to husband but
husband used thou to wife.(pp57—59)

20Marriage debate in the canterbury Tales was first
proposed by G.L.Kittredge in 1912.

21Robinson (p.711f quotes Skeat’s suggestion.

22This passage was originally assigned to the Wife of
Bath but Chaucer substituted "Shipman" for "Wife of Bath."

23The Franklin shows in his Tale that noble behaviour
is not confined to the aristocracy through the gentillesse
of Arveragus, Dorigen, Aurelius and the magician.

24When Criseyde has fainted Troilus thinks her dead and
uses thou.

And thow, Criseyde, o swete herte deere,

Receyve now my spirit! (IV,1209-10).
According to the explanation of Finkensteadt the dead person
is addressed as thou. Another case in which Troilus uses
thou to Criseyde is when he is apostrophizing:

What gilt of me, what fel experience,
Hath fro me raft, allas! thyn advertence?(v,1257-58)

25Paul G. Ruggiers, The Art of the Canterbury Tales.
p.57

26Brewer, "Class Distinction in Chaucer,"
Speculum,43 (Spring,1968), pp290-305. According to his
binary classification of the class, the gentil and the
cherl, the Host belongs to the class of cherl.

27Kemp Malone, pp.192-21. He mentions the Host’s use of
thou and the Franklin's use of ye:

"On an actual pilgrimage in fourteenth-century England

this give and take would have been impossible: no

innkeeper would have dreamt of behaving in this way

towards a gentleman, and if he did so behave no

gentleman would have put up with it."

28The Host interrupts rudely with the Franklin’s
speaking. When the Franklin is talking about gentilesse, the

 

 

 

Host 3
polite

among
of add

to Tr<

And:

And:

forma
that
Both
asso:
comm
Form
(p.3

form

his

by
pet

77

Host satirizes his gentilesse with the use of sarcastic—
polite ye.

29In French, reciprocal vous had been already used
among power equals of the upper classes as a respectful form
of address.

30Three cases in which Criseyde uses conventional thou
to Troilus are petrified phrases or contractions:

For I am thyn, by God and by my trouthe!(III,1512)
Syn I am thyn al hol, withouten mo, (IV,1641)
O Troilus, what dostow now? (V,734)

31Leech and Short (1980) distinguish politeness from
formality: "The scale of formality often correlates with
that of politeness, but the two are in principle distinct.
Both convey a sense of distance,/but a formal style is
associated with the distance of serious public
communication, of language ’on its best behaviour.’
Formality reinforces a norm, rather than reacts against it".
(p.314)

However, I am here relating the neutral-politeness to

formality.

32Walcutt explains Pandarus's use of ye to Criseyde,
his niece in terms of courtly situation:

It may be that Chaucer Wished thus to emphasize
Criseyde’s situation as an object of courtly love,
rather than as someone’s relative; perhaps
Pandarus's courtly servility would have reminded a
contemporary that he too was a lover, who had 'a
joly wo, a lusty sorwe.’

33The other cases in which Pandarus addresses Criseyde
by thou can be explained in terms of rhyme or contractions(
petrified forms). The cases of rhyme are:

Now, nece myn, the kynges deere sone,

The goode, wise, worthi, fresshe, and free,

Which alwey for to don wel is his wone,

The noble Troilus, so loveth the,
That, but ye heipe, it wol his bane be.(II,316-320)

Thenk ek how elde wasteth every houre

In ech of yow a partie of beautee;

And therefore, er that age the devoure,

Go love; for old, ther wol no Wight of the.

Lat this proverbe a loore unto yow be: (11,392—97)

 

The e

to t1
mind

Tale

78
The examples of contractions or petrified forms are:

...what thynkestow to do?
Whi ne hastow to thyselven som resport?
Whi wiltow thus thiself, allas, fordo? (IV,849-51)

34Evans argues that this use of singular thou by Gawain
to the Lady is an indication of Gawain’s agitated state of
mind.

35Norman Nathan, "Pronouns of Address in the Friar’s
Tale" Modern Language Quarterly 17 (1956), pp39-42.

usec
be 1
betx
use<
gral

and

lar
pol
adc
nec
In

la}
Sp:
la

as
at
33
ca

01

III. VOCATIVES

Just as the second singular pronouns ye and thou are
used to show politeness and familiarity, vocatives also can
be used to delineate rank and the social relationship
between speaker and addressee. Vocatives, words or phrases
used when calling someone,1 can express the manifold
gradients of superiority and inferiority, and of intimacy
and distance, between speaker and addressee.

In Middle English literature, vocative forms can be
largely classified into three categories with respect to
politeness. The first category consists of speakers calling
addressees by kinship terms such as brother, suster, cosyn,
nece and uncle, by their personal names or both together.

In the second category, speakers use professional or rank
labels,2 such as knyght and squire. In the last category,
speakers use honorific titles such as lorde, sire, mayster,
lady, dame and madame.

All these vocatives are used in both symmetrical and
asymmetrical speech situations to show the speaker’s
attitude towards the addressee and their relationship. The
symmetrical use of vocatives includes speaker and addressee
calling each other by their personal names or kinship terms,

or by professional or rank labels, without using any

79

honor
perso
horiz
Socia
names
use c
thei:
sing1
name
each
hono

betw

uses
per:
forI
Ver'
VOC

on

clo

80
honorific titles. The reciprocal or symmetrical use of
personal names or kinship terms in direct address shows the
horizontal relationship between speaker and addressee.
Social equals usually address one another by their personal
names. Even among different social classes, the symmetrical
use of vocatives occurs among intimate persons regardless of
their social status. In most cases the familiar second
singular pronoun thou accompanies their use of personal
names and kinship terms rather than the polite ye. Calling
each other by their professional or rank labels without any
honorific titles also shows a symmetrical relationship
between speaker and addressee.

The asymmetrical use of vocatives occurs when one person
uses a personal name or kinship term to address another
person, who in return uses an honorific title to address the
former. The honorific title used reveals the nature of
vertical relationship. Thus, the symmetrical use of
vocatives indicates that the speaker and the addressee are
on the same social level or that their relationship is
close, or in the use of personal names, it may indicate
enmity. On the other hand, the asymmetrical use of
vocatives shows that they are not on the same social level.
A reciprocal use of vocative usually indicates intimacy,
regardless of any honor attributed to the addressee. Thus
vocatives indicate the level of intimacy or the level of

respect or politeness. The only case where the two should

 

be'

The.

voc
but
adc
t8]

thc

la

US

in

SC

US

81
be considered together is in the case of intended insult.

Then the pronoun is a cue to the intentions of the speaker.
The conjunction with the second personal pronouns
vocatives reinforces not only the intention of the speaker,

but also the relationships between the speaker and the
addressee. First, the use of personal names and kinship
terms as vocatives shows intimacy or enmity when used with
thou, whereas use with the polite ye shows both intimacy and
politeness. The second category, professional and rank
label, is usually used to show no respect and no insult when
used alone. Therefore if used with thou to the social
inferior, it shows no insult and if used with ye to the
social superior, it shows no respect. However, when it is
used with thou to the social superior, it shows insult. And
when used with ye to the social inferior, it shows sarcasm.
Contrasted with the use of two categories of vocatives,
personal names and kinship terms, and professional and rank
labels, honorific titles generaly show different
connotations when used with the personal pronouns ye and
thou. Since honorific titles are used to show politeness,
the polite pronoun ye is expected with them. However, when
used with thou, they show respect to the social inferior or

reinforce sarcasm to any person.

Personal names and kinship terms:
Even though personal names occur only infrequently in

Middle English poetry, they usually are an indication of

 

 

intim;
animo
names
the i
socie
persc
even
Tale
_ by t

pron

Pale

An

 

82
intimacy between two characters unless some occupational

animosity exists. Among close or intimate persons, personal
names and kinship terms are symmetrically used to express
the intimacy between the two people regardless of their
social status. Thus, Chaucer has his characters use their
personal names and kinship terms in intimate relationships
even among equals in high social classes. In the Knight’s
Tale, the two knights, Palamon and Arcite, call each other
by the kinship term, cosyn in addition to using the familiar
pronoun thou. Arcite addresses Palamon:

Cosyn myn, what eyleth thee,

That art so pale and deedly on to see?

Why cridestow? Who hath thee doon offence?

(I,1081—83)

Palamon’s answer to this also begins with cosyn:

Cosyn, for sothe, of this Opinioun
Thou hast a veyn ymaginacioun.(I,1093-94)

Through the symmetrical use of vocatives, the relationship
between the ’sworn brothers’ is emphasized. Similarly, in
the Shipman’s Tale, the story of a monk—wife-merchant
triangle, their relationships and deceptions are shown
despite the use of kinship terms, cosyn and nece. The
merchant’s wife uses the kinship term cosyn to the monk:

O deere cosyn myn, daun John,
What eyleth yow so rathe for to ryse?
(VII,98-99)
And the monk replies by using the kinship term nece:
Nece,...it oghte ynough suffuse

Fyve houres for to slepe upon a nyght
(VII,100-10l)

 

They <
empha:
a dec
merch
term

ona

The

The
iro
ove
eac
kni

pm

ho

83
They continue to use those kinship terms to each other to

emphasize their intimate relationship, which turns out to be
a deception. The relationship between the monk and the
merchant is also emphasized through the use of the kinship
term cosyn. When the merchant is about to leave his house
on a business trip, the monk addresses the merchant:

...Cosyn, it standeth so,

That wel I se to Brugges wol ye go.

God and seint Austin spede yow and gyde!

I prey yow, cosyn, wisely that ye ryde.

(VII,257v60)
The merchant replies to the monk:

...O cosyn myn, daun John,

Now sikerly this is a smal requeste.

My gold is youres, whan that it yow lests,

And nat oonly my gold, but my chaffare.

Take what yow list, God shilde that ye spare.
(VII,282—85)

The teller, the Shipman, (Chaucer, too) intends to show the
ironical relationships among the characters by having them
overuse the kinship term cosyn and the polite pronoun ye to
each other. Unlike the relationship between the two
knights, Palamon and Arcite in the Knight’s Tale, which is
pure, the three characters in the Shipman’s Tale deceive
each other by pretending intimacy. The merchant is duped
both by the monk who "hym claymeth as for cosynage," and
also by his wife at the end of the tale.

In the same way, among the lower classes, like those
portrayed in the Miller’s Tale and the Reeve’s Tale, close
relationships are shown by the reciprocal use of personal

in

(D

names. In the Muller’s Tale, John and Nicholas who liv

the same house reciprocate personal names with each other.

 

John a

their

class
recip
Thror
throx
term:
betwl
thro
They
reci

Troi

An

84
John and Aleyn in the Reeve’s Tale also call each other by

their personal names.

Speakers and addressees belonging to different social
classes also show their close friendship through the
reciprocal use of personal names and kinship terms.
Throughout Troilus and Criseyde, friendship is emphasized
through the symmetrical use of personal names and kinship
terms such as brother, nece and uncle. The friendship
between Troilus and Pandarus is primarily portrayed
throughout the story by their reciprocal use of vocatives.
They call each other by personal names, just as they
reciprocate the use of thou to each other. Pandarus uses
Troilus' personal name in addressing him, eyen though
Troilus is his social superior:3

Ye, Troilus, now herke,...

Though I be nyce, it happeth often so,

That oon that excesse doth ful yvele fare

By good counseil kan kepe his frend therfro.

(I,624—27)
Troilus also calls Pandarus by his personal name
But herke, Pandare, 0 word, for I nolde
That thow in me wendest so gret folie,

That to my lady I desiren sholde

That toucheth harm or any vilenye;
(I,1030-33)

And:

Now, Pandare, I kan na more seye,.
But, thow wis, thow woost, thow maist, thow art al!
. (I,1051-52)

Troilus also uses the kinship term, brother:

Allas, my deere brother Pandarus,

I am ashamed for to write, ywis,

Lest of myn innocence I seyde amys,

Or that she nolde it for despit receyve;

Somet
other
kinst
despi

Panda

We k

Pant

In

to

85
Than were I ded, ther myght it nothyng weyve.
(II,1046—50)

Sometimes this pair uses non—kinship common nouns to each
other instead of or in addition to their personal name or
kinship term which reinforces their close friendship,
despite their different social rank. Troilus addresses
Pandarus by frend with his name, as we would expect him to:

Suffiseth this, my fulle frend Pandare,

That I have seyde, for now wostow my wo;

And for the love of God, my colde care,

30 hide it wel——I tolde it nevere to mo.

(I,6lO-l3)

We know that relationship is intimate because Troilus allows

Pandarus to address him, his social superior, as trend

Allas, what may this be? .

Now, frend, yf evere love or trouthe

Hath ben, or is, bytwyxen the and me,

Ne do thow nevere swich a crueltee

To hiden fro thi frend so gret a care! -

Wostow naught wel that it am I, Pandare
(I,583—85)

Pandarus even uses the word fool to Troilus:

How, hastow thus unkyndely and longe

Hid this fro me, thow fool?

(I,6l7—l8)

In the Friar’s Tale, the summoner and the devil use brother
to each other to show their intimacy or solidarity because
they are both bailiffs. The summoner says to the devil:

Brother,...where is now youre dwelling

Another day if that I sholde yow seche?

(III,14lO-ll)

Even if the summoner addresses the devil by the honorific—

polite pronoun ye, because the devil is his social superior,

his use of the kinship term brother expresses his intimate

feelir

intere

They
recip
with
meet:
"Sin
expl

the

In ‘
kin

Eve

des

86
feeling towards the devil because they have common

interests. The devil also replies with brother:

Brother, ...fer in the north contree,

Where as I hope som tyme I shal thee see.

(III,1413—14)

They then continue to reciprocate brother to each other. The
reciprocal use of the kinship term brother is contrasted
with the use of the honorific title sire. When the summoner
neets the devil first, he uses the honorific title sire:
"Sire, hayl, and wel atake." However, after the summoner
explains his job and the devil asks "Artow thann a baily?"
:he devil addresses the summoner as brother:

Depardieux, ... deere broother,

Thou are a baily, and I am another

I am unknowen as in this contree;

Of thyn aqueyntance I wolde praye thee

And eek of bretherhede, if that yow leste.

(III,1395—99)

In the same way Pandarus and Criseyde address each other by
kinship terms, nece and uncle to show their friendship.
Even though they use the polite pronoun ye to each other,
Pandarus always uses the kinship term nece (’niece’) to her
despite the fact that he addresses her by using the
aonorific title madame in the presence of other ladies:

...Madame, God yow see,

With yowre faire book and al the compaignye.

(II,85-86)

After Criseyde replies to him:

Ey, uncle myn, welcome ywys
(II,87)

Pandarus switches to a kinship term nece:

Ye, nece, ye shal fare wel the bet,
If God wole, al this yer,

Th<

Pal

Cr

87
(II,92-93)

Through the use of common familiar nouns to each other they
show their close friendship as Criseyde mentions:

Iwis, myn uncle, grant merCy.

Youre frendshie have I founden evere yit;

I am to no man holden, trewely,

So muche as yow, and have so litel quyt....

(II,239—42)
Though this friendship is different from that of Troilus and
Pandarus it implies advice and counsel.4 Pandarus and
Criseyde’s use of kinship terms to each other shows their
intimate relationship; at the same time they show their
politeness to each other through the use of ye, which I
already explained in Chapter I.

The symmetrical use of personal names and kinship terms
is in sharp contrast to the asymmetrical use of vocatives
between Troilus’ brother, Deiphebus and Pandarus. Pandarus
calls Deiphebus, who is his superior, by sire and lord along
with using the honorific—polite pronoun ye, whereas
Deiphebus calls Pandarus by frend and thou. Pandarus always
addresses Deiphebus with the honorific titles

sire and lorde:

Lo, sire, I have a lady yn this town
That is my nece and called is Criseyde,

(11,1416)

and:

...yf ye, my lord so dere,

Wolden as now do this honour to me,

To preyen hire to—morwe, lo, that she

Come unto yow, hire pleyntes to devise,

Hire adversaries wolde of it agrise.

(II,143l—35)

and:

88
Syre, al this shal be don. (II,1459)

In contrast to his use of honorific titles to Deiphebus, his
social superior, Pandarus receives the general common noun
frend:

...O, is not this

That thow spekest of to me so straungely

Criseyda, my frend? (II,1423)

Thus in Troilus and Criseyde the friendships between Troilus
and Pandarus, and Pandarus and Criseyde, are emphasized
through the symmetrical use of vocatives, in contrast with
the asymmetrical use of vocatives between Pandarus and
Deiphebus.

In the same way, speakers use personal names or common
familiar nouns to show their intimate relationship with the
addressee or to pretend an intimate relationship where none
exists. In the Summoner’s Tale, for example, the friar
constantly repeats the layman Thomas’s name, as well as
using thou when he is asking for gifts from him. Elsewhere
the friar uses the polite pronoun ye as noted in Chapter I.
The Pilgrim Summoner intends to uncover the Pilgrim Friar’s
hypocrisy and so has the friar in his tale pretended to be
intimate with Thomas through the obviously hypocritical use
of his personal name in conjuction with the use of familiar
thou:

Thomas, of me thou shalt hat been yflatered;

Thou woldest han oure labour al for noght.

(III,1970-7l)

And therfore, Thomas, trowe me if thee leste,

Ne stryve nat with thy wyf, as for thy beste.

And ber this word awey now, by thy feith,
(III,198S—87)

89

The fact that the Pilgrim Summoner has his friar in his Tale
use a personal name in a hypocritical manner underscores the
convention which states that personal names when used
between friends indicates familiarity.

Between lovers, as between friends, personal names are
generally used to express intimate feelings. In the
Miller’s Tale, Absalon, the parish clerk, calls Alison by
her name: "What do ye, honycomb, swete Alisoun " (I,3698).
In the same way in the Reeve’s Tale Aleyn calls Malyne by
her personal name: " Fare weel, Malyne, sweete wight!"
(1,4236).

In the marriage relationship husband and wife usually
address each other by their personal names. In the Miller’s
Tale, the carpenter and his wife call each other by their
personal names:

What, Alison, herestow nat Absolon,

That chaunteth thus under oure boures wal?

(1,3366-67)
And she answers her husband:

Yis, God woot, John, I heere it every deel.
(I, 3369)

Also in the Wife of Bath’s Tale, the fourth husband of the
Wife of Bath, Jankin, calls her "Deere suster Alison"(III—
804), a term of endearment, as he attempts to apologize for
throwing her to the floor. This precarious situation
requires more intimacy than any other time in the tale, in

order to soothe her anger. All the above examples show that

 

90
personal names and kinship terms are used between people in

close relationships.

Besides emphasizing that a situation requires intimacy
or familiarity between speaker and addressee, personal names
are also used to show enmity towards the addressee. Thus
animosity between professional rivals reveals itself through
the symmetrical use of personal names and/or general common
nouns.

One pair of occupational rivals in the Canterbury Tales
is the Host and the Cook. There were laws that prohibited
London innkeepers from selling food or drink in competition
with victualers, such as the Cook. Consequently, a natural
antagonism existed between the Host and the Cook.5 The
personal names of the two come out in their quarrel. The
Host addresses the Cook by his personal name when he calls
upon him for a tale:

Now telle on, Roger, looke that it be good;
(1,4345)

Now telle on, gentil Roger by thy name
(1,4353)

In his response to the Host, the Cook also uses the personal
name of the Host, Harry Baily:

..., Herry Bailly, by thy feith,

Be thou nat wrooth, er we departen heer,

Though that my tale be of an hostileer.

But natheless I wol nat telle it yit,

But er we parte, ywis, thou shalt he quit.

(1, 4358—62).

Along with the second person singular pronoun thou, the

interchange of personal names between professional or

occupational enemies heightens the sense of their enmity.

 

91
Another pair of rivals is the Miller and the Reeve. As

Tupper has already shown in his article "The Quarrels of the
Canterbury Pilgrims," the Miller and the Reeve are
professional and traditional enemies (p.265). The job of
the Miller is to grind grain, while the Reeve’s is to
oversee the farm; and because of their conflicting
interests, they often accuse each other of cheating. The
Miller is the first one to call the Reeve by his name, when
the two men quarrel: "leve brother Osewald" (1,3151). The
Miller, by using the Reeve’s personal name in conjunction
with the kinship term brother, which otherwise would
indicate a close relationship, thereby shows his animosity.

In addition to the use of personal names to show
friendship or animosity, personal names are also used to
members of the lower class. In the Canterbury Tales, the
Pilgrims of lower class are addressed by their personal
names alone, whereas those Pilgrims who are of the higher
class are addressed by honorific titles. When the Miller
insists upon telling his story immediately after the -
Knight’s Tale in spite of his drunkenness, the Host calls
him by his personal name:

Abid, Robyn, my leeve brother,

Som bettre man shal telle us first another.

Abid, and lat us werken thriftily.

(1,3129—31)

Even though he uses the kinship term brother with his

personal name, the Host’s calling the Miller by his personal

name simply indicates the latter’s lower rank; but not

animosity, because these men are not professional rivals.

 

92
The Host thereby emphasizes the Miller’s disruption of the

social order. Instead of kinship terms, the common nouns
such as carl and cherl are used to deride members of the
lower class. The cognates of the words carl and cherl are
both terms of abuse in Middle English, the latter being used

rather more frequently.6

Even though the basic meaning of
the two words is: "any person not belong to the nobility or
clergy " (MED), they have connotations of contempt or
abusiveness as these examples, the first from in the General
Prologue, and the second from the Prologue to the Miller’s
Tale show:

I The Millere was a stout carl for the nones. (1,545)

The Millere is a cherl (1,3182)

In direct address, these two words are used in offensive
situations with the common noun, theef. In the Pardoner’s
Tale, the three rioters address each other by ’felawes’
’bretheren’ and ’may deere freend,’which show their intimate
relationships or their pretentious intimacy whereas they
address the old man with ’carl,’ ’olde cherl’ and 'false
theef.’

And in the Summoner’s Tale, the friar who uses the
personal pronoun and familiar noun brother to Thomas,
switches to the word cherl when he is tricked by Thomas:

A, false cherl, for Goddes bones!

This hastow for despit doon for the nones.

(1,2153—4)
In the Franklin’s Tale, personal names are used in

asymmetrical situations. Dorigen addresses Aurelius by his

 

93 .
personal name, whereas Aurelius addresses Dorigen, his

social superior, and whom he loves, by the honorific title
madame:

But now, Aurelie, 1 knowe youre entente,

By thilke God that yaf me soule and lyf

Ne shal I nevere been untrewe wyf

In word ne werk, as fer as I have wit

(V,982—85)
And then she continues:

Aurelie, ...by heighte God above,

Yet wolde I graunte yow to been youre love,

Syn I yow se so pitously complayne.

(V,989—9l)
Aurelius uses the honorific title madame in answering her:

Madame,...this were an impossible

Thanne moot I dye of sodeyn deth horrible.

(V,lOO9—lO)
This asymmetrical use of vocatives indicates the
hierarchical relationship between the duchess and the
squire, even though Dorigen uses the neutral-polite ye to
him, as I explained in Chapter I (p.57). Therefore, the
asymmetrical use of vocatives can be a cue to their social
status where the polite pronoun ye is neutrally used.

In marriage, the asymmetrical use of the wife's
personal name by her husband reflects the inferior position
of women in that period. In the Clerk’s Tale, the obedient
wife, Griselda, is always addressed by her personal name by
her husband, Walter, who in return receives the honorific
title lorde. Griselda never calls her husband by his name,
but Walter always addresses his wife by her personal name

and the familiar pronoun thou:

This is ynogh, Grisilde myn,

 

94
Be now namoore agast ne yvele apayed.
I have thy feith and thy nenyngnytee
As wel as evere womman was assayed,
In greet estaat and poureliche arrayed.
Now knowe I, dere wyf, thy stedfastnesse
(IV,1051—56)

and:

Grisilde, by God that for us deyde,

Thou art my wyf, ne noon oother I have,

Ne nevere hadde, as God my soule save.

(IV,1062—64)

Even when he uses the polite pronoun ye to her, he calls her
by her name instead of by an honorific title:

I seye, Grisilde, this present dignitee

In which that I have put yow, as I trowe,

Maketh yow nat foryetful for to be

That 1 yow took in povre estaat ful lowe,

For any wele ye moot yourselven knowe.

(IV,470—74)

In contrast to the use of his personal name Griselda always
uses the honorific title lorde to her husband. This
asymmetrical use of vocatives reflects their vertical
relationship which is easily contrasted with the symmetrical
use of personal names to reveal intimacy in other Tales.

The Gawain—poet also uses personal names in similar
situations. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, when the
Green Knight first appears in Arthur’s court and later in

his chapel, he calls Gawain by his personal name without any

honorific title. First the Green Knight in Arthur’s court:
Lok, Gawain, pou be graype to go as pou hettez,

And layte as lelly til pou me, lude, fynde,
(448-49)

And also in his chapel:

’God be mot loke!

’ awain ’ uod pat grene gome,
G I q (2239)

95
This shows that the Green Knight is acting as a superior to

Gawain, which in turn also suggests the Green Knight’s rude
attitude toward Gawain, who is also a knight and therefore
should be addressed with an honorific title such as sire.

Thus personal names and kinship terms are used either
symmetrically or asymmetrically. 1n symmetrical situations
personal names are used to indicate intimacy or animosity.
The kinship terms such as suster, brother, cosyn, nece and
uncle accompany personal names in intimate situation whereas
other common nouns such as carl, cherl or theef accompany in
‘order to reinforce thoughts of animosity. Personal names
and kinship terms are found in asymmetrical situations to
show a hierarchical relationship between speaker and

addressee.

Professional or rank labels:

While personal names and kinship terms are used to show
intimacy, professional or rank labels are also employed in
contexts where personal names could also serve. The
difference is that the use of personal names indicates
intimacy or insult, whereas professional or rank labels are
usually neutral; they generally convey neither intimacy nor
respect, although a professional label may be used to
denigrate a person’s occupation.

By calling someone by his professional label without

any honorific title the speaker indicates that the addressee

is not his superior. In the Canterbury Tales, the Host uses

96
professional labels to the lower-class Pilgrims, who are his

inferiors. Harry Baily calls the Canon’s Yeoman, an
alchemist, by his occupational label:

"Ther-of—no fors, good Yeman" (VIII,652). He calls the
Pardoner by his occupational name when he asks the Pardoner
for a merry tale after the Physician’s tragic story of
Virginia, which has profoundly affected the Host: "Thou beel
amy, thou pardoner" and to the Nun’s Priest: "Com neer, thou
preest, com hyder."

He can be also blunt and direct when he addresses those
whom he considers his equals, as is evidenced by his calling
them by their professional labels. The Host addresses those
among the middle class whom he thinks his inferiors or at
best his equals by professional labels whereas he addresses
those whom he thinks his superiors by honorific titles. For
example, the Host addresses the Franklin, the Manciple, and
the Merchant by their professional labels. The common in
these three cases is the Host’s use of their professional
labels after the three men delay their stories. When the
Franklin is talking about gentillesse after the Squire’s
Tale, the Host interrupts him and urges him to tell his
story with the use of the second person singular pronoun
thou and his professional label and then adds sarcastic
sire:

What, Frankleyn, pardee, sire, wel thou woost

That ech of yow moot tellen atte leste

A tale or two, or breken his biheste.
(V,696—98)

 

97
When the Host calls on the Cook to tell a tale, the Manciple

interrupts and says he will do the Host a service by telling
a story, berating the Cook for being ridiculously drunk.
The Host uses the Manciple’s occupational label when he
warns him of the revenge the Cook might take on him:
But yet, Manciple, in feith thou art to nyce,
Thus openly repreve hym of his vice.
Another day he wole, peraventure.
Reclayme me thee and brynge thee to lure.
(IX,69-71)
And the Host addresses the Merchant with the polite pronoun
ye and his professional label without any honorific title:
Now,...Marchaunt, so God yow blesse,
Syn ye so muchel knowen of that art,
Ful hertely I pray yow telle us part.
(IV,1240—42)
Even though the Host uses the polite ye to the Merchant,
unlike to the Franklin and to the Merchant, he shows no
respect for the Merchant by using his professional label
alone. After the Clerk finishes his tale, the Merchant gives
the details of his marital troubles, indicating the Clerk’s
story as the immediate occasion for his outburst:
Wepyng and waylyng, care and oother sorwe
I know ynogh, on even and a-morwe,
...and so doon othere mo
That wedded been. I trowe that it be so,
For wel 1 woot it fareth so with me.
I have a wyf, the worste that may be;
(IV,1213—18)
He continues his troubles to line 1V,l238. As Lumiansky
explains about this situation, ”the Host is quick in his

attempt to turn this outburst to the benefit of the

storytelling game" (155).

 

 

 

98
The Host’s use of the particular vocative shows that

the middle class Pilgrims neutrally address each other by
professional labels without any honorific titles depending
on their subjective judgement. When the speaker considers
the addressee as his superior, he uses the honorific title.
However, when the speaker thinks the addressee is his equal
he uses the occupational or professional label only.

Among the Pilgrims, there are two men who call the
Host by his occupational label alone without any honorific
title: the Pilgrim Chaucer (VII,707) and the Man of Law
(11,39). Pilgrim Chaucer and the Man of Law consider the
Host their inferior or at best their equal. In contrast to
the Man of Law’s use of his professional label alone to him,
the Host addresses the Man of Law with an honorific title
before his professional label: "Sire Man of Law" (11, 33)
As these examples show, the concept of equality or
inferiority among the so~called middle classes is not
objectively defined in this period.7 The characters in this
literature decide inferiority or equality on the basis of
their subjective judgment.

In the same way rank labels such as knyght or squire
are employed to equal or inferior without any honorific
title. For example, in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
Gawain addresses the Green Knight as just knyght when they
first meet in Arthur’s court:

I wot neuer where pou wonynes, bi hym pat me
wro3t,

Ne I know not be, kny3t, by cort ne pi name.
(399-400)

 

 

99
Gawain treats the Green Knight as his inferior by using rank

label without any honorific title. This use of vocative is
reinforced by the use of the pronoun thou.

In the Canterbury Tales the Pilgrim Franklin addresses
the Squire, the Knight’s son, by his rank label alone
without any honorific title:

In feith, Squire, thow hast thee wel yquit!

And gentilly. I preise wel thy wit.

(V,673-74)
The Franklin wants to identify himself as equal to the
Squire, who is his obvious social superior, by using his
rank label without any honorific title. Franklin’s use of
the rank label to the Squire can be contrasted with the use
of the honorific title sire to the Host (V,703) who is his
social inferior, or at best his equal.

Between rivals, the informal use of professional or
rank labels shows antagonism in much the same way as calling
someone by his personal name. As the Host uses the personal
name of his occupational enemy, the Cook, he also uses his
occupational label, along with thou when the latter is
sleeping:

”Awake, thou Cook, ....God yeve thee sorwe!

What eyleth thee to slepe by the morwe?

Hastow had fleen a1 nyght, or artow dronke,

So that thow mayst nat holden up thyn heed?

(1X,15—l9)
By using his occupational label, the Speaker can insult the
addressee’s job as well as the addressee himself. While the

use of personal names is focused on individual attack, the

use of professional labels is focused on the type of

 

 

lOO
profession to show the animosity between rival characters.

Another pair of professional rivals are the Friar and
the Summoner. The Friar is a member of the regular clergy
with papal authority; the Summoner is a member of the
secular clergy under the control of the Bishop and
'Archdeacon of the Diocese. Their enmity is shown by their
use of professional labels without any honorific title.
This enmity is reinforced by their descriptions of each
other in their Tales. The Summoner calls the Friar by his
professional label without any modifying words:

Now elles, Frere, I bishreewe thy face
(111,844-5)

To those whom they consider to be inferiors, or at best
equals, the speakers employ professional labels without any
modifying honorific titles as vocative forms of address in
all the quotations above. This use of professional labels is
usually reinforced by the use of the pronoun thou.

On the other hand, rank labels can also be used as
neutral vocatives which accompanies the polite pronoun ye.
The Host calls the Squire by his rank label without any
honorific title:

Squire, com neer, if youre will be,

And sey somwhat of love, for certes ye

Konnen theron as muche as any man.

(V,l—3)
Even if he uses the honorific-polite ye to the Squire, who

is his social superior, the Host calls the Squire by his

rank label alone because of the latter’s young age.

 

 

 

 

101
From these examples, familiarity, animosity or

superiority can be clearly seen through the symmetrical or
asymmetrical use of vocatives. Thus the use of personal
names or kinship terms, or professional or rank labels shows
the relationship between speaker and addressee as well as
the speaker’s attitude towards the addressee regardless of
the latter’s real social position. Although personal names
and professional or rank labels are both used in situations
of animosity and to inferiors, as well as to insult the
addressee, only personal names are used in intimate
situations because they turn the focus on the individual and
his personality; However, professional or rank labels focus
on a more "public" aspect of the person, and hence generally

are a more neutral form of address.

Honorific titles:

Originally honorific titles were devised and used to
establish the identity of speaker in terms of his
relationship with the larger group. Along with personal
names or professional labels, honorific titles such as
lorde, sire, mayster, lady, dame and madame are also used as
vocatives. According to the Concordance to Chaucer,8 of all
the honorific titles sire and dame were the most widely used
as a polite term of address. Contrary to the two earlier
categories, in which vocatives were used in intimate or
antagonistic situations, or neutral context, these honorific

titles are employed in Middle English poems as forms of

 

 

102
respectful address to show politeness towards the addressee.

These honorific titles can also be employed symmetrically
and asymmetrically in late Middle English literature
depending on the situation, though they had originally been

used only asymmetrically to social superiors.

Sire, Mayster and Lorde:

Among three honorific titles largely used to refer to men,
sire is the most common as a term of respectful address. It
was used either by itself or in combination with the
addressee’s personal name, professional or rank label. The
normal meaning of sire in the Middle Ages is "he who has
authority."9 Thus sire was generally used to refer to the
emperor, the king and to feudal seigneurs, who possessed
authority over country and for husbands, lovers and fathers,
who had authority over their wives, sweethearts and children
(Stowell, p.191).

Just as the honorific—polite ye is used to a superior
so the honorific title sire is used to a superior in terms
of social status, age, sex, learnedness and morality of the
addressee. The Host in the Canterbury Tales often shows
courtesy by calling those whom he considers his superiors by
the title sire alone or before professional labels. He
addresses his social superiors, the Knight, and the Squire,
who belong to nobility; and the Monk, who belongs to the
upper rank of the clergy, by calling them sire. The Host

addresses the Knight who holds the highest rank among the

 

 

 

 

 

103
Pilgrims as sire when he calls him for drawing a cut and

telling a story: "Sire Knyght"(1,837). The Host addresses
the Monk as sire when he needs to show courtesy because the
latter’s socially superior rank.lo When the Knight has
finished his romance of Palamon and Arcite, the Host
compliments him and then calls upon the Monk, who is next in
rank to the Knight, with the use of the honorific title
sire: "Sire Monk”( 1,3118). Also, when inviting the Monk to
tell a Tale, the Host courteously addresses him as "My lord,
the Monk"(V111,1924), but after the Knight’s interruption,
he rudely refers to "this Monk" (VII—2781). And then he
softens the situation immediately by addressing him as Sire
Monk:

Sire Monk, namoore of this, so God yow blesse!

Youre tale anoyeth al this compaignye.

(VII,2788).

In the Knight’s Tale, Duke Theseus, who holds the highest

position in his court, is addressed as sire by Arcite. In

Troilus and Criseyde all members of the Trojan royal family

 

are addressed as sire by the other characters. Pandarus
uses sire to King Hector’s sons, Deiphebus (11,1416;l459)
and Troilus (11,957). Criseyde sometimes uses sire to
Troilus (111,68).

The use of the honorific title sire is also applied to
the learnedness of the addressee as the honorific-polite ye
is. The Host also addresses the Clerk (1,840; 1V,l) and the

Man of Law who are known as men of learning (11,33) as

sire.ll

     

 

104
In marriage, husbands are regularly addressed by their

wives as sire which is contrasted with a common noun
husband-12 In the Tale of Melibee, dame Prudence mostly
calls her husband Melibeus as sire and Melibeus addresses
her as dame. In contrast with the symmetrical use of
honorific titles between husband and wife in the Tale of
Melibee, in the Franklin’s Tale Arveragus is addressed as
sire by his wife, whereas he addresses his wife, Dorigen, by
her personal name and the non—honorific common noun wyf.
Dorigen addresses her husband by the honorific title sire:
...Sire, sith of youre gentillesse

Ye profre me to have so large a reyne,

Ne wolde nevere God bitwixe us tweyne,

As in my gilt, were outher werre or stryf.

Sire, I wol be youre humble trewe wyf.

(V,754-58)

In contrast, Arveragus calls his wife, Dorigen, by her name:

"Is ther oght elles, Dorigen, but this?" (V,1468). He also
he uses the common noun wyf: "Ye, wyf,...lat slepen that is
stille"(V,1472). This asymmetrical use of Arveragus and

Dorigen in the Franklin’s Tale indicates that their
relationship between husband and wife is vertical rather
than horizontal in spite of their symmetrical use of the
polite pronoun ye. Arveragus’s use of her personal name or
the word wyf to his wife instead of the honorific title
contradicts his statements about humility and his use of the
honorific—polite ye (discussed in Chapter I), and thus shows

his contradictory personality, which in turn reflects that

of the teller, the Franklin.

 

105
Morality is also a factor which affects the use of the

honorific title sire. In the Canterbury Tales the Franklin
switches from using a rank label into using the honorific
title sire when he is impressed by the achievements of the
young Squire. 1n complimenting the Squire on his excellent
performance when the Squire finishes his story, the Franklin
addresses the Squire as sire, in spite of the Squire’s young
age, which would normally cause the Franklin to use the rank
label Squire (V,673):

...considerynge thy youthe,

So feelyngly thou spekest, sire, 1 allow the.

(V, 3‘4)

Using the honorific title sire causes him to use the polite
ye later. He switches to the polite ye from the previous
thou which is the conventional pronoun used by an elder
speaker to an younger addressee.

In the Franklin’s Tale, the clerk magician speaks
respectfully to Aurelius when he is touched by Aurelius’s
’gentil dede.’ After Aurelius tells about his sending
Dorigen to her husband as 'frely’ as Arveragus sent her to
him, the magician says to Aurelius:

Sire, I releesse thy thousand pound

As thou right now were cropen out of the ground

Ne nevere er now ne haddest knowen me.

For, sire, I wol hat taken a peny of thee

For al my craft, ne noght for my travaille.

Thou hast ypayed wel for my vitaille.

It is ynogh, and farewel, have good day!

(V,16l3—19)
Even though the magician uses the familiar pronoun thou to

Aurelius who is his social inferior, he shows his respect

towards Aurelius by using the honorific title sire.

 

 

106 .
Sire is also used by the speaker who wants to show

humility towards the addressee regardless of the latter’s
social status. Just like the use of the humble-polite ye in
Chapter I, the speaker uses the honorific title sire to show
his humility towards the addressee.

In the Nun’s Priest’s Tale, when the fox first sees the
cock, Chauntecleer, in the herbs, the fox courteously
addresses Chauntecleer, who is frightened and is about to
fly away by using both sire and ye:

Gentil sire, allas! wher wol ye gon?

Be ye affrayed of me that am youre freend?...

(V11,3284-5)

The fox addresses Chauntecleer in this manner in order to
persuade the cock to stay and put him off his guard. He
pretends to be humble by using the title sire to
Chauntecleer. Later, Chauntecleer also uses the title sire
to deceive the fox:

Sire, if that 1 were as ye,

Yet wolde I seyn, as wys God helpe me,

Turneth agayn, ye proude cherles alle!

A verray pestilence upon yow falle!

Now I am come unto the wodes syde.

Maugre youre heed, the cock shal heere abyde.

I wol hym ete, in feith, and that anon.

(VII,3406~14)

The use of the honorific title sire is used to show the
speaker’s humility towards the addressee, if it is
pretentious or not.

The Pilgrim Franklin uses sire to the Host even though
the Host insulted him. This shows that the Franklin is

obsequious in the hope of making a good impression on the

rest of the company. Every time he addresses himself

 

 

 

 

107
directly to the pilgrims he speaks respectfully using sire

twice to the Host in spite of the latter’s insulting his
interest in gentillesse. Though the Host rudely interrupts
the Franklin, the Franklin replies humbly with the use of
the honorific title sire: "That knowe 1 wel, sire" (V,699).
And later:

Gladly, sire Hoost, 1 wol obeye

Unto your wil. Now herkneth what 1 seye.

(V, 703-4)

This use of the honorific title sire to the Host who is not
only his social inferior but also the man who insults him,
reflects the Franklin’s ingratiating personality rather than
his gentilesse.l3 Besides using the honorific title sire,
the Franklin addresses the polite pronoun ye to the Host who
in return uses the pronoun thou.

The Gawain—poet also uses the title sire in Sir Gawain
and the Green Knight to show the speaker’s humility towards
the addressee. After Gawain humbly confesses his failure to
the Green Knight, the Green Knight uses the title sire:

And 1 gif be, sir, be gurdel bat is golds-hemmed,

For hit is grene as my goune. Sir Gawain, 3e maye

Benk vpon bis ilke brepe, per bou forth bryngez

Among prynces of prys, and bis a pure token

Of be chaunce of be grene chapel at cheuralrous

kny3tez. (2395-99)

Impressed by Gawain’s humble attitude, the Green Knight also
shows his humility to Gawain by using the honorific title
sire and the humble-polite pronoun ye even though he still

mixes ye with his customary pronoun thou. The Green

Knight’s use of the honorific title sire to Gawain is

 

 

 

 

 

108
contrasted to that of personal name alone in Arthur’s court,

which shows his rude attitude.

Just as the polite-pronoun ye is employed neutrally, so
is the honorific title sire. Regardless of the social
status of the addressee one can use the title sire as a
respectful term of address to those who are not superiors.
In other words, the title sire is used to the addressee
regardless of his or her social station, just like the use
of neutral—polite ye when the speaker wants or needs to be
polite to the addressee in these late Middle English poems.
Such usage reveals the speaker’s awareness of the

conversational conventions which in turn shows his good

 

breeding or education.

 

In the Canterbury Tales the Pilgrim Knight, who has the
highest rank of all the Pilgrims, addresses the other
Pilgrims as sire, who are all his social inferiors. For
example, the Knight uses sire to the Pardoner and the Host
along with ye and thou when he stills their quarrel at the
end of the Pardoner’s Tale. He soothes the tempers of the
Pardoner and the Host by addressing them in overly polite
terms with honorific title sire:

Namore of this, for it is right ynough!

Sire Pardoner, be glad and myrie of cheere;

And ye, sire Hoost,that been to me so deere,

I prey yow that ye kisse the Pardoner.

(V1,962-5)
He addresses the Monk as sire when he interrupts his sad

story:

...good sire, namore of this!
That ye han seyd is right ynough, ywis,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

109
And muchel moore, for litel hevynesse

Is right ynough to muche folk, 1 gesse.
(VII,2767-70)
The Squire also uses sire to the Host when the Host calls
upon the young Squire for a tale of love, alleging that he
knew as much as any man on the subject:

Nay, sire, but I wol seye as I kan

With hertly wyl; for I wol nat rebelle

Agayn youre lust; a tale wol 1 telle.

(V,4-6)
Sire is also used by the Canterbury Pilgrims to address the
Host: the Wife of Bath (111,844), the Merchant (IV,1233),the
Manciple(IX,lO4), the Franklin (V,703) and the Nun’s Priest
(V11,2816), all use this form of address.

In the Tale of‘Melibee, Melibeus, a powerful and rich
young man, is addressed as sire by the young and the old, as
well as by professionals such as surgeons and physicians
when he calls them together to ask for advice. i

The title sire is also used to the person whose
profession gives him authority over the speaker. The Host

calls the Parson sire in spite of his lower social status in

that period:

Sir Parisshe Prest,...for Goddes bones,
Telle us a tale, as was thi forward yore.
(11,1166).

Though the Host uses the familiar pronoun thou to the parson
because of his lower social status,14 he addresses the
parson as sir because of his profession, which has authority
over laymen. Also the Host uses the honorific title sire to
the Nun’s Priest, though he calls the latter by his

professional label alone without any honorific title before

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

110
(VII,3447) because of his lower status: "Sire, faire falle

yow" (VII,3460). In the Friar’s and the Summoner’s Tale all
the laymen address the summoner and the friar as sire
because their professions give them authority over the
laymen. For example, in the Friar’s Tale, the old widow
addresses the summoner as sire: A

God save you, sire, what is youre sweete
wille? (111,1585)

In the same way all the laymen in the Summoner’s Tale
address the friar as sire because of his profession.
Thomas’s wife calls the friar by sire
Ye, God amende defautes, sire,
Algates, welcome be ye, by my fey.
(111,1810-11)

And a lord of the village also calls him sire:

Sire,... ye woost what is to doone
(111,2194)

Therefore the title sire is used to the person whose job has
the authority over the layman regardless of his social
status which is seen in the usage of the second singular
pronoun ye and thou.

The Gawain-poet uses the title sire neutrally to show
politeness to the addressee regardless of their status. In
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, King Arthur addresses the
Green Knight and Gawain as sire (275:477) though they are
his social inferiors. The Green Knight and Gawain
reciprocate sire to each other along with the alternation of
non-honorific common Words such as burne and wi3e which have

more general meaning.15 The Lady of Bercilak also addresses

 

 

 

 

111
Gawain as sire with ye and sometimes with thou.l6 Gawain and

the Porter also reciprocate sire to one another despite
their different social statuses. This neutral use of sire
is seen in another poem Pearl, where the honorific title
sire is also used by the maiden to her dreamer—father as a
neutral polite form of address along with non-honorific
common word burne without any different meaning.

Sir, 3e haf your tale myse tente
To say your perle is al awaye,(257—58)

Now blysse, burne, mot be bytyde!(397)

Sir, fele here porchase3 & fonge3 pray
Bot supplantore3 none wythinne bys place.(439-40)

Thus the neutral use of the honorific title sire is used
independently from the use of the second person singular
pronouns ye and thou which shows their social relationship.

In the same way that the polite ye is employed
sarcastically, sire can be used sarcastically or ironically
when the word does not fit the situation.

The sarcastic sire is used by the Pilgrim Friar to his
professional enemy, the Summoner, when he is angry with him.
The Friar calls his professional enemy, the Summoner, by the
honorific title sire before his occupational label:

Ye, woltow so, sire Somonour? (111,840)

Since the Friar is angry with the Summoner, it is obvious
that his use of sire is intended to anger the Summoner.
When the Friar comments on the Prologue of the Wife of
Bath’s Tale ("So have 1 joye or blis,/ This is a long

preamble of a tale" 111,830-31), the quarrelsome Summoner

112
seems to seize this opportunity to express in language of

increasing violence what is obviously a long—standing grudge
against friars:

...What spekestow of preambulacioun?

What! amble, or trotte, or pees, or go sit doun!

Thou lettest oure disport in this manere.

' (111,837—39)

To this Summoner’s attack the Friar responds scornfully
with the use of honorific title sire, which does not befit
the Summoner.

The Friar also uses the sarcastic sire to insult the
Summoner in his Tale. 1n the Friar’s Tale the devil
addresses the summoner as sire when the latter asks a stupid

question (”What maketh yow to han al this labour?"):

Ful may a came, leeve sire somonour,
...but alle thyng hath tyme.
(111,1474—75)

The devil always uses thou to the summoner because of the
latter's inferior position and to show the social
inferiority of summoners is precisely the Pilgrim Friar’s
intention, too. Furthermore, by using the honorific title
to the summoner in his Tale, the Pilgrim Friar also intends
to insult the Pilgrim Summoner. The summoner in his Tale
who resembles the Pilgrim Summoner cannot recognize the
devil’s intention because of his stupidity. Here the
Pilgrim Friar makes a fool of the Pilgrim Summoner and at
the same time the summoner’s occupation through the
sarcastic use of the honorific title sire.

Another sarcastic use of the honorific title sire

appears in the speech of the Manciple to the Cook. When the

 

113
Cook falls off his horse and cannot tell a tale, the

Manciple addresses him scornfully by using the honorific
title sire:

Wel, ...if it may doon ese

To thee, sire Cook, and to no wight displese,

Which that heere rideth in this compaignye,

And that oure Hoost wole of his curteisye,

I wol as now excuse thee of thy tale.

(IX,25-29)

He uses sire to the Cook one other time after he mentions
the Cook’s bad smell ("Fy, stynkyng swyn, fy, foul moote
thee fallel"):

Now sweete sire, wol ye been justen atte fan?

Therto me thynketh ye been wel yshape!

I trowe that ye dronken han wyn ape,

And that is whan men pleyen with a.straw.

(IX,42-45)

This time the polite pronoun ye, the honorific title sire
accompanies instead of thou. Thus the Manciple sneers at
the Cook repeatedly by using an ironic, courtly epithet: the
honorific title sire combined with the polite pronoun ye.
Of course, the Cook, of all the pilgrims, least merits this
address since he is not only the person of low morality but
also of the lowest social status. This unexpected honorific
title should be interpreted as an insult or show of
contempt, since irony is as powerful a weapon as direct
abuse. After the Host calls the drunken Cook by his
occupational label to insult his occupation as well as the
Cook himself, the Manciple flatters the Host by treating the
Cook in the same way as the Host does through the sarcastic

use of the honorific title sire. In most cases we would

 

 

 

114
expect this sarcastic sire might be spoken in a different

tone from other uses of sire.

The Host uses the honorific title sire sarcastically to
Pilgrim Chaucer and the Franklin. When the Host can no
longer stand the tale of Sir Thopas, (a parody of the
popular romances of the time,) he softens his interrupting
with "Namore of this,... for thou makest me/So
wery...(V11,901—11) but when the narrator Pilgrim Chaucer
protests against being hindered, the Host uses the title
sire to indicate his anger:

Sire, at 0 word, thou shalt no lenger ryme (VII,932)
The Host also uses sire to the Franklin whom he considers
his equal, which usually causes the Host to address him by
thou and his professional label, Franklin. But then he adds
sire, which might be spoken in a different tone from the
previous words.17 When the Franklin tells about gentillesse,
to which he aspires, the Host calls him by his professional
label and then adds sire sarcastically:

What, Franklin, pardee sire, wel thou woost

That ech of yow moot tellen atte leste

A tale or two, or breken his biheste.

(V, 696-98)
Gentillesse has already been mentioned too often for the
Host and he protests with his usual bluntness. Once the
Franklin has got started on this, evidently his favorite
subject, there is no knowing when he will come to a stop.
And so he reminds him of the pilgrims’ agreement to tell
stories on their way by using the honorific title sire

sarcastically.

 

 

 

115
Another situation of sarcastic use of sire takes place

in the confrontation between the Pardoner and the Host.
After the Pardoner finishes his Tale and then describes the
Host as "moost envoluped in synne"(V1,942), he asks the Host
to kiss his relics:

Com forth, sire Hoost, and offre first anon.
(V1,943)

The Pardoner’s use of sire to the Host can be interpreted as
an attack on the Host, since the use of an unexpected
strategy could be seen as an intention to insult which the
addressee does not always recognize.

In the Wife of Bath’s Prologue and Tale this sarcastic
use of the honorific title sire appears several times. The
Wife of Bath addresses her husband sarcastically with sire
when she is blaming him for the lechery in which he has not
indulged. She continues using her usual thou to him adding
sire:

Sire olde Kaynard, is this thyn array? (111, 235)

Sire olde lecchour, lat thy japes be.(111,242)

Sire olde fool (III, 357)

The use of the honorific title sire can be interpreted as
sarcasm because it appears with the familiar pronoun thou
instead of the polite pronoun ye by which a wife would be
expected to address her husband.

Also, in her Tale, when in full court, the old woman reminds
the knight of his promise to marry her, she addresses him

as sire:

 

 

116
Bifore the court thanne preye I thee, sir knyght,

Quod she, ’that thou me take unto thy wyf’
(1054—5)

Her use of the sarcastic sire with thou in her Prologue and
her Tale is in sharp contrast to that of the honorific sire
with ye. When later in the story the old woman has become
the knight’s wife, she addresses the knight as sire and ye,
which is the norm of address to a husband.

In the Franklin’s Tale, Dorigen uses sire to her husband,

Arveragus as befits a humble wife:

Sire, I wol be youre humble trewe wyf.
(V,758)

As the above examples show sire is usually used as a polite
term of address with or without a professional or rank
label, even though it can be used sarcastically. However,
the connotation of sire can be derogative when used with
personal names.18 The Host sarcastically addresses the Nun’s
Priest by using sire before his occupational label combined
with thou when the Nun’s Priest finishes his tale about the
cock, Chantecleer. After the Knight has interrupted the
Monk’s dreary accounts of the fall of great men, the Host
turns from the Monk to the Nun’s Priest who has not hitherto
figured in the foreground, for a merry tale by calling him
sire before his personal name: "thou sir John"(VII—2820).

As Lumiansky points out, this can be considered as ”a
contemptuous appellation for a priest" (108). Since he is
annoyed at the Monk’s story, the Host speaks quite rudely to

another churchman, the Nun’s Priest, by using sir with his

 

 

 

 

117
personal name because of his lower social position:

Sire Nonnes Preest,

Iblessed by thy breche, and every stoon!

This was murie tale of Chauntecleer.

But by my trouthe, it thou were seculer,

Thou woldest ben a trede—foul aright.

(VII,3447-3451)
In the Physician’s Tale a judge, who is depicted as a 'false
juge’ is addressed as ’sire Apius’(V1,178).

Though sire can be interpreted as an honorific title
which sometimes carries the opposite meaning depending on
the context, it is the most widely used as a polite vocative
regardless of the person’s social rank.

Another honorific title, lorde, is employed as a
respectful form of address to men of high rank. Lorde in
the plural may be used to mean "warriors" or "retainers" but
in the singular it almost always refers to a person of
superior rank in a group of warriors (Marie Borroff, p.54).
It is also employed as the usual polite or respectful form
of address to a nobleman under the rank of duke, and to a
bishop by persons much inferior in position. Lorde was used
to refer to the supreme being, God, the usage of which
survives in Modern English.

In all these late Middle English poems, lorde, a title
of ostensibly higher status than sire, is more restricted in
direct address. It is employed to address the King or the
governors as well as referring to God. Chaucer and the
Gawain—poet use this honorific title lorde to the man who is

'the leader in the community. In the Knight’s Tale, Duke

Theseus is addressed as lorde by the Theban ladies(1,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

118
922,927, 930, 1757, 2419, 2563) and in the Clerk’s Tale Duke

Walter is addressed as lorde by the common people, including
Griselda (before marriage) and her father. In Troilus and
Criseyde Pandarus sometimes uses lorde to Troilus though he
uses the pronoun thou together because of their closeness:

Lord, and frend, and brother dere,

God woot that thi disese doth me wo.

But wiltow stynten al this woful cheere,

And, by my trouthe, er it be dayes two,‘

(11,1359—62)

In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight King Arthur is addressed
as lorde by Gawain: "worbilych lorde"(343); "lege lorde of
my lyf"(545) while Gawain is addressed as sire by the King
Arthur: "Now sir, heng Vp byn ax, pat hatz innogh
hewn"(476).

However, in the Canterbury Tales the Host addresses the
Monk with lorde, a title which is usually given to only
abbots and bishops among clergy: "My lord, the Monk,"
(VII,1924). This use of lord indicates that the Monk is no
common soldier in the ranks but that he has already risen
high, almost to the top.19 In the General Prologue the Monk
is described as the head of an independent cell, though not
yet an abbot: A manly man, to been an abbot able (1,167).

Besides admiring his position, the Host, at the same
time, satirizes him for accepting the security of the
monastic life without accepting all its duties, by
addressing him by the combined use of the supremely

honorific title lord and the professional label the MOnk.

In the General Prologue the Monk’s personality is described:

 

 

 

 

119
He yaf nat of that taxt a pulled hen

That seith that hunters been nat hooly men,

Ne that a monk, whan he is recchelees,

Is likned til a fissh that is waterlees--

This is to seyn, a monk out of his cloystre.

(1,177—181)
His disliking the Cloister, his liking hunting, falconry,
and good food do not fit the characteristics which are
expected of a Monk.

Since the word lord has the opposite meaning of
’servant,’ it is used to express the vertical relationship
between speaker and addressee. In ordinary marital
relationships, the husband is often addressed with lord by
his wife, which reflects the dominant position of the
husband and subordinate position of the wife, just like the
relationship of ’lord’ and ’servant.’ In the Clerk’s Tale,
Griselda, the obedient wife, always addresses her husband as
lorde combined with the honorific-polite ye without
exception:

Lord, a1 lyth in your plesaunce.

My child and I, with hertely obeisaunce,

Been youres al, and ye mowe save or spille

Youre owene thyng; werketh after youre wille.

(1V,501-4)
Griselda’s usage of the honorific title lorde and honorific—
polite ye contrasts with her husband’s use of her personal
name to her as I explained earlier.

In contrast to the asymmetrical use of the honorific
title lorde in the Clerk’s Tale, Prudence and Melibeus
reciprocate honorific titles to each other in the Tale of

Melibee. Prudence alternates lord and.sire in similar

situations; because the contexts are alike, it is evident

 

 

 

 

 

120
that she uses the two titles without any difference of

meaning:
My lord, I yow biseche as heretely as 1 dar and kan,
ne haste yow nat to faste, and for alle gerdons as
yeveth me audience.(VII,1051)

and:

My lord, as to your firste resoun, certes it may
lightly been answered.(VII,1064)

and:

Now sire, ...... and syn ye vouchesauf to been

governed by my conseil, I wol enforme yow how

ye shul governe yourself in chesynge of youre

conseillours. (VII,1114)

Her husband, Melibeus, in turn, addressees her as dame:
Dame, as yet into this tyme ye han wel and convenably
aught me as in general how I shal governe me in the
chesynge and in the withholdynge of my conseillours.

(VII,1232)

The Clerk’s Tale and the Tale of Melibee show the different
relationships in marriage through the use of symmetrical or
asymmetrical use of vocatives. In the Clerk’s Tale Chaucer
is portraying an unequal relationship; hence, the use of
vocatives is asymmetrical. In the Tale of Melibee the
relationship is equal, so the use of vocatives is
symmetrical.

Another honorific title, mayster, is used in
alliterative poetry to refer to men; as a rule to men who
are not warriors. It was originally used vocatively as'a
term of respect or politeness to a person who has authority
or competence not only in learning (OED s.v. mayster sb.1

sense 12) but in such realms as government (sense 1),

seamanship (sense 2, carpentry), and so on.

v
.—

L.

 

 

 

 

121
Therefore the title mayster is usually used to

emphasize the learnedness of the addressee for some reason.
In Chaucer the title mayster is seen in the speech to a
learned man regardless of his social status. In deference
to his learning, the Host calls the Friar mayster. At the
beginning of his Tale the Host says:

Tel forth youre tale, my leeve maister deere.
(111,1300)

And again when the Friar quarrels with the Summoner, the
Host addresses the Friar as mayster:

Now telleth forth, though that the Somonur gale;

Ne spareth nat, myn owene maister deere.

(111,1336-37)

This fits his character as described in the General
Prologue. Just as the Host satirizes the Pilgrim Friar’s
showing off his being intellectual or learned, the Pilgrim
Summoner wants to reveal the fact that in his tale the
Pilgrim Friar is so hypocritical that he pretends to be
learned. In the Summoner’s Tale, the friar is addressed as
maister by layman Thomas and his wife

O deere maister,(111,1781)

Ey, maister, welcome be ye, by Seint John!
(111,1800)

Now, maister,er that I go,
What wol ye dyne? I wol go theraboute.
(III,1836~37)

When the lord of the manor also addresses the friar in the
Summoner’s Tale as maister:

Now, maister, I yow biseke—
(111,2184)

The friar answers:

 

 

 

 

__ s a i.

122

No maister, sire, but servitour,

Thogh I have had in scole that honour.

God liketh nat that ’Raby’ men us calle

Neither in market ne in youre large halle.
(111,2184-88)

 

Here the friar replies humbly by rejecting the title maister
but shows off his learnedness by indicating that he got the
title maister from school. Considering that the controversy
between the Friar and Summoner centers on satirizing
intellectual achievement, the Summoner's intention to show

his professional rival’s, the Friar’s, hypocrisy is clearly

 

seen. The Summoner tells of a hypocritical friar who
resembles Pilgrim Friar Hubert, whose special pride is

intellectual superiority.

 

1n the Miller’s Tale, Nicholas, who is learned in
astrology and can predict rain or drought, is called
maister by carpenter:
What! how! What do ye maister Nicholay?
How may ye slepen al the longe day?
(1,3437-8)
In the same way in the Franklin’s Tale, Aurelius, a squire,
addresses the philosopher and magician who helped him to get
out of trouble as maister with yow:
Maister, I dar wel make avaunt,
1 failled nevere of my trouthe as yit.
(V,1576—77)
while the latter addresses Aurelius as sire with thou:
Sire, I releesse thee thy thousand pound
As thou right now were cropen out of the ground
Ne nevere er now haddest knowen me.
For, sire, I wol nat taken a peny of thee

For al my craft, ne noght for my travaille.
(V,1613—l7)

 

 

 

 

 

123
Though their asymmetrical relationship is seen in the use of

the second singular pronoun ye and thou, that is, the
philosopher is higher than the squire, the honorific titles
show different aspects of the speaker or addressee., The
philosopher’s use of sire to his social inferior, the
squire, is used as a neutral vocative to show the speaker’s
polite attitude towards the addressee. The squire’s use of
the title maister indicates that the speaker has respect for
the learnedness of the addressee, the philosopher. However,
the honorific title maister is sometimes used less politely
than lorde or sire in Chaucer. At first the Host addresses
the Friar as sire, as befits his social status:

A, sire, ye shode be hende
And curteys, as a man of youre estaat(111,1286—87)

But after the Pilgrim Summoner refers to the Friar as a
flattering licenced beggar (’flaterynge lymytour’) the Host
calls the Friar maister: "Tel forth youre tale, leeve
maister deere"(111,1300). Finally after the quarrel between
the Summoner and the Friar, the Host also uses the title
maister to the latter instead of sire: "Ne spareth nat, myn
owene maister deere"(111,1337). When the Summoner
interrupts the tale shortly after it has begun, the Host
silences him and urges the Friar to proceed. Encouraging
the Friar to tell his tale, the Host also denigrates the
Friar’s position by using the less elevated honorific title
maister.

Just as the Host uses the title maister to the Pilgrim

friar, so does he to the Physician. Impressed by the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124
Physician’s knowledge about medicine as revealed in his

Tale, the Host calls the Physician as maister with thou
which reveals his lower social status in that period:

But trewly, myn owene maister, (VI,301)

The Host is recognizing the Physician’s lower social
position by using thou, but recognizing his superior
knowledge by using the title maister. However, at the same
time the Host’s use of the title maister to the Physician
can be interpreted as a sarcasm since his knowledge has
nothing to do with any morality and the Host is already
aware of the hypocritical practices of the Physician: "He
kepte his pacient a ful greet deel "(1,415). By using the
same title to the Friar and the Physician, the Host shows
that the Pilgrim Physician shares hypocritical practices
with the Pilgrim Friar, the "worthy lymytour," besides being
learned.

As Stowell notes about the title maister, "there has
been a tendency on the part of the upper classes of society
to look contemptuously on the learned man, associating
pejorative notions of pedantry with the idea of the scholar"
(183). This tendency was especially strong among the
Medieval nobility, both because of the low ebb of
scholarship, and because the nobility, being uneducated
fighting machines, based their conceptions as to a man’s
worth upon his physical powers and upon his superiority in

warlike pursuits (Stowell, p.119).

 

 

 

 

125
The Host also addresses the Shipman as mayster because

the latter clearly commands an important body of knowledge
that the other Pilgrims do not, even though he is of lower
soCial status. This use of the title maister to the Shipman
contains a touch of sarcasm too since the Host knows his
lower personality, which is described in the General
Prologue: "Of nyce conscience took he no keepe" (1,398).

As all the examples above show, Chaucer uses the title
mayster for dramatic effect for showing the personality of
the characters, which is respectful and at the same time
sarcastic. Because in both the Physician’s and Shipman’s
cases, maister recognizes the mastery of a body of useful
knowledge which should command of a certain amount of
respect but the uses of maister implies sarcasm because
their knowledge has nothing to do with morality. However,
the Gawain~poet does not use mayster in direct address
because of limited characters in his works.

Thus the honorific titles to men, sire, lorde and
maister are employed in polite Speech when they show
respect, humility or sarcasm towards the addressee in
Chaucer. However, the Gawain-poet uses non-honorific common
words which have more general meaning to refer to men such
as burne and wi3e 20interchangeably with the honorific
titles as neutral vocatives for alliteration.

As far as the word burne is concerned, it is seen in
both polite and impolite situations. The Gawain—poet uses

this common word burne in the same polite situation as the

 

 

126
honorific title is used as well as in less polite speech.

For example, in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight Gawain and
the Green Knight use burne to each other in offensive
situations. When the Green Knight insults Gawain by saying
"bou fles for ferde er bou fele harmez!/ Such cowardise of
bat kny3t 1 neure here" (2272-73), Gawain uses this word
burne:
Bot busk, burne, bi bi fayth, and bryng me to be poynt.
Dele to me my destine, and do hit out of honde,
For I shal stonde be a strok, and start no more
Til byn ax haue me hitte: Haf here my trawbe.
(2284-87))
The use of common noun burne indicates that Gawain has no
respect for the Green Knight and the familiar pronoun thou
enforces Gawain”s angry attitude toward the Green Knight.
And when Gawain complains about the Green Knight’s violence

and asks him to stop, he calls the Green Knight by burne:

Blynne, burne, of by bur, bede me no mo!
(2322)

And also in his reply the Green Knight uses the same word to
Gawain:

Bolde burne, on bys bent be not so gryndel.

No mon here vnmanerly be mysboden habbez,

Ne kyd bot as couenaunde at kyngez kort schaped.

(2338-40)

Thus each of them deprecates the other by using a non—
honorific word, burne, instead of honorific titles.21
However, the non-honorific common word has the connotation
of politeness when used with the polite pronoun ye. The

common word burne is used in the Bercilak's court which is

sharply contrasted to the challenging scene in the Green

 

 

 

127
Chapel. In his court Bercilak is polite as a knight, though

he uses the common noun burne as a vocative to Gawain with
the alternation of the polite pronoun ye and familiar thou:

Bot 3e schal be in youre bed, burne, at byn ese,
(1071)

In the same court, Gawain always uses the honorific title
sire to Bercilak (1037;1056;1091).
wy3e which merely means "person" or "being" is also

generally used by the Gawain-poet as a neutral vocative
which does not belong to the category of honorific titles.
The Green Knight uses this word to Gawain along with his
personal name in a threatening situation:

Gawain,....God be mot loke!

Iwysse bou art welcom, wy3e, to my place.

(2240-41)

The Gawain-poet, however, often uses this word as a polite
term of address to anyone, regardless of their status or the
situation. Therefore King Arthur addresses the Green Knight

by wi3e, along with sire, without any difference in meaning:

...Wy3e, welcom iwys to bis place
be hede of bis ostel Arthour 1 hat.

(252-53)
And also:
...Sir cortays kny3t,
If bou craue batayle bare,
Here faylez bou not to fy3t.
(276-78)

The lady sometimes addresses Gawain as wy3e:

1 woled wyt at yow, wy3e, bat worby ber sayde,
(1508)

The servant of Bercilak and Gawain use this word wi3e to

each other in the same context as the use of the title sire.

 

 

 

128
When he accompanies Gawain to the Green Chapel, acting his

guide he uses a common noun wy3e as a vocative to Gawain:

For I haf wonnen yow hider, wy3e, at bis tyme,
(2091)

And Gawain also uses this common noun to him:

Wel worth be, wy3e, bat woldez my gode,

And bat lelly me layne I leue wel bou woldez.

(2127-28)

Non—honorific common nouns are often equivalent terms to the
honorific titles for the Gawain-poet but not for Chaucer.
In Chaucer general common nouns are considered less polite
than specific titles. For example, in the Pardoner’s Tale
the two audiences, the pilgrims and the villagers, are kept
apart for the reader by appropriate terms of address.
Lordynges and sires are used by the Pardoner when he
addresses the Pilgrims,22while he addresses the villagers by
"goode men" (VI,352) and "goode men and wommen" (VI,377)
since he considers them the "lewd peple" (VI,392;437). In
contrast to the use of the non-honorific common nouns which

has no connotation of respect, the honorific titles are used

to show politeness towards the addressee.

Dame, Madame, and Lady:

The honorific titles for women such as dame, madame and lady
developed independently from French as polite terms of
address in Middle English though sometimes French usages
directly influenced the usage of dame and madame. In
contrast to the use of common nouns as a vocative such as

lemman or wyf, or personal names, which are used in intimate

 

 

 

 

 

129
relationships or to social inferiors, the honorific titles

are used to express politeness.

In Middle English the most widely used honorific titles
to woman are dame, madame and lady. Each title was used as
a polite address to a woman, when used separately. However,
depending on the context, each title showed different
degrees of politeness. Dame, the most common honorific
title referring to woman, is often employed by or to the
lower class except for the same usage of an identical French
word. Madame is seen in the speeches of higher class or in
the address to a woman of higher rank. Lady is used as the
highest honorific title to a woman, as shown in the examples
of the speech of courtly lovers presented earlier. .

The word dame in Middle English was used to describe or
address a woman of rank, the head of a convent, the mistress
of household, or the mother of young children. It was
borrowed from the French word dame which was originally
employed as a title for women of the nobility only (until
the first half of the 13th century) and was never used as a
title for the bourgeoisie or for the lower classes of
society. Dame, meaning ’a noble lady’ as a title for
married women of the nobility was occasionally used as a
title for a noble girl, to whom, as a mark of great respect
and courtesy, was given a title that respectfully belonged
to an older woman only (Stowell, p.123). However, the title
dame is used to contrast with the title madame. The two

titles are normally equivalent since they are both used in

 

 

 

 

 

130
the same speech situation. However, dame is given to a

lower-ranking woman while a higher class woman is addressed
as madame. On all occasions the Wife of Bath is addressed
as dame by the Host, the Friar and the Pardoner. The Host
addresses the Wife of Bath as dame when he calls upon her to
tell a tale:

Do, dame, tell forth youre tale, and that is best.
(111-853)

The Host’s use of dame to the Wife of Bath is in contrast
with his use of lady and madame (1,121) to the Prioress |
(1,839; VII,447). The Friar, showing his interest by a
laughing comment(III, 830) also addresses the Wife of Bath
with dame when she declares that her prologue is finished
and her story about to begin:

Now dame, ..... so have I joye or blis,
This is a long preamble of a tale.(III,830-31)

He addresses her with dame in other places as well
(III,1270;1274). The Pardoner also addresses the Wife of
Bath as dame:

Dame, 1 wolde praye yow, if youre wyl it were.
(111,164; 184)

The Wife of Bath herself also uses dame in her Prologue and
Tale. When the Wife of Bath expresses what she would have,
one of her husbands calls her dame.

In the same way the friar in the Summoner’s Tale
differentiates between the women of the lower and higher
class by calling the one by dame (111,1805; 1812), and the

other by madame. The friar in the Tale addresses Thomas’s

 

 

 

 

 

 

131
wife by dame when he orders his dinner in his affected

mixture of French and English:

Now dame, now je vous dy sanz doute,

Have I nat of a capon but lyvere,

And of youre softe breed nat but a shyvere.
(111,1834-40)

 

whereas he uses madame to the other woman, the hostess of
the mansion:

Madame,...how thynke ye herby?
(III, 2204)

Madame,...by God, I shal nat lye,
But I on oother wyse may be wreke,
I shal disclaundre hym over a1 ther I speke,
(111,2212)
Besides revealing the addressee as a not so high
ranking woman, the use of dame also shows the speaker’s
personality or social position. The speaker reveals himself
. as a member of the lower class through the use of dame
rather than madame. In the Canterbury Tales dame appears in
the speech of the lower orders whereas madame is used in the .

speech of the higher class. The Miller, the Shipman, the

Pardoner and the Summoner, who all belong to the lower

 

class, use dame in their tales as a polite address to any

woman instead of madame (1,1751; 1805; 1812; 1838; 1848).

 

As seen in the above examples, dame is usually used to
address a not-so-high-ranking woman, or it appears in the
speech of the lower class in Chaucer’s the Canterbury Tales.

However, sometimes dame is used in the same context as
madame, following the French usages, in which the words are
identical. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Arthur

addresses his wife Guinevere as ’dere dame’(470). In the

 

   

 

 

132 .
Tale of'Melibee Melibeus uses dame before her personal name

when he addresses his wife Prudence with ye:

I graunte yow, dame Prudence, that pacience is a
greet vertu of perfeccioun. (VII,1518)

His usage of ye in conjuction with the title dame shows his
intention to be respectful. The Man of Law uses dame only
with personal names such as ’dame Custance’ and ’dame
Hermengyld’, as does the Nun’s Priest in 'dame Pertelote’.

Despite the use of dame in polite situations, because
of its increasing application to any woman, the honorific
title dame lost its original conception of honor. Instead,
ma dame fused into one word madame in French,23 and was then
adopted in English.

Compared with the title dame, therefore, madame is,
because of its French source, usually used to indicate a
high-ranking woman to distinguish some particular woman from
the wives of other feudal seigneurs who were also entitled
to the designation dame. The Prioress is addressed with
madame which is in contrast with the use of dame to the Wife
of Bath on all occasions.

In Chaucer dame is not found in the courtly context of
the Knight’s or Squire’s Tales, nor in Troilus and Cryseyde.
In these poems madame is used, albeit sparingly, alongside
the much more common lady.

In the Squire’s Tale and Troilus and Criseyde
honorific titles to woman are madame and sometimes lady.
Likewise in the Franklin’s Tale Aurelius always addresses

Dorigen as madame:

 

 

 

133
Madame,...by God that this world made,

So that I wiste it myghte youre herte glade,
I wolde that day that youre Arveragus,
Hadde went ther nevere I sholde have come agayn
In the.Man of Law’s Tale the messenger addresses the King’s
mother as madame though dame is used in the form of ’dame
Custance’ and ’dame Hermengyld’:
Madame, ye may be glad and blithe (11,732)

In the Clerk’s Tale, the Seargent, concerned at Griselda’s

distress apologizes to her with the use of madame:

Madame,.... ye moote foryeve it to me
Though I do thyng to which I am constreyned.
(IV,526-27)

The Gawain—poet also uses madame. In Sir Gawain and the

Green Knight, Gawain always calls the lady of Bercilak by

 

madame.

 

As all the above examples show, madame, the respectful
title to a woman, has been used to refer to women of high
social status. However, as its usage increased, it also
came to be used to women in the middle classes who were
social climbers like the guildsmen themselves. In the
General Prologue to the Canterbury Tales there are some
suggestions for calling the wives of guildsmen such as
haberdasher,carpenter, weaver, dyer and upholster madame.
After mentioning their rising social status:

Wel semed ech of hem a fair‘burgeys

To sitten in a yeldehalle on a deys.‘

Everich, for the wisdom that he kan,

Was shaply for to been an alderman.

For catel hadde they ynogh and rents,

And eek hir wyves wolde it wel assente;
And elles certeyn were they to blame. (I, 369-375)

 

134
and then:

It is ful fair to bee ycleped "madame," (1,376)

The increasing use of the honorific title madame to address
women of the middle class shows that society was changing,
and was lifting this new group to a position of affluence
and prestige with the expansion of trade.24

In marriage, just as the husband is addressed as sire,
so the wife is addressed as madame by her husband as a
polite term of address. In the Nun’s Priest’s Tale,
Chauntecleer addresses his wife as madame(VII, 2970,3165) by
itself and also with her personal name (VII, 3158,3200).
Thus the honorific title madame is used in symmetrical
situations as a counterpart title of sire to husband.
However, unlike dame, which become a colorless designation
for any woman, madame or ma dame still retained the
conception of respect and honor that dame had possessed
before.

Lady is also used as a polite address form in this
poetry. The normal courtly title for a woman was lady
though all the poets in that period used dame or madame as a
polite vocative in direct address. Lady is the female
counterpart of lord as a supreme honorific title. When it
is used as a vocative in direct address, its usage is
restricted. Lady was originally used to a woman of superior
position in society, or to a woman whom such a position is

attributed conventionally or by courtesy (OED), such as the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

135
Virgin Mary (as in Pearl) or the Queen, just as lord is used

to God or the King.

In the Wife of Bath’s Tale, the Queen is addressed as
lady by the knight and the old woman. The knight addresses
the Queen, on whom his life depends, as lady :

My liege lady, generally, (III-1037)

And the old woman who teaches him the right answer also
addresses the Queen as lady: "my sovereyn lady queene!"(111—
1048).

The Pilgrim Prioress is addressed by the Host as lady.
In the General Prologue the Host asks her to draw cut by
using the honorific title lady:

Cometh neer, my lady Prioress, (1-839)

And when he calls upon her for a tale he also uses the word
lady:

My lady Prioresse, by youre leve,

So that I wiste I sholde yow nat greve,

I wolde demen that ye tellen sholde

A tale next, if so were that ye wolde.

Now wol ye vouchesauf, my lady deere?

(VII,447—451)
Among the Pilgrims, the Monk is the only man who is
addressed with lord alone and not in combination with sire
or maister like the Knight. This indicates that the
Prioress is the female counterpart of the Monk in terms of
social rank: They have something worldly in common as
described in the General Prologue. The worldliness of the
Prioress is presented through the use of the title lady with

a mild and amused irony, just as the Monk, able and

luxurious, is admired and mocked at once in the title of

 

 

136
lord. The Host shows a clumsy deference to the Prioress by

addressing her as lady, just as he shows deference to the
Monk with the supreme honorific title lord.

Since the honorific title lady is the usual term for a
woman in high positions, it is only natural to call the
object of courtly love lady, because in courtly love the
woman is supposed to be in a higher position than the man,
the lover. As lord is used to a husband in marriage, so
lady is used to a woman in courtly love.25

In Troilus and Criseyde, Criseyde is usually addressed
as lady by Troilus. In the same way in the Knight’s Tale
the archetype courtly lover Arcite uses lady to his lover,
Emily. When he has been given up by his physicians and when
he is just on the point of death, he says to Emily:

Naught may the woful spirit in myn hert

Declare 0 point of alle my sorwes smerte

To yow, my lady, that i love moost,

But I biquethe the servyce of my goost

To yow aboven every creature,

Syn that my lyf may no lenger dure.(I,2765—70)

In contrast to the use of lady in courtly love, when the
title lady is used to a lower class which makes the
situation is to be interpreted as comic. In the Muller’s
Tale the carpenter’s wife, Alison, is described in a way
that parodies the formal description of the beautiful court
lady through the use of the honorific title lady:

Now, deere lady, if thy wille be

I praye yow that ye wole rewe on me,
(1,3361-62)

 

 

 

 

137
This use of lady displays some irony because the speaker

uses a title for courtly love in conjunction with thou which
is not used in courtly love.

In the Shipman’s Tale, the monk calls the merchant’s
wife lady: "Now trewly, myn owene lady deere" (VII-196)

By the use of the honorific title lady, the monk is
flattering the merchant’s wife.

Even in the marriage relationship, lady is used to
refer to the wife. In the Wife of Bath’s Tale, the Knight
addresses his wife as lady after her sermon about
gentillesse:

My lady and my love, and wyf so deere,
I put me in youre wise governance. (111,1230-31)

The use of lady in marriage reflects that their relationship
is that of courtly love showing humility of the husband,
like a courtly lover by a combined use of the polite pronoun
ye. However, in the Franklin’s Tale, though Arveragus
promises to behave himself as a courtly lover, he never uses
the honorific title. Arveragus always uses the more general
common word wyf to address his wife while she addresses him
with the honorific title sire. Though the Franklin
emphasizes in his Tale courtly love in marriage, Arveragus
doesn’t use the title lady to Dorigen. And the teller
Franklin himself uses the word wyf instead of the title
lady. As Lumiansky points out, the Franklin betrays his
contradictory opinion about marriage by speaking of the

couple Arveragus and Dorigen as "Arveragus and Dorigen his

wyf," not "Arveragus and Dorigen his lady (193)."

 

 

138
The honorific title lady can also be used sarcastically

in an inappropriate situation, as can the other honorific
titles. In the.Merchant’s Tale, when January sees his wife
sitting in the tree with her lover, he says: " O stronge
lady, stoore, what dostow?" (IV,2367). January also uses
lady to his wife " in the elevated poetic language of the
Song of Solomon,"26 with thou, instead of with the polite
pronoun ye:

Rys up, my wyf, my love, my lady free!

The turtles voys is herd, my dowve sweete;

The wynter is goon with alle his reynes weete.

Com forth now, with thyne eyen eyen columbyn.

(IV,2138-4l)
Considering January’s usual vocative to his wife is the
common noun wyf, his use of lady and sometimes dame shows
his hypocrisy and pretentiousness.

The use of the title lady in courtly love is in
contrast with the use of lemman in the lower class. The
difference between courtly lovers and lovers of the lower
class is that courtly lovers use the honorific titles lady
or madame to their ladies whereas lovers of the lower class
use general nouns of address such as lemman instead of
honorific titles. In the Miller’s Tale the two lovers,
Nicholas and Absalon, address Alison27 as lemman. The
lovesick Absalon addresses his beloved Alison as lemman with
ye, a combination intended to parody courtly language:

What do ye, honeycomb, sweete Alisoun,

My faire bryd, my sweete cynamome?

Awaketh, lemman myn, and speketh to me!

Wel litel thynken ye upon my wo,

That for youre love I swete ther I go.
No wonder is thogh that I swelte and swete;

 

 

 

 

 

 

139

I moorne as dooth a lamb after the tete.

Ywis, lemman, 1 have swich love—longynge

That lik a turtel trewe is my moornynge.

I may nat ete na moore than a mayde.
(I,3698—707)

The other lover, Nicholas, also addresses Alison as lemman:

Ywis, but if ich have my wille,
For deerne love of thee, lemman, I spille.
(1,3277-78)
And:
Lemman, love me al atones,
Or I wol dyen, also God me save!
(1,3280—1)

In the Reeve’s Tale lovers use lemman which literally means
"one beloved," instead of lady or madame. Aleyn addresses
Malyne as lemman and wight:

Fareweel, Malyne, sweete wight.(I,4236)

Now, deere lemman, go fareweel.(1,4240)

And, goode lemman, God thee save and kepe.(1,4247)
In the Manciple’s Tale, Chaucer makes the following comments
on how the status of the word lemman contrasts with the word

lady:
And so bifel, whan Phebus was absent,
His wyf anon hath for hir lemman sent.
Hir lemman? Certes, this is a knavyssh speche!
Foryeveth it me, and that I yow biseche.
The wise Plato seith, as ye may rede,
The word moot nede accorde with the dede.
If men shal telle properly a thyng,
The word moost cosyn be to the werkyng.
I am a boystous man, right thus seye I,
Ther nys no difference, trewely,
Bitwixe a wyf that is of heigh degree,
If of hir body dishonest she bee,
And a poure wenche, oother than this--
If it so be they werke bothe amys—-
But that the gentile in hire estaat above,
She shal be cleped his lady, as in love;
And for that oother is a poure womman,
She shal be cleped his wenche or his lemman.
(IX,203~220)

 

 

 

 

 

 

140
Chaucer informs us here that lemman is a ’low’ word in

medieval times.28
The use of vocatives in Chaucer and the Gawain-poet

shows high artistic skills in describing hierarchical
society and at the same time changing social mobility.
Chaucer emphasizes changing society whereas the Gawain-poet
focuses on hierarchical society through vocatives. The use
of kinship terms or personal names can be interpreted as
signs of familiarity between speaker and addressee, as in
the examples from the Knight’s Tale in the Canterbury Tales,
and in Troilus and Criseyde no matter what social rank they
have. However, if their relationship is not close‘or
intimate, the use of personal names can be interpreted as a
contempt or an insult as shown in the conversation among the
Pilgrims in the Canterbury Tales and in the speech of the

Green Knight to Gawain in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Calling the addressee by the occupational or rank label

 

without any title can be used neutrally unless the speaker
has intention of insulting the addressee.

On the other hand the use of honorific titles such as
sire, maister, lorde, dame, madame and lady are used as
polite, honorific, humble, neutral and sarcastic depending
on the context. If separately used, each honorific title
can be interpreted as the same polite address as the other.
However, if used comparatively with the other honorific
title, one honorific title stands higher than the other. In

the late Middle English poems I have dealt with I have shown

 

 

 

 

141
that maister and dame are used as polite labels irrespective

of the person’s social rank, even though maister carries a
special connotation of learnedness. The supreme honorific
titles lorde and lady are only used in a situation where
courtesy is required depending on the interest or ideal, and
the social rank of the speaker. Thus it is no wonder to see
that the Middle English honorific titles madame and sire
have descended into Modern English as general polite address
forms. For the Gawain-poet, the choice of any particular
variation was usually a matter of meter rather than social
meaning. However, for Chaucer all these honorific titles
have different meanings depending on the context in which

they appear.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

lGeoffrey N. Leech use the term ’vocative’ to refer to
the words to call the addressee in order to get attention
from him. Thus 1 use the term 'vocative’ as a mode of
address in direct conversation.

2I will use the word ’label’ only for profession and
rank to distinguish these terms from honorific forms of
address, for which I will use the word 'title.’

31 explained about their social rank in Chapter 1.

4Allan T. Gaylord deals with various kinds of
friendship among the characters in Troilus and Criseyde, in
his article, "Friendship in Chaucer’s Troilus" The Chaucer
Review,3,No.4 (1966),238-64. According to his explanation
’friendship’ is an idea that matters much in Troilus and
Criseyde. He even argues that "without understanding the
importance of friendship as both a value and an element in
the plot cannot really be said to understand what the poem
is about."

5 Concerning antagonism between the Host and the Cook,
note F.J. Tupper, "The Quarrels of the Canterbury Pilgrims,"
JEGP,14 (1915), 265.

6Ralph Elliott assigns one chapter of his book,
Chaucer’s English (London: Andre Deutch, 1974) to Chaucer’s
cherl’s terms.

7The Middle class is not a unified, self-conscious
class in the minds of contemporaries. Thus among the middle
class each individual judges each other by his own standard.

8According to A Concordance of the Complete WOrks of
Geoffrey Chaucer,(J. S. P. Tatlock and A. G. Kennedy;
Washington, 1927) and A Concordance To Five Middle English
Poems: St. Erkenwald, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight,
Patience, Pearl,(Kottler, Barnet and Markman M.; University
of Pittsburgh Press, 1966) titles sire and dame appear more
than any other title.

142

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

143
9Concering the original meaning of honorific titles I
refer to William Averill Stowell’s book, Old-French Titles
of Respect in Direct Address (Baltimore: J. H. Furst
Company, 1908) .

10The Host uses to the Monk different vocatives which
show the Host’s temporary feeling at the time he speakes to
the Monk.

111 already mentioned the learnedness of the Clerk and
the Man of Law in chapter I.

12It is very like the usage of Mr. in Victorian times,
and later, in which some women addressed their husband with
Mr.

l3Godon Hall Gerould (p.54) explains the Franklin’s
polite attitude in terms of his gentillesse, in his book,
Chaucerian Essays (New York: Russell & Russel, 1968).

14Parson’s social status was not high in that period.

l51h Middle English the word ’wy3e’ had not only the
meaning " a human being, man or woman"(OED s.v. wight sb.
sense 2)--it is used by the poet to refer to the lady in
line 1792--but "a living being in general"(s.v. sense 1);
and it was often applied to supernatural beings (sense 1b).

Originally the word 'burne,’ which was ’bern’ or
’beorn,’ meant "warrior"

16I explained about the Lady's alternation of ye and
thou in Chapter 1.

17Depending on the tone or intonation, the same word
may have different connotation.

18Chaucer does not prefix ’sire’ to a knight's name
anywhere else in his works but ’sir Topas.’Fou1et thinks
that 'sire’ had been too frequently associated with unworthy
names and so became tainted with vulgarity.(J.A. Burrow,
Essays on Medieval Literature. Oxford: Clarendon press. p69-
74)

19Malone, p.174.

20See Notes 15.

. 21Here Dr. Yunck comments that much of Sir Gawain and
the Green Knight’s vocabulary depends on the need for
alliteration rather than the matter of politeness.

22 A. Luengo discusses the effect of the two audiences
(the church people and the Pilgrims) on the form and style
of the core sermon of the Pardoner’s presentation in the

 

 

 

 

 

 

144
article "Audience and Exempla in the Pardoner’s Prologue and
Tale," The Chaucer Review 11, No.1 (Summer,1976),1—10.

23Stowell (p.125) takes examples in which "ma dame" is
written as one word in some French texts of the second half
of the thirteenth and the first half of the fourteenth
centuries.

24Middle class is considered to reflect changing
society in the decline of feudalism of that period.

25This explains well that the marriage relationship is
the oposite to courtly love.

26January’s speech is full of echoes of the Song of
Solomon.

27Alison is not a courtly lady at all.

28Scattergood (p.139) remarks that "lemman" was a
mildly impolite word:

 

 

 

IV. REQUESTS

Different syntactic structures, even if they are
semantically synonymous, mark the situations in which they
occur as different. In conjunction with the distinctions of
the two second person singular pronouns thou and ye and the
vocative forms, the choice of variant syntactic forms of
requests (under which category I include all kinds of
directives) also shows the social context in which language
is used in late Middle English poetry. While the earlier
two chapters focused on social patterns of linguistic
features, such social aspects of language use, as
interpersonal relations and the social status of the speaker
and the addressee, this chapter will focus on syntactic
variants which illuminate most clearly situational patterns,
the settings in which language is used.1

Though the request forms were not used in the same
way as those shown in recent studies of current English
usage, as Ervin-Tripp (1969) shows in her classification of
requests because of the different situation and language,2
Chaucer and the Gawain-poet make the most of the various
syntactic forms of request, that is order, ask, recommend or
advise, in their own way to explain the situations and at

.the same time the personalities of their characters.

 

 

 

 

 

146

Chaucer employs different syntactic forms freely as
requests to show the position or the role of his characters
in his works by having the same character use different
forms depending on the situation. On the other hand the
Gawain-poet uses various syntactic forms of request as the
instrument of characterization.

The analysis in this chapter is based on the assumption
that the most indirect form of a request is the most polite,
if it is used in an appropriate situation; otherwise it
should be interpreted as sarcastic or as an insult towards
the addressee. On the other hand, the most explicit and
direct request is usually least polite, although context, in
particular the speech situation, and relative social status
will affect interpretation.

Brown and Levinson (1978) argue that indirect forms are
more polite than direct structures. Thus the most indirect
form would be considered the most polite choice available if
it is used in appropriate situations. For example, the
indirect request, "Would you open the door?" is usually
interpreted as more polite than the direct request form, the
imperative, "Open the door." However, the same request form
could convey sarcasm if used in inappropriate situations.

It could function to insult or irritate the addressee, while

containing sufficient ambiguity to protect the speaker.
There have been many terms to describe indirect

request forms. Gordon & Lakoff (1971) have tried to explain

the relationship between direct and indirect request forms

 

 

 

147
by distinguishing literal meaning from conveyed meaning.

Through conveyed meaning the speaker can deliver his
attitude towards the addressee implicitly. They show that
expressions of politeness rely on conveyed meaning rather
than on literal meaning. Robin Lakoff (1972) shows the
importance of social context of an utterance in interpreting
politeness. In her article "Language in Context," she shows
that social context plays a role in the interpretation of
speech by using some modal verbs as examples. Depending on
the social context, one modal verb which is considered more
polite than the other, can be reversed in the degree of
politeness and considered more rude than the other.

Other generative semanticists, such as Ross and
Sadock, proposed the performative hypothesis, which assumes
that the structure of a speech is coded in the form of
abstract underlying sentences which contain a performative
verb as well as the pronoun ’you’ and ’1’. For example, the
imperative form "Open the door" could be prefixed in its
specific context with a performative tag "I request you to."
According to the performative theory both forms are
essentially identical. However, despite their syntactic
relations, requests which have different surface forms
cannot have the same meaning from the sociolinguistic point
of view. Hymes (1974) states that "social function gives
form to the ways in which linguistic features are
encountered in actual life" (196). Circumstances in which

one would utter one request form are different from those in

 

 

 

148
which one would utter the other. In many, perhaps most

cases, one cannot tell what illocutionary act is being
performed in the uttering of a certain sentence unless one
is provided with a context.

Since Hymes’ observations must be accounted for,
perhaps the most important theory which relates the
utterance meaning to the situation in which it is uttered is
Speech Act theory, developed by the philosopher J. L. Austin
(1962) in How To Do Things with WOrds, and elaborated by J.
R. Searle (1969) in Speech Acts.

According to the basic Speech Act theory as outlined by
Austin and Searle, there are three major kinds of acts that
one performs as a speaker within the communication
situation: locutionary acts, which are the sounds or the
print a speaker or writer produces which are ordered
according to all the structural rules of that language;
illocutionary acts, which are acts performed in the speaking
(writing) of a meaningful utterance; and perlocutionary
acts, which are the causing of any contingent consequence as
a result of speaking.

For example, simply uttering the sentence "Open the
door" is to perform a locutionary act. Furthermore, if the
sentence is addressed.to the appropriate person in
appropriate circumstances, such as standing outside or
inside of a room with the intention of requesting some
person in the room with you to open the door, then an

illocutionary act is performed (the act of requesting). A

 

 

 

 

 

149
perlocutionary act would be performed if that person opened

the door as a result of the request.3

Among these three kinds of acts the socially
significant acts are illocutionary acts, though both the
locutionary and the illocutionary acts seem to offer the
richest expressive possibilities. By uttering the remark
"Open the door," a locutionary act, the speaker is
performing the illocutionary act of requesting which is
socially significant only because of the social context.

While the locutionary act contains the coded message
(oral or written) that the speaker directs to the addressee,
how the speaker intends the message and what the addressee
perceives from the message belong to the illocutionary act.
That is, when people speak, they also perform acts of
various kinds, such as declaring, asking, requesting,
commanding, promising and so on. To properly decode the
speaker’s intention, the people involved need to share the
same verbal and nonverbal background.

Speech act theory explicates the speaker’s competence
in what Richard Ohmann (1971) terms "using speech to act
(and be acted upon) within the matrix of social and verbal
conventions" ("Speech, Acts and Style," in Literary Style: A
Symposium). The competence requisite on the part of the
speaker and addressee includes both verbal and nonverbal
parameters. For the verbal, the semantic and syntactic
choices a speaker makes can produce different responses in

the addressee. As Roger Fowler (1979) points out in regard

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

150
to syntactic choices, "a speaker’s syntactic choices may

’mean’ more than one thing and something else for
interlocutor " (8).

Nonverbal factors such as social status, position of
authority and power, age, occupational status, and any other
‘ indicators of placement within the social hierarchy or
setting interact with the verbal message and contribute to
the meaning. Illocutionary acts must be interpreted in the
light of the status of the speaker relative to the addressee
and of the relation of both to the social situation because
these relationships can have a direct bearing upon the
illocutionary force of an utterance.

Commenting on the syntax of Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight, A. C. Spearing (1964) in his book, Criticism and
Medieval Poetry, points out that the manner of expresSion
cannot be delivered through a modern translation, even
though "the content of the speech can be easily translated
into modern English " (40). In the second chapter he
compares a modern translation of Gawain’s speech to King
Arthur with the original and finds that the modern
translation lacks the Same degree of courtesy or politeness.
He then concludes that characters’ personalities are
"expressed though syntax rather than imagery " (45).
Particularly, he shows that Gawain’s courtesy is shown by
the way in which he says rather than by what he says.

Unlike the other variables which were discussed in

chapters one and two (the second person pronouns and

 

 

 

 

 

 

151
vocatives), request forms are more constrained by the social

situation in which they take place, including the task or
topic which is requested, than they are constrained by the
social relationship between speaker and addressee. For
example, the sentence "Open the door" in Modern English

shows that its occurence is more situationally than socially

restrained.
(1) (Please) open the door ‘ (imperative)
(2) I’d like you to open the door (statement)
(3) Could you open the door (question)
Though sentences (1)-(3) have different syntactic forms,

they are all underlying requests, but with very different
expressive value depending in part on the situation in which
they are used.

I will explain different syntactic forms of request in
terms of the situations in which they take place. Other
factors such as task and the relative status of the speaker
and addressee can be included among situations with respect
to politeness. From this example of situational constraint
basically three different syntactic request forms should be
considered. These range from explicit and slightly modified
imperatives to statements and questions which are formally

identical to utterances which are not requests.

Direct Requests:
The most explicit and direct form of request is the

imperative structure—~the command. As the most direct form,

 

 

 

 

152
imperatives are employed in situations in which obligations

and rights between speaker and addressee exist or the
relationship of "authoritor" and "authoritee" is
established.4 Imperatives are usually employed in an
obvious rights-and~obligations situation. Where the speaker
has the right to command and the addressee has the
obligation to follow him, or where there is intimacy between
speaker and addressee, the speaker does not need to be
polite in using request forms. Thus imperative forms are
used in both asymmetrical and symmetrical situations. The
social rank is another factor which affects the choice of
request form. For example, between the people of different
social rank, the social superior uses the imperative form to
his inferior, who in turn uses the indirect request form.
However, the imperative form is used symmetrically between
close relations regardless of their social status.

Chaucer and the Gawain—poet employ various
syntactically different forms to order, ask, recommend and
advise (which I put in a larger category ’request’) to
characterize the situation in which the request is Spoken.
By having his characters use a particular syntactic form of
request in the speech situation, Chaucer and the Gawain—poet
show the personality of his character depending on the
situational patterns. Chaucer emphasizes the role and the
position of the speaker in speech situations in the
Canterbury Tales, Troilus and Criseyde and the Parliament of

Fowles. The Gawain-poet shows his ideal theme cortayse in

 

 

 

 

 

 

153
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight with respect to the court.

As the greatest image of splendor and power, the court is
where we would expect to find courtesy. In Sir Gawain and
the Green Knight there are two courts: Arthur’s and
Bercilak’s. In Arthur’s court, King Arthur uses the
imperative form to command freely, which is what is expected
of him because a King has every right to command in his
court. He uses the imperative form to his cousin, Gawain:
Kepe be, cosyn, bat bou on kyrf sette, (372)
and:

. Now sir, heng vp byn ax, bat hatz innogh hewen. (476)
King Arthur’s use of imperative forms to his social inferior
shows his dominant position to the fellow—men in his court.
Instead of using imperatives, Gawain uses indirect request
forms to Arthur:

Now, lege lorde of my lyf, leue I yow ask;

3e know be cost of bis cace, kepe I no more

To telle yow tenez berof, neuer bot trifel;

Bot I am boun to be bur barely to-morne

To sech be gome of be grene, as God wyl me wysse.

(545-49)

This shows the prOper relationship between Arthur and
his subordinates.

Just as King Arthur is in the position of authority in
his court because he is King, the Lord Bercilak shows his
power in his Castle through the use of imperative forms to

Gawain. When Gawain tells Bercilak that he must leave to go

to the Green Knight to be challenged, Bercilak uses the

imperative form:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

154

...’Now leng be byhoues,
For I shal teche yow to bat terme bi be tymez ende,
be grene chapayle vpon grounde greue yow no more;
. (1068-70)
And he continues this same pattern:
And cum to bat merk at mydmorn, to make quat yow likez
in spenne.
DoWellez whyle New 3eres daye,
And rys, and raykez benne,
Mon schal yow sette in waye,
Hit is not two myle henne.(1074-78)
When Gawain insists again on leaving in the morning, arguing
that the time has almost come, Bercilak detains him again.
After he reassures Gawain that he will get there safely and
promptly, he uses the imperative form
Forby bow lye in by loft and lach byn ese,
And I schall hunt in bis holt, and halde be towchez,
Chaunge wyth be cheuisaunce, bi bat I charre hider.7
(1676-78)
In his own court, Bercilak is in power and has the right to
use the imperative form.
In contrast to the use of imperative forms with thou to
the Green Knight as in Arthur’s court, Gawain uses an
indirect form of request with ye to Bercilak:
Forby, sir, bis enquest I require yow here,
bat 3e me telle with trawthe if euer ye tale herde
Of be grene chapel, quere hit on gounde stondez,
And of be knyht bat hit kepes, of colou dfogfiefié)
However, the Green Knight uses the imperative form in
Arthur’s court as well as in his own Castle before revealing

himself as the Lord of Bercilak. When he first appears in

Arthur’s court, he addresses Gawain:

 

 

 

 

155
Lok, Gawan, bou be graybe me, to go as bou hettez

And layte as lelly till bou me, lude, fynde,
As bou hatz in bis halle, herande bise kny3tes;
(448—56)

Since in Arthur’s court the Green Knight has no authority or
right to command, his use of the imperative form is a sign
of impertinence. This rudeness is reinforced by the use of
the pronoun thou instead of the polite pronoun ye. And
later, when he meets Gawain in his Chapel, before he reveals
himself the Lord of Bercilak, he continues to use the
imperative where we would expect a mitigated form between
apparent equals: "Haf at be benne!" (2288)

This use of a short imperative is completely different
from Gawain's long hypothetical speech. A. C. Spearing
(1964) in his book, Criticism and Medieval Poetry, mentions
that "the Green Knight’s bluffness is expressed through a
series of short sentences " (44), and that is also
contrasted with Gawain’s long elaborate sentence. As Larry
Benson (1965) points out in his book, Art and Tradition in
Sir Gawain and the Green knight, "the Gawain-poet drew
freely on the conventional grimaces of a churlish wild man
to characterize the Green Knight " (80). The poet shows
the Green Knight’s personality, which is rude like his
behaviour, by having the Green Knight use imperative forms.
At‘the same time he also shows through Bercilak’s use of the
same request forms in both courts. The Lord of Bercilak’s

masquerade as the Green Knight only works superficially; he

unwittingly reveals his true personality through his

language patterns.

 

 

 

 

 

 

156
In contrast to the use of indirect polite forms to

King Arthur and Bercilak, Gawain uses the most direct
request form, the imperative, to the Green Knight in
Arthur's court and in the Green Chapel to challenge the
Green knight. When Gawain asks about the Green Knight’s
place in his first appearance in Arthur’s court, he says:
Bot teche me truly berto, and tell me how bou hattes
And I schal ware alle my wyt to wynne me beder,
(401-2)
By using the direct imperative forms to the Green Knight,
which the Green Knight has used to him, Gawain challenges
the Green Knight’s position in Arthur’s court, and conveys
his understanding that the Green Knight is not his superior.
In addtion to the situations in which a speaker has
clear social power over the addressee, any speaker can use
the imperative form as a request to any one who is under his
control in those situations which give the speaker some kind
of authority, even though the speaker is not normally the
social superior of the addressee. .For example, Harry Baily,
the Host in the canterbury Tales, usually uses imperative
forms to every member of the party except to the two women,
the Wife of Bath and the Prioress. (I will explain these
particular relationships later). In the canterbury Tales,
the Host is the one who is chosen to lead the story—telling

and whom all the other members agree to follow. In the

 

 

 

 

 

157
General Prologue, his authority and right to command are

described:

"This thyng was graunted, and oure othes swore

With ful glad herte, and preyden hym also

That he wolde vouchesauf for to do so,

And that he wolde been oure governour,

And of our tales juge and reportour,

And sette a soper at a certeyn pris,

And we wol reuled been at his devys

In heigh and lough. And thus by oon assent

We been accorded to his juggement"

(1,809—818)

Thus he does "not hesitate to assert his authority" (Malone,
p.196) and power in leading story-telling through the use of
imperative forms.

When he calls on each member to tell a tale, he uses
the plain imperative form which has two different verb
endings depending on the subject thou or ye. As J. Kerkhof
(1982) notes in his book Studies in the Language of Geoffrey
Chaucer, the Host, who is "in no doubt of the importance of
social distinctions (57)," is remarkable in his use of the
imperative towards the individual pilgrims. Although the
agreement at the beginning of the pilgrimage gives him
authority over the pilgrims, he still shows distinctions
between high and low class pilgrims through his use of verb
endings. When he speaks to the lower class pilgrims he uses
the stem-form of strong verbs and a form in -e with most
weak verbs, the forms which go with the subject thouz5

to the Miller; tel on devele wey

to the Reeve; sey forth thy tale, and tarie not thy

tyme
to the Cook; ne brynge not everyman into thyn house

now telle on, but yet I pray thee, be nat
wroth for a game

 

 

 

 

 

158
to the Man of Law; tell us

to the Parson; telle us

to the Wife of Bath; telle forth youre tale

to the Summoner; tel forth tale

to the Squire; sey somewhat of love

to the Franklin; telle on thy wit

to the Pardoner; telle us

to Chaucer; telle us

to the Nun’s Priest ; telle us

to the Canon’s Yeoman; tel me;

to the Manciple; telle on thy tale.
However, he uses the different verb ending -eth, which goes
with ye in his address to higher class pilgrims. The
distinctions between these verb endings carry the same
meaning as the distinctions of ye and thou discussed in
Chapter I.

to the Monk; now telleth ye,

to the clerk; herkeneth me

to the Friar; telleth youre tale

to the Prioress: cometh

to the Clerk; studieth
Even to the Pilgrim highest in social rank, the Knight, the
Host demonstrates his power through the plain imperative
form. After he uses all of the honorific titles sire,
maister, and even lord to the Knight, he commands him with
the plain imperative form:

Sire Knyght, my mayster and my lord,

Now draweth cut, for that is myn accord.

(1,837-38)

Thus the Host’s use of imperative verb forms to all the
Pilgrims, regardless of their social status, shows his power
to command them to tell their stories, but his use of the
different verb endings shows his awareness of the Pilgrims’

different social statuses. As Kemp Malone (1951) points

oht, Chaucer makes the Host "domineering one moment" though

1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

159
the use of imperative forms and "solicitous the next"

through the use of the polite pronouns and vocatives.(p.196)

In the Franklin’s Tale Aurelius puts himself in a
position of authority to command by using the imperative to
Dorigen, his social superior. Dorigen has promised to love
Aurelius if he can perform the apparently impossible task of
removing the black rocks which she sees as a danger to her
husband. Aurelius tells her that the deed has been done,
demands the fulfilment of her promise, and he does so
warning her:

"Aviseth yow er that ye breke youre trouthe." (648)
Because Aurelius has fulfilled his promise, Dorigen is
placed under obligation to him. Aurelius’ use of the
imperative here indicates his awareness of his temporary
superiority, even though he is usually in the position of
authoritee in terms of social status, as is evidenced by his
use of vocative forms explained in Chapter II.

In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight the Lady of Bercilak
uses the plain imperative form to Gawain on the occasion of
her second visit to him. After Gawain says "I am at your
comaundement" (1501) she accepts her rights of authority by
using the imperative form:

"Dos teches me of youre wythe" (1533)

This plain imperative form is contrasted with her usual
indirect form of speech. In giving a brief lesson on the

proper role of men in love she tries to argue him into

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

160
conforming to her interpretation of the courtly code (1508-

1534).

The imperative form is also used in the situations in
which the task requested is to the benefit of the addressee.
In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, a servant of Bercilak
who accompanies Gawain to the Green Chapel addresses Gawain:

’Forby I say be, as sobe as Be in sadel sitte,

Com 3e bere, 3e be kylled, may be kny3t rede,

Trawe 3e me bat trwely, ba3 3e had twenty lyves

to spende.’(2110-12)

And he continues:

Forby, goude Sir Gawayn, let be gome one,

And gotz away sum ober gate, vpon Goddes haluel

Cayrez bi sum oper kyth, ber Kryst mot yow spede,

(2118-20)
The servant, who is acting as his guide, uses the imperative
form to warn Gawain of some urgency and tempts Gawain to do
what he tells by pretending that this warning is to the
benefit of Gawain, even though it is not true.6 In the same
way, in the poem Pearl, the maiden always uses the
imperative form to the dreamer-father without a single
exception because all her requests are to the benefit of the
latter.

The plain imperative form is also used in intimate
situations, regardless of the social status of the speaker
and the addressee. Chaucer shows the close friendships
between characters by having them use imperative forms to
each other. In the Knight’s Tale two knights, Arcite and

Palamon always use the plain imperative form to each other.

And in Troilus and Criseyde, which puts a great emphasis on

 

 

 

 

 

 

161
’friendship’ among characters, Troilus and Pandarus always

use direct imperative forms to one another whenever requests
take place despite their different social rank. Pandarus
and Criseyde also address each other with the direct form.
This symmetrical use of imperatives shows their intimate
friendship.

In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight the Lady of
Bercilak sometimes uses the imperative form to Gawain though
her normal request form is much more indirect. This is
appropriate to the disingenuous role she is playing: her use
of this form with the conventional pronoun thou instead of
the polite ye which she otherwise uses underlies the
intimacy that she is trying to establish with Gawain, thus
making herself more of a temptation to him:

"Now, dere, at bis departyng do me bis ese,

Gif me sumquat of by gifte, bi gloue if hit were.

bat I may mynne on be, mon, my mournyng to

lassen. (1798-1800)
Besides being used in intimate situations, the imperative
form is also employed in adversarial situations. In Sir
Gawain and the Green Knight, in which the Green Knight and
Gawain are challenging each other, they use imperative forms
to each other, which indicates their adversarial attitudes
towards each other.

Gawain addresses the Green Knight agressively by using

imperative forms in the Green Chapel before the latter

reveals himself as Bercilak:

Bot busk, burne, bi bi fayth, and bryng me to be
poynt.

 

 

 

162

Dele to me my destine, and do hit out of honde,
For I schal stonde be a strok, and start no more
Til byn ax haue me hitte: haf here my trawbe.
(2284-87)
And Gawain also says to Green Knight:

Blynne, burne, of by bur, bede me no more!
I haf a stroke in bis sted withoute stryf hent,

And berfore, hende, now hoo! (2322-30)
In contrast to his usual use of indirect polite forms,
this imperative form shows his competitive attitude towards
the addressee, the Green Knight. The Green Knight also uses
the imperative form:

Haf at be ax haue be a stroke.(2288)

After they are reconciled, Gawain goes back to his usual
indirect style:

Bot on I wolde yow pray, displeses neuer.

Syn 3e be lorde of lorde of be 3onder londe ber I haf

lent inne

Wyth yow wyth worschyp--be wy3e hit yow 3elde

Bat vphaldez pe heuen and on hy3 sittez--

How norne 3e yowre ry3t nome, and benne no more?

(2439-43)

In the Canterbury Tales the Reeve uses the imperative
form to the Miller when he recognizes that he is about to be
attacked. The drunken Miller rises to a point of personal
privilege and demands that he be permitted to "quyte the
Knight’s tale" with a story of a cuckolded carpenter and his
faithless wife. His speech provokes the Reeve’s anger and
the Reeve responds:

Stynt thy clappe!

Lat be thy lewd dronken harlotry.

(1,3144-49)

Another hostile situation in which the direct imperative

form is used occurs in the speech of the Host after the Wife

 

 

163
of Bath’s prologue. When the quarrel between the Friar and

the Summoner erupts, the Host says to the Friar:

Pees, and that anon!

Lat the womman telle hire tale.

(111,850-51)

The Host could have used the equally acceptable and more
polite modified imperative to restore order; however, he
chooses the plain imperative form because he was angry at
the disruption caused by the Friar and the Summoner.
And also the Host uses the plain imperative form to the Monk
after he mentions the characteristics of the Monk unsuitable

to the clergy:

But be nat wrooth, my lord, though that I
pleye.(VII,1963)

The Host’s use of an impolite imperative form with the
sarcastic vocative ’my lord’ provokes the Monk’s anger but
"this worthy Monk took al in pacience."(VII,l915)

Another form of direct request is the modified
imperative which is simply the imperative form modified with
the phrase ’1 prey you (or thee)’ or ’I beseche’
corresponding to ’please’ in Modern English. This form is
used to put a little more emphasis on a speaker’s need or
desire to have a certain task performed. When he
emphatically asks the addressee to do something or asks the
addressee to do something at a cost tb the addressee, he
adds the phrase ’I prey’ or ’1 biseke.’ Therefore, as
mentioned in reference to the Host above, the imperative
form with the modifying phrase, ’I prei you (or thee)’ is

considered more polite than the plain imperative form by

 

 

 

 

164
itself since this form implies asking, not commanding, the

addressee to do something.

This modified imperative is used in a situation in
which the task is difficult to mention or in which the
difficulty or uniqueness of the request is emphasized. In
the Shipman’s Tale, for example, the merchant’s wife speaks
to the addressee, the monk, in the modified imperative form
when she wants to borrow some money from him. Borrowing
seems to be a difficult request for her to make:

' and therefore I yow prey, -
Lene me this somme or ellis moot I deye.
(VII,185-186)
Her use of the modified imperative, a more polite request
form, indicates that the task is difficult for her to
request. She also adds a dire consequences to stress the
urgency of her need. An imperative lacking this tag also
lacks the force associated with that urgency.

Since ’I prey’ has the connotation of politeness, it is
often employed in the negative imperatives. In the
Canterbury Tales, the Host uses this modified imperative
form to the Cook. When the Knight has begun the story—
telling, the Host has no difficulty in inducing the others
to continue. However, when the Reeve has finished his tale,
the Cook of London is so delighted that he "clawed him on
the bak (1,4326)," and volunteered. When the Host accepted
the offer of the Cook, fearing he should offend the Cook,
the Host begs the Cook not to be angry at his jest:

I pray thee, be not wroth for game. (1,4354)

165
The Franklin also addresses the Host with the modified

imperative because the Franklin deeply desires to have the
forgiveness of the Host:

1 prey yow, haveth me nat in desdeyn,

Though to this man I speke a word or two.

(V, 700-01)

In the third temptation scene of Sir Gawain and the
Green Knight when the Lady offers Gawain gifts 7 which he
cannot accept, he asks her to accept his refusal:

And berefore, I pray yow, displese yow no3t,

And lettez be your bisinesse, for I baybe hit yow

neuer to grounte,(1839-40)

The phrase ’1 prey yow’ or ’I biseke yow’ is added to plain
imperatives in situations where the speaker wants something
out of the ordinary or wants to emphasize the task or both.
In the example above, Gawain’s request for her acceptance is
out of ordinary and shows the difficulty he predicts she
will experience in granting his request. Chaucer also
employs this form to emphasize certain situations. In the
Canterbury Tales, the Host often uses this imperative form
when he wants to call on a particular Pilgrim to tell a
specific tale because the request is somewhat demanding or
unusual. The Host addresses the young Clerk of Oxford,
chiding him for being as silent as a newly—wed maid at

table, and asks him for his story in due turn:

Speketh so pleyn at this tyme, we yow preye,
That we may understonde what ye seye. (IV,19-20)

In specifying the nature and treatment of a tale suitable

for the pilgrimage, he uses the imperative form with the

 

 

 

166
modifying phrase, ’I pray (thee or you)’ because the request

is more demanding.

After the Knight interrupts the Mbnk’s Tale, which is
dreary and boring, the Host asks the Monk to tell another
story. When he calls upon the Monk to tell a tale about
hunting, an appropriate topic for him,8 the Host uses the
imperative form with the modifying phrase ’I prey you’:

‘ I pray yow hertely telle us somwhat elles;(V11,2793)
and:

Sire, sey somewhat of hunting, 1 yow prey, (VII,2804)
This usage is contrasted with the plain imperative forms,
for example

Now telleth ye, sir Monk, if that ye konne

Somwhat to quite with the Knyghtes tale.

(1,3118)
The Host uses the modified imperative form because the Monk
has already been interrupted once and so needs special
inducement to tell another, more appropriate tale. The Host
uses the plain imperative form to every Pilgrim, because he
has the right to direct their actions by virtue of his
position as director of the tales. However, this situation
requires politeness and so the Host modifies the imperative.
The monk in the Shipman’s Tale also uses this form for
emphasis because the topic seems to be important to him:

I prey thee, wyf, me do namore so

Telle me alwey, er that I fro thee go,

(VII,395-96)
When the Knight sees that the Pardoner is vexed, he also

adds ’1 prey thee’ to the imperative form to soothe him:

 

 

167

And Pardoner, I prey thee, drawe thee neer
And, we diden, lat us laughe and pleye.
(VI,966-67)

The Host uses this form to the Yeoman when, out of
curiosity, the Host wants to hear about the Canon because
the Yeoman has told about the Canon’s magic power and his
craft:

I pray thee, tel me than,

Is he a clerk or noon?

Telle what he is, (VIII,615—17)
Because of the unusual nature of the request the Host uses
the modified imperative to persuade the Canon to answer.

The Host uses imperative forms twice to the Manciple;
at first he uses the plain imperative form: "Telle on thy
tale" (IX,68) because the Host has the right to direct the
tellers. The second time the Host uses the modified

imperative to strengthen the request:

Tell on thy tele, Manciple, I thee pray
(1X,103)

When he calls on him for a story again, he adds ’1 thee
pray’ which emphasizes the task by gently drawing the
Manciple back to the concern at hand——the telling of his
tale.

In the same way in the Miller’s Tale, Nicholas also
uses imperative forms twice. First he uses the plain
imperative form to his host John:

Go now thy way (1,3596)

And then a modified imperative form:

Go, save oure lyf, and that I the biseche.
(1,3600)

 

 

 

168
This modified imperative shows Nicholas’s need that the

request be fulfilled.

In Troilus and Cryseyde, Pandarus and Criseyde usually
use the plain imperative form, but sometimes they use this
modified imperative form. For example, Criseyde adds ’1
prey ’ to the imperative form when she insists on hearing a
story that Pandarus, in order to arouse her curiosity,
pretends that he doesn’t want to tell her:

Now, good em, for Goddes love, I prey,

...,come of, and telle me what it is!

Say on, lat me nat in this fere dwelle.
(11,309-14)

Thus, she indicates the desire that he allieviate her
curiosity.

From these examples of imperatives, a clear pattern can
be seen. The plain imperative is most commonly used when
the speaker has the authority to request an action. While
the modified imperative is equally acceptable for use by
authority figures, it is often accompanied by a scene in
which either urgency or politeness is necessary. These
direct requests are often used when there is some obligation
on the part of the addressee to perform the requested

action.

Indirect requests:
Besides direct, explicit imperatives, the speaker can
also convey a request indirectly by making a statement.

Just like the case of plain imperatives, this statement (or

 

169
declarative) form has two forms: one is the structure which

consists of the second personal pronoun ye or thou as a
subject, and the other consists of the first personal
pronoun ’I’ as a subject and a performative verb. Generally
in these poems the modal verb shal accompanies the second
person subject ye or thou. As A. C. Spearing (1966)
observes, "the modal verb shal had a rather strong sense
which is nearer to ’must’ than to the modern ’shall’ (32)."
Thus ye shul or thou shalt has almost the same effect as an
imperative. That is, they are used by the speaker who has
authority over his addressee. The speaker who uses
imperative forms sometimes switches into this form ye shul
which is consistent with his power or desire to command.

In the Parliament of Fowls Nature, who is "the vicaire
of the almyghty Lord " (379), speaks to the fouls:

Foules, tak hed of my sentence, I preye.(383)
Then she switches to a statement with the modal verb ’shul’:

And after hym by order shul ye chese,

After kynde, everiche as yow lyketh,

And as youre hap is shul ye wynne or lese--

But which of yow that love most entriketh,

God sende hym hire that sorest for hym syketh.

(400-405)

Like the use of imperative form, the use of ’ye shul’ by
Nature shows that she has the power and authority to demand
an action.

In the Canterbury Tales, the Host sometimes uses this
form interchangeably with the imperative. Early on he uses
the imperative:

Approche neer and looke up murily (VII,698)

 

170

Sey now somwhat,(VII,705)
Telle us a tale of myrthe,(VII,706)

But when he is tired of listening to Sir Thopas, he

addresses the Pilgrim Chaucer in a more forceful tone

thou shalt no lenger ryme. (VII,932)

The Host also alternates between this form and the

imperative to the Monk

Ye shul telle a tale trewely (VII,1925)

with imperative form:

the statement with the modal

And later,
Now telleth ye, Monk,

Like the plain imperative,

verb shal is used in those situations in which the speaker

places himself in the position of authority. If it is used
by an inapprOpriate person, it can make a speaker or a
situation comic. The Pardoner uses this modal form with the

imperative to the Host after he finishes his story

Com forth, sire Host, and offre first anon,
And thou shalt kisse my relics everychon.(VI,943-44)

The Pardoner’s use of the direct imperative and the thou

shal statement as requests to the Host creates the comic

situation. By implying an authority over the Host, which is
not in fact present, the Pardoner sets up a comic tension.
one of the three rioters addresses

In the Pardbner’s Tale,

the old man with this form:

"Nay, olde cherl, by God thou shalt nat so."

Just as the imperative form shows the speaker’s right to
command the addressee, this speaker, the rioter, shows his

 

 

 

 

 

171
rude behaviour by adopting a authoritative attitude through

the use of the statement form of obligation even though his
social status does not give him the right to command.

In the same way in the Summoner’s Tale , which is "an
expose of the methods employed by an unscrupulous friar"
(Ruggiers, p.101), the friar uses this form to the layman,
Thomas, when he is preaching-a situation which demands
authority:

Nere thou oure brother, sholdestou nat thryve.

(III,1944)
and:

 

Thomas, of me thou shalt nat been yflatered

(III,1970)
and:
The revers shaltou se anon,
And preve it by thyn owene experience,
That wyn ne dooth to folk no swich offence
(III,2056—58)
and:

Thou shalt me fynde as just as is squyre
(III,2090)

All of these structures are in contrast to another statement
structure of request which the friar uses to Thomas's wife:
I wolde prey yow that ye nat yow greve,
I wole with Thomas speke a litel throwe.

(III,1814-15)

He consistently uses polite forms to Thomas’ wife and the

 

more commanding form with thou with Thomas. These different
kinds of requests fit the character of the friar in the

story, and the character of the Pilgrim Friar, as described

 

in the General Prologue:

In alle the orders foudre is noon that kan
So muchel of daliaunce and fair langage.(I,ZlO-ll)

 

 

172
The teller, the Pilgrim Summoner, intends to betray his

professional rival's hypocritical personality in his tale,
the half of which is devoted to the friar’s self-disclosure.
The Gawain-poet also uses these forms very often in
situations where imperative forms could just as
appropriately be used, but the Gawain-poet wants to show the
speaker’s domineering attitude. In Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight King Arthur uses this form to Gawain: ‘

pat pou schal byden be bur pat he schal bede
after.(374)

In the same way the Lord Bercilak switches from imperative

forms to the statement form 'ye shul’ with little difference
in meaning:

...Now leng be byhoues,

For I shal teche yow to pat terme bi pe tymez ende.

be grene chapayle vpon grounde greve yow no more;

Bot 3e schal be in yowre bed, burne, at pyn ese,

Quyle forth dayez, and ferk on pe fyrst of be 3ere,
{1068—72)

This passage consists of virtual commands with the
imperative form and the statement form with the use of
future obligation ’ye shul.’ Concerning the usage of the
modal verb ’shal’ Cecily Clark comments in the article, "Sir
Gawain and the Green Knight: Characterisation by Syntax":

By his liberal use of futures of obligation with

’shal’ the Lord implies that not only his interlocutor
but third parties also are subject to his command. The
syntax of these apparently jocular speeches preposing
the sporting covenant is not far from that of the Green
Knight’s original ’forward’ in which he had on Gawain
the duty. (ESSays in criticism, 16, No. 4 (1966),

13.364.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

173
When Gawain asks to leave in the morning arguing that his

time had almost come, the Green Knight argues against him,
using both imperative and the statement form with ’shal’
As I am trwe segge, I siker trawbe
bou schal cheue to be grene chapel by charres to make,
Leude, on Nw 3eres ly3t, longe bifore pryme.
Forby bow lye in by loft and lach byn ese,
And I schal hunt in bis holt, and halde be towchez,
Chaunge wyth be cheuisaunce, bi bat I charre hider;

For I haf fraysted be twys, and faythful I fynde be.
(1673-79)

And also:

And bou schal haf al in hast bat I be hy3t ones.
(2218)

They are equals and yet the Green Knight is attempting to
become momentarily dominant over Gawain to win his release.
A servant of Bercilak uses this form to Gawain when he
guides the latter to the Green Chapel. After Gawain has
insisted upon continuing on despite the guide’s warning of
danger, the guide switches his style from polite to
impolite, using the conventional pronoun thou:

And bou schal se in bat slade be self chapel, (2147)
Just like the plain imperative form, this can be considered
less polite. Considering the previous speech (2091-2155)
which consists of long statement structures with the polite
ye, the pronoun used to a superior, this thou shal structure
of request shows the guide’s despair over Gawain’s
determination to go to the Green Chapel.

In marriage the use of this statement structure shows

the relation between husband and wife. In the Canterbury

 

 

 

 

 

174
Tales, the Host quotes his wife’s words to him in which she

uses this statement structure as well as imperatives:

...Slee the dogges everichoon,
And brek hem bothe bak and every boon!

00000000000000000000000000000000000000

...False coward, wrek thy wyf!

By corpus bones, I wol have thy knyf,

And thou shalt have my distaf and go spynne!
(VII,1899-1907)

I have already mentioned her bad manners in Chapter 1
through the breaking the norm of the usage of the second
singular pronoun. She uses thou to her husband who is
supposed to be in a superior position in that society.
In the Tale of Melibee Prudence alternates the
statement structure ye shul with the imperative form.

Ye shul first in alle youre werkes mekely biseken to
the heighe God that he wol be your conseillour/

and shapeth yow to swich entente that he yeve yow
conseil and comfort.(VII, 1115-6),

and:
First ye shul escheue the conseillyng of fooles,
(VII,1173)
and:
Ye shul also han also han in suspect the conseillyng
of swich folk as conseille yow o thyng prively and
conseille yow the contrarie openly,(VII,1l94)

and also uses an imperative:

Sire, ye ne be nat alwey in lyk disposicioun/ for
certes somthyng that somtyme semeth to yow that it is
good for to do another tyme it semeth to yow the
contrarie.(VII,ll36-7)

 

 

In contrast, in many other places she uses the statement
structure of obligation, which puts her in the position of
authority over her husband, Melibeus. Melibeus, who at

first refuses to give over sovereignty to his wife, does not

use the polite pronoun ye:

 

 

 

 

175

I purpose nat,...to werke by thy conseil for many
causes and resouns. For certes,

every wight wolde
holde me thanne a fool-this is to seyn,

if I for thy
conseilling wolde chaungen thynges that been ordeyned
and affermed by no

manye wyse...And also certes,
governed me by thy

conseil, it sholde seme that I
hadde yeve to thee

over me the maistrie, and God
forbede that it so were.(VII,1055-57)

if I

However, he is gradually placed in the position of an
inferior, which is reflected in Prudence’s use of request

forms. He finally says to her:

Dame,...dooth youre wil and youre likynge,

for I putte me hooly in youre disposicioun and
ordinaunce.(VII,1724-25)

Here Melibeus changes his pronoun into the polite pronoun ye

and uses the reSpectful title dame to his wife. Therefore
Prudence shows herself as authority through the use of 'ye

shul' a statement form of request during the conversation
with her husband.

Another good example of the use of this form to show
the speaker's dominant attitude toward the addressee is

illustrated by the husband’s speech to his wife in the

Franklin’s Tale, when Arveragus, who promises not to

dominate over his wife, "resumes his role as head"

and tells
her what to do. He says:
Ye, wyf,...lat slepen that is stille.
It may be wel, paraventure,

yet to day.
Ye shul youre trouthe holden, by my fay.

(V,1472-74)

As A. C. Spearing (1966) says in his book The Franklin’s

Prologue and Tale, "thus at this crucial point, maistrie

reenters the marriage, with an emphasis that gains force

because paradoxically, Arveragus uses his maistrie to order

 

176
his wife to keep her promise to become someone else’s
mistress" (32). This is the point which makes the

Franklin’s Tale more controversial than the other Tales.

It is also the most controversial point within the

Franklin’s Tale itself. At the beginning, Arveragus's and
Dorigen’s relationship has followed the convention of

courtly love, in which the lady is the dominant partner and
her lover is subservient. Spearing also mentions:

The debate about marriage among the Pilgrims has been a
debate about maistrie in marriage.

Both sides have
agreed that marriage is to be seen as a struggle for
power, in which either husband or wife must come out
victorious. The Franklin wants to resolve the problem
by changing its terms. He wishes to remove the whole
question of dominance from marriage, and to present it
as something other than a power relationship. (p.32)
This fact is already reflected in the ambiguous way in which
the Franklin defines their relationship. He tries to get
rid of maistrie, but only loses himself in paradoxes which

seem to reappear constantly whether he wishes them to or
not.

All of the examples above have almost the same power as
the plain imperatives since they are used in situations in
which the speaker is placed in the position of authority or

the speaker puts himself in that position by using the form
’ye shal.’

The statement structures with ye shul are also used in
intimate situations, as are the imperative forms.

In Sir Gawain and Green Knight, the Green Knight uses

the imperative form with the polite ye to convey his

feelings of intimacy with Gawain at this moment together

 

 

 

 

177

Be schal in bis Nwe 3er a3eyn to my wonez,
And we schyn reul be remnaunt of bis ryche fest ful
bene (2400-01)

This ye shal request structure should be interpreted as a

sign of intimacy towards Gawain.

The other statement structure used by Chaucer and the

Gawain-poet consists of the performative verb combined with
the subject "I."

Degree of politeness is determined by the
choice of the performative verb.

The most often used verbs are conseille, rede, pray
and beseke. The verbs conseille and rede mean

or ’to counsel.’

’to advise’
Both verbs have the same function;
the Speaker in a position of authority.
act theory,

they put

According to speech
one of the conditions of a speech act is that

the speaker should be prepared to perform a speech act, if
it is to have illocutionary force.

However, the other two
verbs pray and beseke,

do not require the speaker to be in a
position of authority.

Therefore structures using the verbs
pray or beseke can be considered more polite than the verbs

conseille and rede when a speech occurs between authoritor
and authoritee.

The Pardoner says to the Host after his
tale by using the verb 'rede’

_I rede that oure Host heere shal biginne (VI,941)

The use of the verb rede makes this situation ironical

because the Pardoner is not a position to direct the actions
of the Host.

Instead of using the second pronoun to the

 

 

 

 

178
Host he uses the words ’the Host’ which makes the situation

even more ironic.

In the Tale of Melibee Prudence frequently alternates
between the imperative and the ’ye shal’ forms. In
addition, she sometimes uses the statement form of request
with the verbs conseille and rede: thanne rede I yow that
ye kepe it secre.(VII,1138)

and: I conseille yow that ye accorde with youre
adversaries, and that ye have pees with hem.(VII,1674)

and: I conseille yow...aboven alle thynges, that ye make
pees bitwene God and yow,(VII,17l3)

By using the statement form with the verb conseille or rede
.as a request, Prudence puts herself in the same position of
authority as when she uses the plain imperative and the ’ye
shul’ structure.

The other two verbs, pray and beseke are considered
more polite. The Knight uses this form to the Host and the
Pardoner when they quarrel with each other. To the Host he
says:

I pray you that you kiss the Pardoner, (VI,965)
and to the Pardoner, he says:

I prey thee drawe thee neer,(VI,966)

This situation requires a more polite form than a direct
imperative in order to quiet the quarrel and soothe them.
In the Miller’s Tale Absolon says to Alison when he needs
her mercy:

I praye yow that ye wole rewon me. (I,3362))

And the Reeve, beginning his tale, says:

 

179
I pray yow alle that ye nat yow greve

Though I answere and somdeel sette his howve,
For leveful is with force of-showve
. (1,3910-12)

In the Tale of.Melibee, in which polite speech usually
appears in the use of pronouns and vocatives, Prudence,
however, sometimes uses the statement forms of request to
Melibeus instead of her usual imperative forms when she
wants to emphasize the urgency of the task: "I prey yow that
in this necessitee and in this nede ye caste yow to overcome
youre herte" (VII,1857); "And I prey yow that ye wole
forbere now to do vengence " (VII,1861). Prudence here is
urgently requesting that Melibeus overcome his emotions in
order that his "goode name may be kept and conserved "
(VII,1862).

In the Nun’s Priest’s Tale, an animal fable, the
statement form of request with different verbs can be seen‘
between the two main characters. Chantecleer uses the

declarative form with verb 'pray’ to his wife:

., Madame,

I pray yow that ye take it nat agrief
(VII,2892—3)

Whereas Pertelote uses the verb conseille:

I conseille yow the beste. I wol nat lye,
That bothe pf colere and of malencolye
Ye perge yow;(VII, 2945-47)

And then she switches tone to:

...and for ye shal nat tarie, '
though in this toun is hoon apothecarie,

I shal myself to herbs techen yow.
(VII,2947-49)

 

 

180
She shows herself far from courteous in using request forms,

even though the Nun’s Priest describes her as "curteys she
was, discreet and debonaire" (VII,2871). Instead she shows
herself to be an authoritor over her husband by switching
styles from the plain imperative to the statement with ’ye
shul’ and ’I conseille.’

In January’s serious speech in the Merchant’s Tale, he
says to his wife, his social inferior, as they enter the
. garden:

I prey yow first, in covenant ye me kiss, (IV,2176)
This polite request is used in an asymmetrical situation,
and so creates irony or humor because the true social
superior is acting as an inferior. Normally the social
inferior uses this statement form of request, while the
social superior uses the plain imperative form. In Troilus
and Criseyde Pandarus, other asymmetrical uses can be seen.
Pandarus uses an ’I prey’ statement structure to his social
superior, Deiphebus:

I pray yow that ye be

Frend to a cause which that toucheth me.

(II,1406—7)

In contrast to this indirect request form, Deiphebus, the
superior, uses the most direct form, imperative , to
Pandarus:

...but, sey wherfore

It is; for sith that day that I was bore,

I nas, ne nevere mo to ben I thynke,

Ayeins a thing that myghte the forthynke.

(II,1411—14)

And again Pandarus says to Deiphebus:

 

 

181

...Wol ye gon,

If it youre wille be, as I yow preyde,

To speke here of the nedes of Criseyde?
(II,160l-3)

But tell me, thow that woost al this matere,
How I myght best avaylen.
(11,1429-30)
Spek thow thiself also to Troilus
On my byhalve, and prey hym with us dyne.
(II,1457-9)
Telle thow thi neces cas, (11,1611)
Pandarus also uses the indirect request form to Helen,
Deiphebus’ wife:

Ye, but wol ye now me here? (II,1628)

His use of the polite form to Helen indicates his deference
toward her because of her higher status.

In addition to the verbs pray and beseche, another verb
’willen’ is used in the statement structure as a request. A
speaker may choose a volitional statement to motivate
another by using ’I wolde.’ This form expresses the
speaker’s wish or desire in a declarative form with the
expectation that the addressee will fulfill the wish or
desire. This syntactic form of request is considered more
polite than that of performative alone since wolde is often
used to impart various shades of meaning to the ideas
expressed by the verb which are entirely divorced from the
notion of past time. This use is known as the ’modal
preterite'. As Kerkhof (1982:18) states in Studies in the
Language of Geoffrey Chaucer, the preterite of modesty "is

used to make a statement or a request in a modest way."

 

 

182
Thus ’wolde’ is used as a main verb or a auxilliary verb

with another performative verb. In Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight, Gawain uses ’wolde’ to the Lady:

I wolde yow pray, displese yow neuere (2239)
This speech is considered more polite than the previous ’1
prey yow; because of the modal verb ’wolde.’ ‘

The question (or interrogative) form is also used as a
request with modal verbs such as can or wil which modify the
degree of politeness. Both present and preterite form of
these modals can be used in making requests. In this
interrogative form of request, context is important in
differentiating requests from questioning. This form could
be interpreted as a yes/no question without context. The
interrogative form as request is considered polite because
the speaker puts himself in the position of asking rather
than demanding.

This interrogative form is usually used in the
situation in which the task is difficult to request, because
it places the addressee’s potential refusal in the context
of a hypothetical situation, rather than the here-and-now
situation of a direct request. However, a speaker would use
this indirect form to demonstrate his modest or gentle
personality, regardless of the situation in which he is
placed. The most common form is the question form with the
modal verbs ’wol’ ’wyl’ or ’wolde’. This form is mainly

used in situations where neither rights nor obligations

 

 

 

183
exist on either side. In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

the Lord Bercilak uses this form to Gawain

Wyl 3e halde is hes here at bys onez? (1090)

Compared with the previous commands, using the imperative
and the statement ’ye shul’ structures, this form can be
interpreted as a polite request. After he reveals himself
as the Lord Bercilak, the Green Knight is usually polite to
Gawain, who in turn usually uses the preterite form of the
modal verb which is considered to be polite as well.

In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight the protagonist, the
’classical’ Gawain, is introduced as the typical hero, who
acts entirely in accord with the rules of courtly behavior.
As befits his personality, Gawain often employs the indirect
polite request form to the King, to Bercilak, and to the
Lady. This extremely complex manner of expression is
typical of Gawain in situations which most test his
cortaysye.

When King Arthur accepts the Green Knight’s challenge,
Gawain intervenes. When he wishes to turn his uncle, the
King, aside from his purpose of taking up the challenge
proposed by the Green Knight, he uses the question form with
the modal verb wolde as a request:

Wolde 3e, worblich lorde,

Bid me bo3e fro bis benche, and stonde by yow bere,

(343*44)
Through this interrogative form as a request Gawain shows
his supremely courteous attitude to the King by "begging the

King to command him to rise," not simply by "asking the

 

 

184
King’s permission to rise and give him advice" (Spearing,

Criticism and.Medieval Poetry, p.41.).

As Spearing notes, "Gawain's cortaysye is expressed
most fully in the way in which he says what he says,"
pointing out the importance of "the manner of expression"
(40). Spearing even contends that the content of the speech
is delivered in Modern English, but the expressive value
can not be fully delivered (40).

And Gawain also uses this question form to the Lady
Bercilak in the first temptation scene, in which Gawain
succeeds in maintaining his politeness, in behavior as well
as in speech:

Bot wolde 3e, lady'louely, ben leue me grante,

And deprece your prysoun, and pray hym to ryse,

‘ (1218-19)

Gawain’s use of interrogative form as a request shows his
polite attitude towards the lady. Cecily Clark explains
Gawain’s courtesy in terms of many kinds of utterances which
are full of subjunctive forms.9 For example, Gawain also
uses this indirect polite form to the porter:

Gode sir, ...,woldez bou go myn ernde

To be he3 lorde of bis hous, herber to

craue? {811—12)
Thus Gawain displays his good manners by using the polite
indirect request form even to his social inferior.

A servant of Bercilak also uses this polite form to Gawain:

Wolde 3e worch bi my witte, 3e worbed be better
(2096)

This is contrasted to his later use of the imperative form.

Forby I say be, as sobe as 3e in sadel sitte,

 

 

 

 

 

185
Com Be there, 3e be kylled, may be kny3t rede,

Trawe 3e me bat trwely, ba3 3e had twenty lyves

to spende.’(2110-12)
and:

Forby, goude Sir Gawayn, let be gome one,

And gotz away sum ober gate, vpon Goddes halue!

Cayrez bi sum ober kyth, ber Kryst mot yow spede...

(2118-20)

This switching gives his warning some urgency, but at the
same time it tells the reader very clearly that Bercilak is
tempting Gawain to stay by pretending to be intimate towards
Gawain.

In the Franklin’s Tale, Aurelius uses this polite
request form to the philosopher when he asks the philosopher

to give him time to pay the rent:

But wolde ye vouchesauf upon seuretee,
Two year or thre (V,1581-84)

Aurelius was supposed to pay a thousand pounds in solid gold
to that philosopher, but he only gathered up some five
hundred pounds. He is thus placed in a position where he
needs to ask for the clerk’s generosity; and, of course, he
needs polite speech in that situation. .

The Host uses this indirect request form when he calls
upon the Prioress to tell a tale,

Now wol ye vouchesauf (VII,451)
This usage shows the Host’s deferential attitude towards
women since, although he has the right to command any
Pilgrim, he refrains from commanding the Prioress, and uses
a polite request instead. He wields his power over the male

Pilgrims including the Knight, through his use of imperative

 

 

 

 

 

186
forms, but his attitude towards the two women Pilgrims, the

Wife of Bath and the Prioress, is polite. The use of the
indirect form of request to women can show his attitude
about woman. He reveals himself as a "hen-pecked husband"
(Malone, p.190) when he mentions his marriage at the end of
the Tale of Melibee:

...As I am feithful man,

And by that precious corpus Madrian,

I hadde levere than a barel ale

That Goodelief, my wyf, hadde herd this tale.

She nys nothyng of swich pacience

As was this Melibeus wyf Prudence. -
(VII,1891—96)

This is my lif but if that I wol fighte;

And out at dore anon I moot me dighte,

Or elles I am but lost but if that I

Be lik a wilde leoun, fool-hardy.

I woot wel she wol do me slee somday ‘

Som neighebore, and thanne go my way,

For I am perilous with knyf in honde

Al be it that I dar hire nat withstonde,

For she is byg in armes, by my feith-

That shal he fynde that hire mysdooth or seith.

(VII,1914—23)

However, this indirect form can be interpreted as sarcasm or
as an insult when it is used towards an addressee who cannot
always recognize it. In the Manciple’s Tale, the Manciple
use this question form as a request to the Cook in order to
insult the latter:

Now, sweete sire, wol ye justen atte fan.
(IX,42)

The Manciple intends sarcasm; when he sees the Cook so drunk
that he cannot tell a tale, the Manciple gets the chance to
insult the Cook. The antagonism between the Manciple and
the Cook is described in the Manciple’s Prologue (IX, 1—

104).

 

 

 

 

187
The modal verb can (or con) or preterite form coude is

found in the question form of request. When given as a
request, the question about the addressee’s ability to
perform the task cannot be paraphrased as "Are you able to

." which would be an acceptable alternative if only
syntactic information is taken into account. Could is
considered more polite than wyl because wyl construed via
its implicated meaning as a request resembles the
declarative form in allowing the addressee no freedom to
refuse.

In the Wife of Bath’s Tale, the knight asks the ugly
old woman to give him an answer. When on the pain of losing
his head, he has to reply to the Queen's question "What
thyng is it that wommen moost desiren? " (III,905). The
knight asks for the woman’s help with the use of the polite
request form:

Koude ye me wisse, I wolde wel quite youre hire.
(II,1008)

Besides the three basic different forms of request, the most
complex structure is used in the most polite situations.
The last request is the most indirect and therefore
considered the most polite form if used in an appropriate
situation. This request structure is the complex embedding
of one of the above structures inside another.

In the Canterbury Tales, the Host uses this extremely
polite form to the Prioress when he invites her to tell a
story after the Shipman has finished his tale "as curteisly

as it had been a mayde" (VII,445):

 

 

 

188

My lady Prioresse, by youre leve,

So that I wiste I sholde yow nat greve,

I wolde demen that ye tellen sholde

A tale next, if so were that ye wolde.

Now wol ye vouchesauf, my lady deere?

(VII,447-51)

Though he is already given the authority to command by the
complete agreement of all the Pilgrims, the Host uses the
most indirect request form to the Prioress. This extreme
politeness could be interpreted as sarcastic. On the other
hand, the Host’s politeness is understandable considering
her social position and the fact that she is a woman.
However, his courtesy is excessive because of the use of the
complex request form, particularly in a situation in which
the right to command has been given to him by his fellow
Pilgrims. That the Host does not invite rights and
obligations assigned to him suggests the possibility that he
"may be slyly poking fun at her extreme emphasis on good
manners" (Lumiansky, Of Sondry Folk, p.81) as mentioned in
the General Prologue:

In curteisie was set ful muchel hie lest.

Hir over-lippe wyped she so clene

That in hir coppe ther was bo ferthyng sene

Of grace, whan she dronken hadde hir draughte.

Ful sikerly she was of greet desport,

And ful plesaunt, and amyable of port,

And peyned hire to countrefete cherre

Of court, and to been estattlich of manere,

And to ben holden digne of reverence.

(I,l32-l4l)

The Pilgrim Pardoner also uses this complex form to the
Wife of Bath:

Dame, I wolde pray yow, if youre wyl it were,
Seyde this Pardoner, "as ye began,

 

 

189
Telle forth youre tale; sparath for no man,
And teche us yonge men of youre pratike.
(III,184—87)
His suggestion that woman is held in high—esteem is some
sort of jape.

In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Gawain uses this
complex form when addressing to the Lord of Bercilak:

Forby, sir, bis enquest I require yow here,

bat 3e me telle with trawthe if euer 3e tale herde

Of be grene chapel, quere hit on grounde stondez,

And of be kny3t bat hit kepes, of colour of grene.

(1056-59)
Before the Green Knight identifies himself as Bercilak
Gawain uses plain imperative forms to the Green Knight, with
which Gawain challenges the Green Knight's authority.
However, since Gawain does not recognize Bercilak as being
the same man as the Green Knight, he requests in polite
terms as usual.

So far I have classified the request forms from the
most direct to the most indirect: explicit imperatives,
modified imperatives, indirect requests and indirect complex
forms depending on the context in which requests occur.

As the most direct form, imperatives are employed in
situations in which obligations and rights between speaker
and addressee exist or where the relationship of authoritor
and authoritee has been established. The relative social
status of the speaker and the addressee is included in the
authoritor and the authoritee situations. The social

superior is, in many cases, in the position of authoritor

over the social inferior but not always as shown in Chaucer.

 

 

 

 

190
This imperative form is also used in intimate situations or

offensive situations. Benefit is another factor which
affects the choice of the request form. If the benefit is
on the side of the addressee, the speaker uses a more direct
form of request. If the benefit is on the side of the
speaker, the speaker uses a more indirect form of request.
On the other hand, the most indirect form of request is
considered the most polite if used in appropriate
situations. However, depending on the context in which they
are used, the forms of request could have different
meanings. Other factors such as the uniqueness of the task
and the relative status of the speaker and addressee might
influence choice of request form. Where these other factors
occur, I have included them in the descriptions of the
situations. Generally speaking, the less likely the
addressee is to perform the task, the more likely the
speaker is to use the more polite or indirect request form.
If the speaker has the right to command and the addressee
has the obligation to follow, the task is not likely to be
considered difficult, because the addressee already has the
obligation to perform it, if asked. Therefore, the speaker
uses the direct or plain imperative because there is no need
to be polite. If the speaker is emphasizing the task or if
extenuating circumstances exist, the speaker will often
choose the modified imperative form. When a speaker has no
authority to command, that is, having a poor chance of

receiving whatever he is requesting, he makes his request

 

 

191
known in an indirect manner in order to try to encourage the

favor of the person who can grant their request. Finally,
the indirect complex form ( a combination of the indirect
form and another form ) is used primarily in the situation
where no rights and obligations exist at all. Since the
most indirect speech could be the most polite, this complex
form shows the extreme politeness if it is used in an-
appropriate situation, otherwise it could be interpreted as
sarcasm or as an insult towards the addressee.

Chaucer and the Gawain-poet make the most of the
various syntactic forms of request to distinguish the
situations and the personalities of their characters.
Chaucer employs various syntactic forms freely as requests
to show the position of his characters and the task
requested in his works. On the other hand, the Gawain~poet
uses various syntactic forms of request as the instrument of

characterization depending on the context.

 

 

lHalliday (1978) divides social context within which
utterance occurs into two categories: social and
situational.

2 In her article "Is Sibil there: The Structure of
some American Directives," Ervin-Tripp classifies requests
into six categories depending on the situation. She
identifies them, ordered approximately according to the
relative power of speaker and addressee; need statements;
imperatives; imbedded imperatives; permission directives;
question directives and hints. Language in Society, 5
(1976), 25-26.

3Searle, Speech Acts, pp.57—61 and Austin, How to do
Things with Words, pp.94-108. Although recent theoretical
discussions disagree on the exact nature of a perlocution,
those disagreements do not affect the focus of this study.

4I borrow these terms from Leech (1980) in Explorations
in Semantics and Pragmatics. He refers to speaker as the
authoritor, and addressee as the authoritee when the speaker
is in the position of superiority over the addressee.

5J. Kerkhof, Studies in the Language of Geoffrey
Chaucer,1982, pp.53-54).
a. The stem—form of strong verbs, used to address one person
in a familiar way; b. a form in —e with most weak verbs,
used in the same function, but also to address more than one
person. c. a form in —eth with both strong and weak verbs,
used to address one person politely or to address more than
one person.

6Because the guide is also testing Gawain, as is the
Green Knight.

7The lady says to Gawain: "I schal gif yow my girdel
pat gaynes yow lasse."

8In the General Prologue, the Monk's liking for hunting

is mentioned: Of prykyng and of huntyng for the hare
Was al his lust, for no cost wolde he spare.

192

 

 

 

 

193

9Cecily Clark compares Gawain’s speech with the Green
Knight’s in terms of subjunctive mood, explaining Gawain’s
speech is full of subjunctive forms, but the Green Knight’s
indicative in her article "Sir Gawain and The Green Knight:
Characterisation by Syntax."

 

 

 

 

V. CONCLUSION

I have noted social factors determining the use of
polite speech in late Middle English by examining the
distinction of the two second singular personal pronouns ye
and thou; by looking at the use of various vocative forms;
and by examining the use of different request forms in
Chaucer and the Gawain-poet. In classifying the usage of
the second person pronouns and vocatives I have focused on
social patterns which include social aspects of language
use, while in request forms I have focuSed more on the
situational patterns in which they are used.

Through the classification of polite speech in terms of
the distinctive use of the second singular pronouns ye and
thou I found that the conventional singular pronoun thou was
still used as the normal usage of the second singular
pronoun as seen in the Knight’s Tale (Duke Theseus is
addressed as thou by his subordinates). Therefore the
singular use of ye can have special meaning depending upon
the context; that is, the respect or humility and sometimes
the sarcasm of the speaker. The second person pronoun ye
also began to be used as a formal address to any one within
the high class and then the usage spread to the low class

because of its connotation of politeness. Thus, the

194

 

 

195

 

singular ye came to be used as a marked form for polite
speech in either respectful or sarcastic situations by
anyclass, whereas the conventional thOu was still used as an
unmarked form.

Through the symmetrical or asymmetrical use of vocative
terms between two people we can see the mobility of middle
class society as well as the systems of hierarchy in those
societies. In symmetrical situations, kinship terms and
personal names are widely used to show intimacy and
animosity rather than politeness. The speaker uses the
kinship terms such as brother, suster, cosyn, nece and
uncle, and personal names, or both, to show his intimate
feeling towards the addressee. Non—honorific common nouns
are also used in intimate or hostile situations. In
intimate situations the speaker sometimes uses non—honorific
common nouns such as frend and fool. The speaker also uses
non—honorific common nouns such as carl, cherl or theef,
instead of kinship terms in offensive situations. In
asymmetrical situations, kinship terms and personal names
are used by a social superior to a social inferior who
addresses his superior with an honorific title. In contrast
to the honorific titles, however, non-honorific common nouns
carry more meaning than that of their Modern English
counterparts. Such words as lemman, burne, wight, wyf or
husband in Middle English are considered neutral or less

polite vocatives.

 

 

 

 

 

196
Professional or rank labels without any honorific title

are also used as neutral vocatives even though they are
sometimes used to insult the addressee. This especially
occurs when there is animosity between professional enemies.

As for honorific titles, sire, lorde, maister, dame,
madame and lady are used to show the speaker’s polite
attitude towards the addressee. Though all these honorific
titles were first used only to social superiors, they came
to be used as address terms to any man and woman to show
politeness, whether it is authentic or pretentious. Because
the words maister and lorde carry the specific connotations
of '1earnedness’ and ’supremacy,’ the title sire is more
widely used in polite speech to refer to a man. . In the
same way, madame is more widely used as a vocative to a
woman rather than lady or dame. Though all the honorific
titles were originally used to a person of authority, some
honorific titles stand higher than others depending upon the
situation. Therefore the social context surrounding the use
of those titles is important in interpreting the meaning in
these late Middle English works. Above all, such honorific
titles as sire, dame, and madame gradually came to be used
to any class in polite speech just like the use of the
second singular personal pronoun ye.

In Chapter 3, I have explored the conditions under
which the speaker uses one particular linguistic request
form over another. If one linguistic form is to be

considered as a request, the conditions of the speaker and

 

 

 

 

197
the addressee should both be met in the situation in which

that request takes place. I have considered different forms

of requests from the most direct to the most indirect.
Generally these forms are made in the structure of three
different basic forms, imperatives, statements and
questions. Different syntactic requests should be
interpreted within the social context. And the same request
form may be interpreted differently depending on the social

context. For example, the most direct request, command, is

 

usually made in the form of an imperative with the speaker
. in a position of authority. However, in other situations,
the imperative form indicates either the speaker’s intimacy
or his rudeness. In the same way, indirect request forms
such as statement and question can be interpreted as an
insult or sarcasm when directed towards a person of lower
status. Otherwise they should be considered more polite
than plain imperatives. Therefore, these two poets capture
the way a character shifts or manipulates his style of
request forms to create a certain kind of relationship with
another character depending on the situation.

Through the symmetrical or asymmetrical use of
linguistic variants Chaucer and the Gawain-poet show
significant linguistic awareness in their manipulation of
verbal distinctions. The hierarchical social structure in
feudal medieval England is reflected in linguistic
variations, which can be accounted for in terms of

politeness at the lexical and syntactic levels in the works

 

 

 

 

 

 

198
of these two poets. Two distinctive classes in that

society, the higher class and the lower class use their
appropriate style of language, reflecting Chaucer’s
distinction of the gentil from the cherl. However, the
mobility of the middle class, which lies in between the
hereditary nobility and the lower commoners, is reflected in
their usage of the various linguistic forms found in late
Middle English literature. Besides the social status of the
characters and their relationships these two poets sh0w
their judgment of social system or value through the poets’
viewpoints. Each poet also emphasizes such private issues
as ’gentilesse,’ ’courtesy,’ ’courtly love,’ 'marriage’ and
’friendship’ through the different linguistic choices of
their characters which, in turn, are functions of context.

However, these two poets’ attitudes towards the social
life of that period often represent an ideal rather than an
actual condition with regard to polite speech. The most
important factor which affects polite speech in these two
poets is morality, as mentioned in Chapter 1, which makes
this poetry didactic. For example, the honorific polite ye
was used in their poetry more to superiors in terms of
morality than to those superior in terms of social rank.
Chaucer’s insistence on the unimportance of wealth and
social station, and the Gawain-poet’s insistence on the
value of goodness as the essential virtue for nobility, are
not quite congruous with the societies in which these

authors lived. Whether or not the normal linguistic usage

 

 

 

 

199
in their literature is the same as that of real life, each

poet sets the norm in his own way and then shows the
personality of his characters by having them either observe
or break it. Thus the shifts of linguistic form reflect not
only the changing relationship between these authors’
characters but also their evaluation of the situation.

With the similarity in showing politeness, there is a
little difference between Chaucer and the Gawain-poet in use
of linguistic variants. The Gawain—poet, whose language is
the dialect of the Northwest Midlands, sometimes chooses
some linguistic variants based on alliteration and meter
rather than on the meaning of politeness at the lexical
level. For example, in the choice of vocatives he uses for
alliteration and meter non—honorific common nouns which are
of Old English derivation, which Chaucer doesn’t use,
instead of honorific titles. As for requests at syntactic
level, however, he makes the best of the different syntactic
forms to contrast the situations in which the personality of
his characters is shown through the use of various request
forms.

Chaucer, whose language is the dialect of the East-
Midlands, attaches himself to French literary fashion,
holding himself from native influences, particularly, in the
use of vocatives. He chooses each linguistic variant
consistently depending on the character and the situation
rather than on meter or rhyme to provide an apt vehicle for

moral statement. As Chaucer himself makes clear in the

 

 

 

 

 

200
General Prologue " the wordes moote be cosyn to the dede"

(1,742). He is thus keenly aware of the referential and
social meaning.

In conclusion I would like to say that speech should be
interpreted as ’polite' when it is used in an appropriate
situation in which it is spoken, like Swift’s definition of

style, "proper words in proper places."

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham, David H. "Cosyn and Cosynage: Pun and Structure in
the Shipman's Tale." The Chaucer Review 11, iv (Spring,
1977), 319—327.

Austin, J. L. How To Do Things With Words. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1962.

Bach, E. and Harms R., Universals in Linguistic Theory. New
York: Holt, Rinehart Winston, 1968.

Baldwin, Charles Sears. Three Medieval Centuries of
Literature in England 1100—1400. Boston: Little,
Brown, and Company, 1932.

Banfield, A. "Narrative style and the grammar of direct and
indirect speech", Foundations of Language 10 (1973),
1-39.

Barber, Charles. Early Mbdern English. London: Andre
Deutsch, 1976.

Barzun, J. Simple and Direct. New York: Harper & Row,
1975.

Baugh, A. C. "Chaucer the Man." in A Companion to Chaucer
Studies. ed. Beryl B. Rowland, 1—19. Toronto: Oxford
University Press, 1968.

"The Middle English Period, 1100—1500."
A Literary History of England. 2nd ed. New York:
Appleton-Century Crofts, 1967.

. A History of the English Language 3d ed,
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962.

Bell, Roger T. Sociolinguistics. New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 1976.

Bennett, H. S. Chaucer and the Fifteenth Century. Oxford:
The Clarendon Press, 1947.

201

 

W--_____.==_T

202

Benson, Larry D. "A Reader’s Guide to the Writings on
Chaucer." In Writers and their Background. Geoffrey
Chaucer.ed. D. S. Brewer. London: Bell, 1974.

. ed. Art and Tradition in Sir Gawain and
the Green Knight. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers
University Press, 1965.

Berry, Francis. "Thou and You in Shakespear’s Sonnets."
Essays in Criticism 8 (1958), 136—46.

Blake, Norman. The English Language in Medieval Literature.
London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1977.

Bolinger, D. Meaning and Form. London: Longman, 1977.

Borroff, Marie: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight: A Stylistic
and Metrical Study. New Haven and London: Yale'
University Press, 1962

Bowden, Muriel. A Reader Guide to Geoffrey Chaucer. New
York: Farrar, 1964.

Brewer, Derek S. Chaucer. 2nd ed. London: Longmans, Green
and Co., 1958.

Chaucer and Chaucerians: Critical Studies
in Middle English Literature. Alabama: University of
Alabama press, 1966.

Chaucer in His Time. London: Thomas Nelson and
Sons Ltd., 1963.

. "Class Distinction in Chaucer." Speculum 43 (1968),
290—305.

. "The Gawain—poet: A General Appreciation of Four
Poems" Essays in Criticism 17 (1967), 130—142.

. ed. The Parlement of Foulys. London: Thomas Nelson
& Sons Ltd., 1960.

. ed. writers and their Background: Geoffrey
Chaucer. London: G. Bell & Sons, 1974.

Brook, G. L. A History of the English Language.
London: Deutsch, 1958.

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. "Universals in Language Usage:
Politeness phenomena," Questions and Politeness:
Strategies in Social Interaction, ed. Esther N. Goody.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1978

 

 

203

Brown, R. and Gilman, A. "The Pronouns and Power
Solidarity." Language and Social Context, ed. Pier
Pablo Giglioli, 252—82. New York: Penguin, 1975.

Brown, Roger W. and Marguerite Ford. "Address in American
English." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62
(1961), 372-385.

Brown, Roger W., Bruce Fraser and Ursular Bellugi.
"Explorations and Grammar Evaluation." in Bellugi and
Brown, eds. 1964.

Burnley, D. A Guide to Chaucer’s Language. London:
Macmillan, 1983.

Burrow, John A., ed. Geoffrey Chaucer: A Critical Anthology.
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970.

Medieval Writers and Their WOrk. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1982.

Essays on Medieval Literature. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1984.

Capell, A. Studies in Socio-linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, i
1966.

Cawley, A. C. and J. J. Anderson, ed. Pearl, Cleanness,
Patience, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. London: J.M.

Dent & Sons Ltd., 1976.

Chafe, W. Meaning and Structure of Language. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1970

Chatman, S.,ed. Literary Style: a symposium. London: Oxford
University Press, 1971.

Chatman, S. "The semantics of style," in Kristeva, J., and
al, eds, 399—422. 1971.

and Samuel R. Levin. Essays on the Language of
Literature. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967.

Chute, Marchette. Geoffrey Chaucer of England. New York:
Dutton, 1946.

Clark, Cecily. "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight:
Characterization by Syntax." Essays in Criticism 16
(1966), 361—74. .

Cluysenaar, A. Introduction to Literary Stylistics
Batsford, 1976.

Coghill, Nevill. Geoffrey Chaucer. London: Longmans, 1956.

 

204

Cole, P. and Morgan, J., eds. Syntax and Semantics, III:
Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 1975.

Cottle, Basil. The Triumph of English 1350—1400. London:
Blandford Press, 1969.

Coulthard, M. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis.
London: Longman, 1977.

Courthope, W. J. A History of English Poetry. London:
Macmillan, 1895.

Culler, J. Structuralist Poetics. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1975.

Davenport, W. A. The Art of the Gawain-Poet. London: The
Athlone Press, 1978.

Davis, Norman. "Chaucer and Fourteenth-Century English." in
Derek Brewer,ed. Writers and Their Background. London:
G. Bell & Sons, 1974.

Dodd, William George. Courtly Love in Chaucer and Gower.
Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1959.

Donaldson, E. Talbot. "Chaucer the Pilgrim." PMLA 69 (1954),
92

.

Doyle, A. I. "The Social Context of Medieval English
Literature." in Boris Ford, ed. The Age of Chaucer.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1962.

Edwards, John. Language, Society and Identity. New York:
Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1985.

Eliason, Norman E. "Personal Names in the Canterbury Tales."
Names 21 (1973), 137—52.

Elliot, Ralph W. V. Chaucer’s English. London: Andre
Deutsch, 1974.

Enkvist, N. E. Linguistic Stylistics. Hague and Paris:
Mouton, 1973.

Enkvist, N. E., Spencer, J., and Gregory, M. J. Linguistics
and Style. London: Oxford University Press, 1964.

Ervin—Tripp, Susan M. Sociolinguistics, in Berkowitz, L,
93-107, 1969.

’Is Sivil there’: The Structure of some American
.Directives." Language in Society 5 (1976), 25-66,

 

 

 

 

205
Evans, William Jr. "Dramatic Use of the Second—Person
Singular Pronoun in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight."
Studia Neophilologica 39 (1967), 38-45.

The Second—Person Pronoun in Sir Gawain and the

Green Knight." DAI 24, University of Florida, 1964.

Evans, W. O. "Cortayse in Middle English." Mediaeval
Studies 19 (1967), 143—57.

Everett, Dorothy. Essay on Middle English Literature. ed.
Patricia Kean. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.

Finkenstaedt, Thomas. You und Thou: Studien zur Anrede im
Englischen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1963.

Fish, Stanley Eugene. "Literature and the reader: affective
Stylistics." New Literary History 2 (1970), 123—62.

. Is there a Text in This Class?
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980.

Fisher, John H.,ed. The Complete Poetry and Prose of
Geoffrey Chaucer. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1977.

Fisher, Ruth M. "Cosyn and Cosynage: Complicated Punning in
Chaucer’s Shipman’s Tale." Notes and Queries 12 (1965),
168—70. ‘

Fowler, Roger. The language of literature. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.

. Style and Structure in Literature: essays in
the new stylistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1975.

."Linguistics and, Versus, Poetics." JOurnal of
Literary Semantics 8,i (April 1979), 3—21.

Fox, Denton. ed. Twentieth Century Interpretations of Sir
Gawain and the Green Knight. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 1968.

Gallick, Susan. "Styles of Usage in the Nun’s Priest’s Tale"
The Chaucer Review ll,iii (Winter, 1977), 232—247.

Gaylord, Alan T. "Friendship in Chaucer’s Troilus" The
Chaucer Review 3 (1969), 239—264.

Gerould, Gordon Hall. Chaucerian Essays. New York: Russell &
Russell, 1968.

 

 

 

206

Giglioli, P. P. Language and Social Context,
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975.

Gollancz, Sir Israel. ed. Sir Gawain and the Green knight.
London: Oxford University press, 1940.*

Goody, E. N. ed. Questions and politeness: Strategies in
soc1al interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1978.

Gordon, E. V. ed. Pearl. London: Oxford University Press,
1953.*

Grice, H. P. "Logic and conversation." In Cole, P. and
Morgan, J. eds.,1975.

Grimshaw Allen D. Language as Social Resource.
Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1981.

Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D., eds. Directions in
Sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
1972.

Halliday, Frank E. Chaucer and His WOrld. London: Thames and
Hudson, 1968.

Halliday, M. A. K. "Notes on transitivity and theme
in English: Part I", JOurnal of Linguistics 3 (1967),
37—81.
. "Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part
II", deurnal of Linguistics 3 (1968), 199—244.

. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London:
Edward Arnold, 1973.

Language as social semiotic: The social
interpretation of language and meaning. Baltimore:
University Park Press, 1978.

Hanning, Robert W. "Uses of Names in Medieval Literature"
Names 16, iv (1968), 325—38.

Holman, C. Huge. "Courtly Love in the Merchant's and
Franklin's Tales." English Literary History 18 (1951),
241-52. :

Howard, Donald R. "The Coclusion of the Marriage Group:
Chaucer and the Human Condition." Mbdern Philology 57

(1960) , 223'232-

207

Hymes, Dell. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An
Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1974.

ed. Language in Culture and Society. New York:
Harper & Row, 1964.

Jackson, W. T. H. Literature of the Middle Ages. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1960.

Jakobson, R. "Closing statement: linguistics and
poetics." in Sebeok, T. A. ed., 350—77. 1961.

Johnson, Lynn Staley. The voice of the Gawain-Poet.
Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press,
1984.

Johnston, Everett C. "The Pronoun of Address in Chaucer’s
Troilus." Language Quarterly 1,i (1962), 17-20.

Johnston, Everett C. "The signification of the Pronoun in
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight." Language Quarterly
5,ii (Spring-Summer 1967), 34—36.

Kean, P. M. The Art of Narrative: Chaucer and Making of
English Poetry. 2 vols. London & Boston: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1972.

. Love Vision and Debate: Chaucer and making of
English Poetry. vol.1. London & Boston: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1972.

Kennedy, Arthur G. The Pronouns of Address in English
Literature of the Thirteenth Century. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1915

Kennedy, C. "Systemic grammar and its use in literary
analysisy " , Journal of the Midlands Association of
Linguistic Studies, new series 1 (1976), 17-36.

Kerkhof, Jelle. Studies in the Language of Geoffrey
Chaucer. Leiden: E.J. Brill/Leiden University
Press, 1982.

Kittredge, George Lyman. A Study of Gawain and the
Green Knight. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University
press, 1916.

Kottler, Barnet and Markman Alan M. A Concordance To Five
Middle English Poems: Cleanness, St. Erkenwald, Sir
Gawain and the Green Knight, Patience, Pearl.
Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966.

 

 

208

Koziol, Herbert. "Die Anredeform bei Chaucer," Englische
Studien 75 (1942-43), 170-74.

Labov, William. Language in the Inner City.
Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1972. .

Lakoff, Robin. "Language in Context." Language 48 (1972),
907—27.

. "The Logic of Politeness; or Minding Your p’s and
q’s." Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago
Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic
Society, 1973, 292—305.

Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.

Lawlor, John. ed. Pattern of Love and Courtesy: Essays in
Memory of C.S. Lewis. London: Edward Arnold, 1966.

Lawrence, William W. Chaucer and the Canterbury Tales. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1950.

Lounsbury, T. R. History of the English Language. Rev. and
enlarged ed. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1894.

Lowes, John Livingston. The Art and His Poetry. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1915.

Geoffrey Chaucer and the Development of His genius.
Boston and new York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1934.

Leech, Geoffrey. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry.
New York: Longman, 1969.

. Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1980.

and Svartvik, J. A Communicative Grammar of
English. New York: Longman, 1975.

and Short Michael H. Style in Fiction ( A
Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional
Prose). New York: Longman, 1980.

Lowes, John Livingston. The Art of Geoffrey Chaucer.
London: Milford, 1931.

Luengo, A. "Audience and Exempla in the Pardoner’s Prologue
and Tale." The Chaucer Review 11, i (Summer, 1976), 1~
10.

 

 

 

 

209

Lumiansky, Robert M. Of Sondry Folk: The Dramatic Principle
in the Canterbury Tales. Austin: University
of Texas Press, 1955.

Lyons, John. ed. New Horizons in Linguistics.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1970.

Malone, Kemp. Chapters on Chaucer. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Press, 1964.

Manly, John M. Some New Light on Chaucer: Lectures
Delivered at the Lowell Institute. New York: Holt,
1926.

Mann, Jill. Chaucer and Medieval Estates Satire: The
Literature of Social Classes and the General Prologue.
London: Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Masefield, John. Chaucer. New York: Macmillan Co., 1931.

McIntosh; Angus. "As You like It: a grammatical clue to
character." Review of English Literature 4,ii (April
1963), 68-81.

Metcalf, Allan A. "Sir Gawain and You," The Chaucer Review
5, iii (Winter 1971) 165-178.

Metcalf, George J. Forms of Address in German (1500—1800).
("Washington University Studies, New Series, Language
and Literature, " No.7.) St. Louis.1938.

Moorman, Charles. The Pearl—Poet. New York: Twayne
Publishers, Inc., 1968.

Mosse, Fernand. A Handbook of Middle English. Trans. James
A. Walker. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1975.

Muscatine, Charles A. "The Canterbury Tales: Style of the
Man and Style of the Work." Chaucer and Chaucerian.
ed. D.S. Brewer,88—113. Alabama: University of
Alabama, 1966,

Chaucer and the French Tradition: A Study in Style
and Meaning. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1957.

Nathan, Norman. "Pronoun of Address in the Friar’s Tale."
' Modern Language Quarterly 17 (1956), 39—42.

. "Pronouns of Address in the Canterbury
Tales." Mediaeval Studies 21 (1959), 193-201.

 

 

 

 

210

Newstead, Helaine.ed. Chaucer and His Contemporaries. New
York: Fawcett Publications,1968.

Norman, Arthur. "The Man of Law’s Tale." Studies in
Language, Literature, and Culture of the Middle Ages
and Later. eds. E. Bagby Atwood and Archibald A. Hills.
Austin: The University of Texas, 1959. 312-323.

Ohmann, Richard. "Speech, Literature and the Space
Between." New Literary History 4 (1972), 47-63.

"Speech, Action and Style," in Literay Style: A
Symposium. ed. Seymour Chatman. London: Oxford
University Press, 1971.

Page, Norman.ed. The Language of Literature. London: The
.Macmillan Press Ltd., 1984.

Palmer, F. R. Mbdality and the English Medals. London:
Longman Group Ltd., 1979.

Partridge, Eric. ed. Swift’s Polite Conversation.
London: Andre Deutsch, 1963. '

Pearsall, Derek. The Canterbury Tales. London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1985.

Perkins, Michael R. Medal Expression in English. Norwood:
Ablex Publishing Corp., 1983. '

Pratt, Mary Louise. Toward a Speech Act Theory
of Literary Discourse. Bloomington: Indiana Univ.
Press, 1977.

Quirk, R. and Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J.
A Grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman,
1972.

Reck, Rima Drell. ed. Explorations of Literature. Baton
Rouge: Lousiana State University Press, 1966.

Robinson, F. N., ed. The Complete Whrks of Geoffrey
Chaucer. 2d.ed.Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957.*

Rogers, P. Burwell. "The Names of the Canterbury Pilgrims."
Names 16 (1968), 339-46.

Romaine, Suzanne. Socio—Historical Linguistics. New York:
Cambridge~University Press, 1982.

Rowland, Beryl. ed. Companion to Chaucer Studies. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1979.

 

 

 

 

 

211

Ruggiers, Paul. "The Form of the Canterbury Tales: Respice
Fines." College English 17 (1956), 442—43.

The Art of the Canterbury Tales. Madison:
The University of Wisconsin Press, 1967

Salter, Elizabeth. Fourteeth—Century English Poetry. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1983.

Scattergood, V. T. Politics.and Poetry in the Fifteenth
Century. London: Blandford Press, 1971.

Schlauch, Margaret. English Medieval Literature and Its
Social foundation. New York: Cooper Square Publishers,
1971.

"Chaucer’s Colloquial English: Its Structural
Traits." PMLA 67 (1952), 1103-16.

Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy
of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press,
1969.

. "Indirect speech acts." In Cole and Morgan, eds.,
59-82. 1975

. "The logical status of fictional discourse."
New Literary History 6,ii (winter,1975), 319-32.

"A classification of illocutionary acts."
Language in Society 5 (1976), 1—23.

Sebeok, Thomas A. ed. Style in Language . Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1960.

Sinclair, J. Mch. and Coulthard, M. Towards an Analysis of
Discourse. London: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Skeat, W.W., ed. The Complete Whrks of Geoffrey Chaucer. 7
vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1900.

Snell, Frederick. Age of Chaucer. New York: AMS Press, 1970.

Speirs, John. Medieval English Poetry. London: Faber and
Faber, 1957.

Spearing, A. C. Criticism and Medieval Poetry. New York:
Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1964.

The Gawain—Poet. Cambridge: University Press, 1970.

. ed. The Franklin’s Prologue and Tale.
London: Cambridge University press, 1966.

 

 

 

 

 

 

212

Stearn, Marshall. "A Note on Chaucer’s Attitude toward
Love." Speculum 17 (1942), 570—74.

Stewart; George R.,Jr. The Mbral Chaucer: Essays in
CritiCism. Berkeley, Calif.: University of Calif.
Press, 1929.

Stidston, Russell Osborne. The Use of Ye in the Function of
Thou in Middle English Literature from MS Auchinleck to
Ms Vernon: A Study of Grammar and Social Intercourse in
Fourteenth-Century England. (Stanford Series, no.28)
Stanford: Stanford University, 1917.

Stowell, William Averill. Old-French Titles of Respect in
Direct Address. Baltimore: J. H. Furst Company, 1908

Strang, Barbara, M.H. A History of English. London: Methuen
and Co Ltd, 1970.

Strohm, Paul. "Form, and Social Statement in Confessio
Amantis and the Canterbury Tales." Studies in the Age
of Chaucer 1 (1979), 17-40.

Tatlock, J.S.P. The Development and Chronology of
Chaucer’s Works. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1964.

and A.G. Kennedy. A Concordance of the Complete
Works of Geoffrey Chaucer. Washington, 1927.

Tolkien, J. R. R. and E. V. Gordon. Sir Gawain and the Green
Knight. Oxford University Press, 1940.*

Tupper, Frederick. "The Quarrels of the Canterbury Pilgrims"
JEGP 14 (1915), 250—70.

Wagenknecht, E., ed. Chaucer: Mbdern Essays in Criticism.
New York: Oxford University press., 1959.

Walcutt, Charles Child. "The Pronouns of Address in Troilus
and Criseyde," Philological Quarterly 14 (1935), 282-
87.

Wardale, E. E. An Introduction to Middle English. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1937.

Widdowson, H. G. Explorations in Applied Linguistics.
London: Oxford University Press, 1979.

Wright, Joseph and Wright, Elizabeth Mary. An Elementary
Middle English Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Oxford
University Press, 1928.

Wright, Joseph and Wright, Elizabeth Mary. Old English
Grammar. 3rd ed. London: Oxford UniverSity Press, 1925.

213
Zimmermann, Rudiger. "Verbal Syntax and Style in Sir Gawain
and the Green Knight," English Studies 54 (1973), 533~

43.

* Quotations of the works of Chaucer and the Gawain—poet
are all from these works.

HICH

r ; Hillbilly?

LIB

m u

IES

Ill

m m In)“

9 38.