Adams, George Brendan. 1985. Linguistic cross-links in phonology and grammar. In O'Baoill, S. (ed.). Papers on Irish English, 27–35. Dublin: IRAAL.Google Scholar

Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ahlgren, Perry. 1978. Tilltalsordet ni. Dess semantik och användning i historiskt perspektiv. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar

Allensbach, . 2003. Weniger schnell per ‘du’. Allensbacher Berichte 9/2003. www.ifd-allensbach.de/pdf/prd_0309.pdf (last accessed 15 December 2007).

Amendt, Gerhard. 1995. Du oder Sie: 1945 – 1968 – 1995. Bremen: Ikaru-Verlag.Google Scholar

Ammon, Ulrichet al. 2004. Variantenwörterbuch des Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bakhtin, Michael. 1986. The problems of speech genres. In Emerson, Caryl and Holquist, Michael (eds.). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bargiela, Francesca, Boz, Corinne, Gokzadze, Lily, Hamza, Abdurrahman, Mills, Sara and Rukhadze, Nino. 2002. Ethnocentrism, politeness and naming strategies. Working Papers on the Web 3: Linguistic politeness and context. www.shu.ac.uk/wpw/politeness/bargiela.htm (last accessed 15 December 2007).

Barthes, Roland. 1971. Ecrivains, intellectuels, professeurs. Tel quel, 47: 1–15.Google Scholar

Bayer, Klaus. 1979. Die Anredepromina Du und Sie. Deutsche Sprache, 3: 212–19.Google Scholar

Behrens, Leila. 2007. Konservierung von Stereotypen mit Hilfe der Statistik: Geert Hofstede und sein kulturvergleichendes Modell. Arbeitspapier 51, Neue Folge. Cologne: Institut für Linguistik, Universität.Google Scholar

Besch, Werner. 1998. II Duzen, Siezen, Titulierem. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar

Birch, Barbara M. 1995. Quaker Plain Speech: A policy of linguistic divergence. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 116: 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Braun, Friederike. 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Roger and Gilman, Albert. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.). Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 253–76.Google Scholar

Calvet, Louis-Jean. 1976. A tu et à vous. Le Français dans le Monde, 118: 14–18.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clyne, Michael (ed.). 1992. Pluricentric Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Clyne, Michael. 1995. The German Language in a Changing Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clyne, Michael. 2006. Some thoughts on pragmatics, sociolinguistic variation and intercultural communication. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3: 95–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clyne, Michael and Kipp, Sandra. 1999. Pluricentric Languages in an Immigrant Context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clyne, Michael and Kipp, Sandra. 2006. Tiles in a Multilingual Mosaic: Macedonian, Somali and Filipino in Melbourne. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Clyne, Michael, Fernandez, Sue and Muhr, Rudolf. 2003. Communicative styles in a contact situation. Journal of German Linguistics, 15: 95–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clyne, Michael, Kretzenbacher, Heinz L., Norrby, Catrin and Schüpbach, Doris. 2006. Perceptions of variation and change in German and Swedish address. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10 (3): 287–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coffen, Béatrice. 2002. Histoire culturelle des pronoms d'adresse. Vers une typologie des systèmes allocutoires dans les langues romanes. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar

Coffen, Béatrice. 2003. Rôle attribué aux pronoms d'adresse dans la construction identitaire individuelle. Paper presented at the Colloquium Pronoms du 2e personne et formes d'adresse dans les langues d'Europe, 6–8 March 2003, Institut Cervantes, Paris.Google Scholar

Coupland, Nikolas. 2001. Language, situation and the relational self: Theorizing dialect-style in sociolinguistics. In Eckert, Penelope and Rickford, John R. (eds.). Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 185–210.Google Scholar

Crowley, Terry. 2000. The Politics of Language in Ireland, 1366–1922. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Crumley, Bruce. 2006. Pardon your French. Hit or miss? A formal debate forms over the correct form of address. Time Europe, 30 April.

Crystal, David. 1993. Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davies, Bronwyn and Harré, Rom. 1990. Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20 (1): 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eckert, Penelope and Rickford, John R. (eds.). 2001. Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ehlers, Klaas-Hinrich. 2004. Zur Anrede mit Titeln in Deutschland, Österreich und Tschechien. Ergebnisse einer Fragebogenerhebung. Brücken. Germanistisches Jahrbuch Tschechien-Slowakei NF.12: 85–115.Google Scholar

Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1986. On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence. In Gumperz, John J. and Hymes, Dell (eds.). Directions in Sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. Reissued with corrections and additions, Oxford: Blackwell. 213–50.Google Scholar

Filppula, Markku. 1999. The Grammar of Irish English: Language in Hibernian style. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Fishman, Joshua A. 1965. Who speaks what language to whom and when? Linguistique, 2: 67–88.Google Scholar

Formentelli, Maicol. 2007. The vocative mate in contemporary English: A corpus based study. In Sansò, A. (ed.). Language Resources and Linguistic Theory. Milan: Franco Angeli. 180–99.Google Scholar

Fraser, Bruce. 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 219–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fraser, Bruce and Nolen, William. 1981. The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27: 93–110.Google Scholar

Fremer, Maria. 1998. Tilltal och omtal i samtal. Språkbruk, 2: 5–10.Google Scholar

Folktinget, . 2003. Språkfördelningen i Svenskfinland. www.kaapeli.fi/~fti/pdf/publikationer/Sprakfordelningen2003.pdf (last accessed 28 April 2007).

Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. 1991. Ni tu ni vous: principes et paradoxes dans l'emploi des pronoms d'allocution en français contemporain. Journal of French Language Studies, 1 (1): 139–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. 2004. Le développement historique de T/V en français et en anglais: parallélisme et divergence. Franco-British Studies 33–34 (Autumn 2003–Spring 2004). Special Issue: Second person pronouns and forms of address in the languages of contemporary Europe. 90–99.

Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. 2007. Tu/vous choices: An ‘Act of Identity’? In Jones, Mari and Ayres-Bennett, Wendy (eds.). The French Language and Questions of Identity. Oxford: Legenda. 106–16.Google Scholar

Gärtner, Detlev. 1992. Vom Sekretärsdeutsch zur Kommerzsprache. In Lerchner, Gotthard (ed.). Sprachkultur im Wandel. Anmerkungen zur Kommunikationskultur. Frankfurt: Lang. 203–62.Google Scholar

Giles, Howard (ed.). 1984. The dynamics of speech accommodation. Special Issue. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46.

Giles, Howard, Coupland, Nikolas and Coupland, Justine. 1991. Accommodation theory: Communication, context and consequence. In Giles, Howard, Coupland, Nikolas and Coupland, Justine (eds.). Contexts of Accommodation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1967. On face-work. An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In Goffman, Erving (ed.). Interactional Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour. New York: Anchor Books. 5–45.Google Scholar

Graddol, David and Swan, Joan. 1989. Gender Voices. Oxford: Blackwell and Open University.Google Scholar

,Greater London Authority. 2006a. Greater London Demographic Review 2005. London: Date Management and Analysis Group, Greater London Authority. www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/factsandfigures/factsfigures/population.jsp (last accessed 23 March 2007).Google Scholar

,Greater London Authority. 2006b. A Summary of Countries of Birth in London. DMAG Update. www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/factsandfigures/dmag-update-2006–09.pdf (last accessed 9 April 2007).

Greenbaum, Thomas L. 1998. The Handbook for Focus Group Research, second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hällström, Charlotta and Reuter, Michael. 2000. Finlandssvensk ordbok. Helsinki: Schildts.Google Scholar

Halmøy, Odile. 1999. Le vouvoiement en français: forme non-marquée de la seconde personne du singulier. In Nystedt, Jane (ed.). XIV Skandinaviska Romanistkongressen. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockhomiensis.Google Scholar

Harré, Rom and Langenhove, Luk. 1999. Positioning Theory: Moral contexts of interactional action. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Havu, Eva. 2005. Quand les Français tutoient-ils? Paper presented at the XVIe Congrès des romanistes scandinaves, 25–27 August 2005, Copenhagen. www.ruc.dk/cuid/publikationer/publikationer/XVI-SRK-Pub/KFL/KFL06-Havu (last accessed 15 December 2007).

Havu, Eva. 2006. L'emploi des pronoms d'adresse en français: étude sociolinguistique et comparaison avec le finnois. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Härmä, Juhani and Korhonen, Jarmo (eds.). Dialogic language use. Dimensions du dialogisme. Dialogischer Sprachgebrauch. Helsinki: Socieété Néophilologique. 225–40.Google Scholar

Hellmann, Manfred. 1978. Sprache zwischen Ost und West – Überlegungen zur Wortschatzdifferenzierung zwischen BRD und DDR und ihren Folgen. In Kühlwein, Wolfgang und Radden, Günter (eds.). Sprache und Kultur – Studien zu Diglossie, Gastarbeiterproblematik und kulturelle Integration. Tübingen: Narr. 15–54.Google Scholar

Hellmann, Manfred. 1990. Sprachgebrauch nach der Wende: eine erste Bestandaufnahme. Muttersprache, 100: 266–86.Google Scholar

Hickey, Leo and Stewart, Miranda (eds.). 2005. Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hickey, Raymond. 2003. The German address system: Binary and scalar system at once. In Raavitsainen, Irma and Jucker, Andreas (eds.). Diachronic Perspectives on Address Form Systems. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 401–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hill, Ben, Ide, Sachiko, Ikuta, Shoko, Kawasaki, Akiko and Ogino, Tsunao. 1986. Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10: 347–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hofstede, Geert. 1991. Cultures and Organizations. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 2001. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Holtgraves, Thomas. 2001. Politeness. In Peter Robinson, W. and Giles, Howard (eds.). The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 341–55.Google Scholar

Hughson, Jo-anne. 2001. Le tu et le vous: Étude sociolinguistique dans la banlieue parisienne. Unpublished Diplôme d’études approfondies. Université Paris-X, Nanterre.Google Scholar

Hughson, Jo-anne. 2005. Spanish address pronoun usage in an inter-cultural immigrant context: Language, social and cultural values among Spanish–English bilinguals in Australia. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Melbourne.

Ide, Sachiko. 1989. Formal forms and discernment. Multilingua, 8: 223–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, John. 1989. Review of terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures by Friederike Braun. Language, 65 (4): 852–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, John. 2004. Language and Identity: National, ethnic, religious. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kachru, Braj. 1982. The Other Tongue. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Kallen, Jeffrey. 2005. Politeness in Ireland: ‘. . .in Ireland, it's done without being said’. In Hickey, Leo and Stewart, Miranda (eds.). Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 130–44.Google Scholar

Kallmeyer, Werner. 2003. Sagen Sie bitte du zu mir. Werner Kallmeyer, Soziolinguist am Institut für Deutsche Sprache in Mannheim, über die Kunst der richtigen Anrede. Das Gespräch führte Cosima Schmitt (Werner Kallmeyer, Sociolinguist at the Institute for German Language in Mannheim, on the art of correct address. Conversation with Cosima Schmitt). Die Zeit, 58.27, 26 Juni 2003.Google Scholar

Kasper, Gabriele. 1994. Politeness. In Asher, R. E. (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 6. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 3206–11.Google Scholar

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 1992. Les interactions verbales, vol. II. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar

Kipp, Sandra, Clyne, Michael and Pauwels, Anne. 1995. Immigration and Australia's Language Resources. Canberra: AGPS.Google Scholar

Kretzenbacher, Heinz L. 1991. Vom Sie zum Du – und retour? In Kretzenbacher, Heinz L. and Segebrecht, Uwe. Vom Sie zum Du – mehr als eine neue Konvention? Antworten auf die Preisfrage der Deutschen Akademie für Sprache und Dichtung vom Jahr 1989. Hamburg, Zurich: Luchterhand Literaturverlag. 9–77.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadephia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin. 1973. The logic of politeness; or, minding your p's and q's. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, 292–305.Google Scholar

Lakoff, Robin and Ide, Sachiko (eds.). 2005. Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Lambert, Wallace E. and Tucker, G. Richard. 1976. Tu, Vous, Usted. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1999. The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In Hasselgård, Hilde and Oksefiell, Signe (eds.). Out of Corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Rodopi. 107–118.Google Scholar

Page, Robert B. and Tabouret-Keller, Andrée. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-based approaches to language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lerchner, Gotthard. 1992. Broiler, Plast(e) und Datsche machen noch nicht den Unterschied. Fremdheit und Toleranz in einer polyzentrischen deutschen Kommunikationskultur. In Lerchner, Gotthard (ed.). Sprachkultur im Wandel: Anmerkungen zur Kommunikationskultur. Frankfurt: Lang. 297–332.Google Scholar

L'Express. 2006. D'où viennent les Parisiens. Dossier spécial. L'Express, 30 November.

Linell, Per. 1998. Approaching Dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lüdi, Georges. 1992. French as a pluricentric language. In Clyne, Michael (ed.). Pluricentric Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 149–78.Google Scholar

Macarthur, Tom (ed.). 1992. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Maley, Catherine. 1974. The Pronouns of Address in Modern Standard French. University, MS: University of Mississippi Romance Monographs.Google Scholar

Mara, Johanna and Huldén, Lena. 2000. Hälsningsvanor, tilltal och omtal i Svenskfinland under 1900-talet. Källan 2. Helsinki: Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland.Google Scholar

Mårtensson, Eva. 1986. Det nya niandet. Nordlund 10. Lund: Dept. of Nordic Languages. 35–79.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1989. Politeness and conversational universal observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8: 200–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mattheier, Klaus J. 1980. Pragmatik und Semantik der Dialekte. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar

McCarthy, Michael and O'Keeffe, Anne. 2003. ‘What's in a name?’ Vocatives in casual conversations and radio phone-in calls. In Leistyna, Pepi and Meyer, Charles F. (eds.). Corpus Analysis: Language structure and language use. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi. 153–85.Google Scholar

Morford, Janet. 1997. Social indexicality in French pronominal address. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7 (1): 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mühlhäusler, Peter and Harré, Rom. 1990. You: The grammatical expression of social relations. In Mühlhäusler, Peter and Harré, Rom (eds.). Pronouns and People: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell. 131–67.Google Scholar

Muhr, Rudolf. 1987. Regionale Unterschiede im Gebrauch von Beziehungsindikatoren zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Österreich und ihre Auswirkungen auf den Unterricht in Deutsch als Fremdsprachen, dargestellt an Modalpartikeln. In Göetze, Lutz (ed.). Deutsch als Fremdsprache: Situation eines Faches. Bonn: Dürrsche Buchhandlung. 144–56.Google Scholar

Muhr, Rudolf. 1994. Entschuldigen Sie, Frau Kollegin. . . Sprechaktrealisierungsunterschiede an Universitäten in Österreich und Deutschland. In Bachleitner-Held, Susanne (ed.). Verbale Interaktion. Salzburg: Kovac. 126–44.Google Scholar

Muhr, Rudolf and Sellner, Peter. 2006. Zehn Jahre Forschung zum Österreischischen Deutsch 1995–2005: Eine Bilanz. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar

Niedzielski, Nancy A. and Preston, Dennis Richard. 2000. Folk Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norrby, Catrin. 1997. Kandidat Svensson, du eller ni – om utvecklingen av tilltalsskicket i svenskan. In Andersson, Anders-Börjeet al. (eds.). Svenska som andraspråk och andra språk: Festskrift till Gunnar Tingbjörn. Gothenburg: Department of Swedish Language, Gothenburg University. 319–28.Google Scholar

Norrby, Catrin and Håkansson, Gisela. 2004. ‘Kan jag hjälpa dig med något?’ Om tilltal i en servicesituation. Språk & Stil, 13: 6–34.Google Scholar

Nyblom, Heidi. 2006. The use of address pronouns among Finnish and Finland-Swedish students. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29 (2): 19.1–19.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ò Laoire, Muiris. 2005. The Language Planning Situation in Ireland. Current Issues in Language Planning, 6: 251–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paulston, Christina Bratt. 1976. Pronouns of address in Swedish: Social class semantics and changing system. Language in Society, 5: 359–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pauwels, Anne. 1998. Women Changing Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Pavlenko, Aneta and Blackledge, Adrian. 2004. Introduction. Theoretical approaches to the study of negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. In Pavlenko, Aneta and Blackledge, Adrian (eds.). Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 1–33.Google Scholar

Peeters, Bert. 2004. Tu ou vous? Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, 114: 1–17.Google Scholar

Peyret, Emmanuèle. 2006. C'est “mademoiselle” ou “madame”? Libération, 12 April.

Plevoets, Koen, Speelman, Dirk and Geeraerts, Dirk. 2008. The distribution of T/V pronouns in Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch. In Schneider and Barron, 181–210.

Ransmayr, Jutta. 2006. Der Status des Österreichischen Deutsch an nicht-deutschsprachigen Universitäten. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar

Reuter, Mikael. 1992. Swedish as a pluricentric language. In Clyne, Michael (ed.). Pluricentric Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 101–16.Google Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne. 2001. A corpus-based view of gender in British and American English. In Hellinger, Marlis and Bussmann, Hudumod (eds.). Gender Across Languages: The linguistic representation of women and men. Vol 1. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 153–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saari, Mirjaa. 1995. ‘Jo, nu kunde vi festa nog’. Synpunkter på svenskt språkbruk i Sverige och Finland. Folkmålsstudier, 36: 75–108.Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lecture 6. In Jefferson, Gail (ed.). Lectures on Conversation. Vols. 1–2. Oxford: Blackwell. 40–8.Google Scholar

Sakowski, Klaus. Not dated. Geduzt werden im Betrieb – LAG Hamm. Juristische Beiträge Arbeitsrecht. www.sakowski.de/arb-r/arb-r13.html (accessed 24 September 2004).

Schacherreitner, Christian. 2004. Sie Trottel, du! ÖNachrichten 06/03/04. www.nachrichten.at/magazin/wochenende/252744?PHPSESSID= (accessed 24 September 2004).

Schlosser, Horst-Dieter. 1991. Deutsche Teilung, deutsche Einheit und die Sprache der Deutschen. Politik und Zeitgeschichte, Beilage zur Wochenzeitung Das Parlament, B17/91: 13–21.Google Scholar

Schneider, Klaus and Barron, Anne (eds.). 2008. Variational Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRef

Sdun, Nora. 2004. Individuelle Kommodität. Textem 24/08/04. www.textem.de/index.php?id=25&backPID=1&tt_news=183 (accessed 24 September 2004).

Seidman, Michael. 2004. The Imaginary Revolution: Parisian students and workers in 1968. New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sifianou, Maria. 1992. Politeness Phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Spencer-Oatey, Helen. 1996. Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sproß, Elfriede Monika. 2001. Das Du-Wort. Zur Anrede im Umgang mit anderen. Unpublished PhD thesis. Karl-Franzens-Universitat, Graz.

Stevenson, Patrick. 2002. Language and German Disunity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stewart, Miranda. 2005. Politeness in Britain: ‘It's only a suggestion. . .’. In Hickey, Leo and Stewart, Miranda (eds.). Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 116–29.Google Scholar

Svennevig, Jan. 1999. Getting Acquainted in Conversation. A study of initial interactions. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Tajfel, Henri. 1974. Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13: 65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tandefelt, Marika. 1994. Urbanization and Bilingualism. In Nordberg, Bengt and Dittmar, Norbert (eds.). Urbanization and Language Change in Fenno-Scandinavia. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 246–73.Google Scholar

Tandefelt, Marika. 2006. Tänk om. . .Handlingsprogram för svenskan i Finland. [Imagine if. . .Action plan for Swedish in Finland.] Språk i Norden 2006. 57–66.

Teleman, Ulf. 2002. Ära, rikedom & reda: Svensk språkvård och språkpolitik under äldre nyare tid. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.Google Scholar

Teleman, Ulf. 2003. Tradis och funkis: Svensk språkvård och språkpolitik efter 1800. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.Google Scholar

Thompson, Robert W. 1992. Spanish as a pluricentric language. In Clyne, Michael (1992), 45–70.

Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter and Hannah, Jean. 1985. International English. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Tykesson-Bergman, Ingela. 2006. Samtal i butik: Språklig interaktion mellan biträden och kunder. Stockholm Studies in Scandinavian Philology. New Series 41. Stockholm University.

Upton, Clive and Widdowson, John D. A.. 2006. An Atlas of English Dialects, second edition. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Vanderkerckhove, Reinhild. 2005. Belgian Dutch versus Netherlandic Dutch: New patterns of divergence? On pronouns of address and dimunitives. Multilingua, 24: 379–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vermaas, J. A. M. 2002. Veranderingen in de Nederlandse aanspraakvormen van de dertiende t/m de twintigste eeuw. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Wahrig, Gerhard. 1977 [1968]. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar

Wales, Katie. 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wales, Katie. 2003. Second person pronouns in contemporary English: The end of a story or just the beginning? Franco-British Studies, 33–34: 172–85.Google Scholar

Wales, Katie. 2006. Northern English: A cultural and social history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 1989. Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behaviour. Multilingua, 8: 131–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 1991. Power in Family Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Watts, Richard J., Ide, Sachiko and Ehlich, Konrad (eds.). 1992. Politeness in Language: Studies in its history, theory and practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wellander, Erik. 1935. Tilltalsordet Ni. Stockholm: C.E. Fritzes Bokförlags Aktiebolag.Google Scholar

Winter, Joanne and Pauwels, Anne. 2007. Missing me and Msing the other: Courtesy titles for women in Englishes. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 30 (1): DOI:10.2104/aral0708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yli-Vakkuri, Valma. 2005. Politeness in Finland: Evasion at all costs. In Hickey, Leo and Stewart, Miranda (eds.). Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 189–202.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, Don. 1998. Identity, context and interaction. In Antaki, Charles and Widdicombe, Sue (eds.). Identities in Talk. London: Sage. 89–106.Google Scholar