Chapter 7 examines both second-person pronouns and nominal terms of address (vocatives). In Middle English, the original singular and plural second-person pronouns came to distinguish differences between interlocutors, with the singular thou denoting lesser status/age power or increased solidarity, intimacy, or informality and the plural you denoting higher status/age/power or greater emotional distance or formality. In Early Modern English, the use of the pronouns for affective purposes was common, showing “retractability”. Loss of thou for various sociolinguistic reasons was complete by 1700, leaving English without an honorific form or a number distinction in the second person. Vocatives underwent less systematic change, but moved in the same general direction. The elaborate vocatives of Early Modern English, which delineated a person’s rank and status, were replaced by a more diffuse collection of vocatives, with preference increasingly given to first names, family names, “familiarizers,” and endearments, all of which served to increase rapport and create a sense of equality. They form part of the phenomenon of “camaraderie politeness” dominant in Present-day English.

This chapter provides a summary of the book, which has attempted to describe the scope and nature of historical pragmatics in the first quarter of the twenty-first century and bring together a wide range of studies in the field. The chapter then reflects on issues arising from such studies and on gaps or limitations of existing work. Finally, it looks ahead to future research possibilities in the field of historical pragmatics.

Chapter 3 explores the characteristics of pragmatic markers and focuses on both their function during a particular period and their development over time. Diachronically, pragmatic markers develop from content words, phrases, or clauses that gradually acquire a distinctive syntactic form and discourse-pragmatic functions and follow various pathways, from adverb > conjunction > pragmatic marker, from sentence-internal adverb > sentential adverb > pragmatic marker, from main clause > ambiguous clause > parenthetical, from adverbial or imperative clause > pragmatic marker. A number of examples of such pathways are provided, where it is shown that the historical data may be messy and require nuanced interpretation. For clausal pragmatic markers, the “matrix clause hypothesis” is critically examined. The process of language change that best accounts for the development of pragmatic markers, including lexicalization, pragmaticalization, grammaticalization, and cooptation, is still a matter of debate, though the majority view is that if “grammar” is broadly understood, pragmatic markers are best seen as undergoing grammaticalization (decategorialization, desemanticization).

Chapter 6 introduces the concepts relevant to speech act theory and discusses difficulties in the study of speech acts, both limitations of the form-to-function approach and obstacles to the function-to-form approach; it then reviews the work-arounds suggested in the literature, including the use of illocutionary-force-indicative devices, of typical syntactic patterns for different speech acts, and of metacommunicative labels. After looking at several studies of performative verbs, the chapter then reviews historical studies of directive, commissive, and expressive speech acts in English. Directives in earlier English would seem to be more direct than we find today, but this can be attributed to the more fixed social structure, not to less politeness. Apologies, curses, greetings, and leave-takings represent expressives that have undergone change in the history of English, in respect to both their formal expression and their functional profile, that is, the very nature of the speech act itself. For example, promises of medieval times, which did not depend upon the sincerity condition of the speaker but were nevertheless “binding,” now rest fundamentally upon this condition.

The aim of this book has been to provide a linguistic description of borrowings in informal American English and to serve as a practical resource documenting this type of language. These foreign-origin expressions, comprising both slang and colloquialism, constitute a vibrant sociolinguistic phenomenon resulting from language contact, and function as an important yet rarely discussed lexical contribution to American English. Their significance stems from the sociolinguistic significance of informal language in the United States, the strong presence of borrowings in American speech reflecting the immigrant nature of the country and the growing role of ethnic minorities, as well as the increasingly common use of this type of lexicon among larger segments of American society.

Borrowings in informal American English come from various languages. Unsurprisingly, Spanish has contributed the most expressions, accounting for almost half of the entire database. Borrowings from Yiddish are the second most frequent group, followed by a few other key language donors and numerous lesser donors. Interestingly, some expressions are a result of borrowing from two donor languages; still others are the result of pseudo-borrowing, a playful imitation of a foreign language. In general, findings corroborate the common perception that the top contributor of borrowings in informal American is Spanish, but they also reveal a few unexpected contributors whose whose impact on informal American English is pronounced.

Informal borrowings are defined as expressions taken from a foreign language and used in informal American English. They conform to the traditional typology of borrowings and include such main types as loanwords and loan translations, but there are other finer distinctions, much as there are certain terms often confused with borrowings, such as code switches or nonce borrowings. Informal language, in turn, refers to a type of vocabulary which is stylistically “lower” than the standard language and “below” the formal and neutral registers on the formality scale. It includes two subsets: colloquialism, which is composed of moderately informal and casual expressions, and slang, which is composed of highly informal and unconventional expressions, strongly linked with a sociocultural context. Again, there are numerous similar terms to account for this type of lexicon, but their semantic scopes are different.

Informal borrowings can be classified according to several criteria. As for the typology by borrowed material, one can distinguish loanwords, which are the most frequent in the database, followed by other types, including loanblends and loan translations. As for typology by part of speech, the majority are nouns, followed by adjectives and verbs, which is consistent with the part-of-speech distribution patterns found in noninformal borrowings; however, there are a few surprises. As for assimilation, one can distinguish partially assimilated borrowings, which are most frequent, followed by fully assimilated and unassimilated expressions. As for modification, unmodified borrowings are the most frequent, followed by partly modified and highly modified ones. There are many more criteria proposed in the text.

Borrowings in informal American English exhibit various modifications. Phonological changes involve the modification of their pronunciation to conform to the phonological rules of American English. Orthographical changes feature the change in spelling of borrowed expressions, with various stages of respelling or other modifications. Morphological changes include addition or removal of lexical material via standard wordbuilding processes such as lengthening or shortening. Semantic changes involve figuration and accompanying semantic shifting. Grammatical changes involve conversion in the part of speech. Finally, stylistic changes involve modification in the original register of informal borrowings which may shift their stylistic status in American English; while most borrowings exhibit no such change and retain their informal status, there are several exceptions.

Informal borrowings constitute an important linguistic phenomenon, yet they remain underrepresented in scholarly literature. This book is to remedy the situation. Drawing from the methodological framework of documentary linguistics and sociolinguistics, it relies on lexical material from a large database of citations from diverse sources – including spoken utterances, films and TV shows, print, and social media – to ensure authenticity and representativeness. Much space is devoted to the presentation, explanation, interpretation, and illustration of language data; the format of description is designed to be extensive, covering a wide range of themes which allow an examination from various perspectives. The description is amply supported throughout the text with usage examples that illustrate linguistic patterns, show the sociocultural context in which they are used, and attest to the very existence of these expressions.

Informal borrowings are used for several reasons. They are used to name things, providing alternative synonyms for things already named in English but also names for things yet to be named. More often, however, they are used instead of standard English to communicate additional information that is social, psychological, rhetorical, or cultural in nature. The social function involves group solidarity and social distancing. The psychological function includes expression of emotions via a repertoire of expressions for a variety of emotional states and emotive labels. The rhetorical function includes informality, conciseness, forcefulness, wordplay, and small talk. The cultural function involves expressing cultural identity and stylization; while expressing cultural identity is often the reason for using such expressions, stylization is another phenomenon accounting for their common use among larger segments of American society.