Many European languages have two pronouns for singular address. For such languages, Brown & Gilman (1960) propose a model that can explain pronominal choice, arguing that the pronouns allow speakers to construe the speaker-hearer relation with respect to two major social dimensions -power and solidarity. Pronominal choice then functions as a major resource for realizing social deixis in dialogic interaction. However, discussions of the Modern English thou/you contrast have criticized the power-and-solidarity model by emphasizing the language-specific peculiarities of the Modern English system. Thou and you appear to deviate in meaning from the second person pronouns in other languages. You can be used to address virtually anyone and in many contexts seems to be a neutral form, rather than a form signalling speaker deference or social distance. Thou is associated with emotional language and seems to express speaker agitation. However, in this paper we argue that the peculiarities of the Modern English system may have been overstated. Using evidence from dialogic interactions in Modern English comedies, it is shown that as long as thou is available as a systemic option, you retains its value of signalling deference or social distance, even in contexts where thou could not appear. As for thou, it is argued that the association with speaker agitation can be interpreted as a pragmatic side effect of the form's dwindling frequency. Both arguments bring the Modern English thou/you contrast back closer in line with the general power-andsolidarity model.
IntroductionAccording to a long tradition in linguistics, the meaning of a sign derives from the system of which it is part. The characterization of language as 'un système où tout se tient', which is commonly attributed to de Saussure, can be taken to mean, among other things, that the meaning of any sign is kept in check by the meanings of other signs. For example, Old English read 'red' was commonly used to describe the colour of gold. One reason for this is that Old English geolo 'yellow' was associated with the colours of vegetation and probably had a focal point closer to present-day green (Anderson 2000: 10). In other words, the semantic range of one colour term depends on the other terms in the system. This mode of thinking is easily extended to grammatical paradigms. For example, Old English se approximately covered the functions of both definite article and demonstrative. Only later did the