Cover not available

In:Beyond Binaries in Address Research: Politeness and identity practices in interaction
Edited by Víctor Fernández-Mallat and María Irene Moyna
[Topics in Address Research 6] 2025
► pp. 96–118

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 5
Social meanings of Hungarian T and V forms

The metadiscourse of politeness in therapeutic settings

Published online: 17 July 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tar.6.05dom
Abstract
The chapter presents a study of Hungarian address practices based on qualitative content analysis of a discussion series conducted with therapeutic professionals. One result of the analysis of texts focusing on the roles of address forms is a comprehensive description of the Hungarian metacommunicative lexicon for address. Additionally, it explores in detail how discussion participants characterize the social meanings of address variants. The analysis moves beyond the binaries found in research on address practices. It demonstrates that the participants do not simply distinguish between T and V but rather refer to four clearly separable variants. Moreover, the socio-cultural values of variants receive nuanced interpretations incorporating various discursive factors, surpassing such distinctions as formal vs. informal and intimate vs. distancing.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1Metapragmatic awareness and politeness metadiscourses
      about address practices
    • 2.2Therapeutic situation and metapragmatic awareness
    • 2.3Basic forms and practices of address in Hungarian
    • 2.3Research questions
  • 3.Data and method
    • 3.1The data
    • 3.2Methodology: Qualitative analysis and coding procedure
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1References to address variants: Hungarian metacommunicative lexicon of T/V address
    • 4.2Metacomments on domains and values of address practices
      • 4.2.1Domains and values of T
      • 4.2.2Domains and social meanings of V
        • 4.2.2.1Social meanings of the maga and ön pronouns
        • 4.2.2.2V3 variant: Social meaning of the tetszik construction
    • 4.3Special social meanings in therapy
  • 5.Summary
  • Notes
  • Primary sources
  • References
References (36)
Primary sources
Valkó, Lili 2014/2015. Tegeződjünk vagy magázódjunk? Avagy hogyan szóljunk egymáshoz a terápiás és tanácsadói helyzetben? [Shall we use T or V? How should we address each other in situations of therapy and counselling?] Pszichoterápia [Psychotheraphy] 23. 121–123, 189–193, 275–277, 356–360, 419–421; 24. 64–67, 141–144, 234–235.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
References
Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 253–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clyne, Michael, Catrin Norrby & Jane Warren. 2009. Language and human relations: Styles of address in contemporary language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Craig, Robert T. 1999. Metadiscourse, theory, and practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction 32. 21–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Michael Haugh. 2014. Pragmatics and the English language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D. Mátai, Mária. 2011. Magyar szófajtörténet [Hungarian word class history]. Budapest: Argumentum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Domonkosi, Ágnes. 2002. Megszólítások és beszédpartnerre utaló elemek nyelvhasználatunkban [Forms of address and elements referring to a conversation partner in Hungarian]. Debrecen: University of Debrecen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Variability in Hungarian address forms. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57. 29–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018a. The socio-cultural values of Hungarian V forms of address. Eruditio — Educatio 13. 61–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018b. The role of gender in the use of Hungarian address forms. Jezyk — Komunikacja — Informacja 13. 175–187.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erdély, Judit. 2012. Fatikus beszéd: Megszólítások, köszönések, kapcsolattartó szokások a székelyföldi nyelvhasználatban [Phatic speech in Szeklerland, Romania: Address forms, greetings, and communication habits in the Hungarian regional vernacular]. Sepsiszentgyörgy: Anyanyelvápolók Erdélyi Szövetsége.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2022. Relationship building in oncological doctor-patient interaction. The use of address forms as ‘Tie Signs’. In Claudio Scarvaglieri, Eva-Maria Graf & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Relationships in organized helping, 195–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2018. Corpus-based metapragmatics. In Jucker, Andreas, Klaus P. Schneider & Wolfram Bublitz (eds.), Methods in pragmatics, 615–639. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel. 2011. Metapragmatics. In Wolfram Bublitz & Neal Norrick (eds.), Foundations of pragmatics, 107–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hübler, Axel & Wolfram Bublitz (eds.). 2007. Metapragmatics in use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Isosävi, Johanna & Ildikó Vecsernyés. 2022. Addressing, greeting and related gestures in the opening sequences of Finnish, French and Hungarian YouTube videos. Contrastive Pragmatics: A Cross-Cultural Disciplinary Journal 7. 363–396. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kádár, Dániel Z. & Michael Haugh. 2013. Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kertész, Manó. 1931. Szállok az Úrnak. Az udvarias magyar beszéd története [I soar for the Lord. The history of polite Hungarian speech]. Budapest: KuK Könyvkiadó.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kovács, Magdolna & Outi Tánczos. 2015. Hapuilua pimeässä? Unkarin muuttuvat puhuttelukäytännöt [Fumbling in the dark? The changing address practices in Hungarian]. In Johanna Isosävi & Hanna Lappalainen (eds.), Saako sinutella vai täytyykö teititellä? Tutkimuksia eurooppalaisten kielten puhuttelukäytännöistä, 241–261. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kretzenbacher, Heinz L., Michael Clyne & Doris Schüpbach. 2006. Pronominal address in German: Rules, anarchy and embarrassment potential. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 29. 17.1–17.18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuckartz, Udo & Stefan Rädiker. 2019. Analyzing qualitative data with MAXQDA. Text, audio, and video. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuna, Ágnes & Ágnes Domonkosi. 2020. Social meanings of the Hungarian politeness marker tetszik in doctor-patient communication. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae Philologica 12. 88–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuna, Ágnes & Ágnes Hámori. 2023. Metapragmatics and reflections in support of knowledge transfer and common ground in doctor-patient interaction. In Sarah Bigi & Maria G. Rossi (eds.), A pragmatic agenda for healthcare: Fostering inclusion and active participation through shared understanding, 200–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuna, Ágnes & Claudio Scarvaglieri. 2022. Practices of relationship building in Hungarian primary care: Communicative styles and intergenerational differences. In Claudio Scarvaglieri, Eva-Maria Graf & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Relationships in organized helping, 221–241. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lappalainen, Hanna & Maija Saviniemi. 2024. Metalinguistic commentary on forms of address in a Finnish autobiographical novel series. Languages 9. 153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lappalainen, Hanna & Ildikó Vecsernyés. 2023. Comparing address practices in the Finnish and Hungarian ‘Got Talent’ TV programmes. In Nicole Baumgarten & Roel Vismans (eds.), It’s different with you: Contrastive perspectives on address research (Topics in address research 5), 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mertz, Elizabeth & Jonathan Yovel. 2009. Metalinguistic awareness. In Sandra Dominiek, Yan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Cognition and pragmatics, 250–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muntigl, Peter. 2007. A metapragmatic examination of therapist reformulations. In: Wolfram Bublitz & Axel Hübler (eds.), Metapragmatics in use, 235–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muntigl, Peter & Adam Horvath. 2014. The therapeutic relationship in action: How therapists and clients co-manage relational disaffiliation. Psychotherapy Research 24. 327–345. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Niedzielski, Nancy & Dennis Preston. 2009. Folk linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norrby, Catrin & Jane Warren. 2012. Address practices and social relationships in European languages. Language and Linguistic Compass 6. 225–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schüpbach, Doris. 2015. German or Swiss? Address and other routinised formulas in German-speaking Switzerland. In John Hajek & Yvette Slaughter (eds.), Challenging the monolingual mindset, 63–77. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truan, Naomi. 2022. (When) Can I say du to you? The metapragmatics of forms of address on German-speaking Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics 191. 227–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vančo, Ildikó & István Kozmács. 2023. Differences in the forms of address between standard Hungary Hungarian and Slovakia Hungarian. In Nicole Baumgarten & Roel Vismans (eds.), It’s different with You: Contrastive perspectives on address research (Topics in address research 5.), 294–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Reflexivity and meta-awareness. In Dániel Z. Kádár, Marina Terkourafi & Michael Haugh (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics, 117–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue