Can You Make a Difference? The Use of (In)Formal Address Pronouns in Advertisement Slogans

References

• Andeweg, S., R. Hendrix, V. van ‘t Hoff, and H. de Hoop. 2013. En dan vermoord je hem …: Over de invloed van grammaticale persoon op identificatie [And then you murder him …: On the influence of grammatical person on identification]. Neerlandistiek.nl 13(1): 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Barton, K. 2022. MuMIn: multi-model inference. R package, v.1.46.0. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
   Google Scholar
• Bates, D., M. Mächler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1):1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, R., and A. Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Style in language, ed. T. Sebeok, 253–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brunyé, T., T. Ditman, C. Mahoney, J. Augustyn, and H. Taylor. 2009. When you and I share perspectives: Pronouns modulate perspective taking during narrative comprehension. Psychological Science 20 (1):27–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02249.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunyé, T., T. Ditman, C. Mahoney, and H. Taylor. 2011. Better you than I: Perspectives and emotion simulation during narrative comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 23 (5):659–66. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2011.559160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunyé, T., T. Ditman, G. Giles, A. Holmes, and H. Taylor. 2016. Mentally simulating narrative perspective is not universal or necessary for language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 42 (10):1592–605. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnkrant, R., and H. Unnava. 1989. Self-referencing: A strategy for increasing processing of message content. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 15 (4):628–38. doi: 10.1177/0146167289154015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnkrant, R., and H. Unnava. 1995. Effects of self-referencing on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 22 (1):17–26. doi: 10.1086/209432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christopher, A. 2012. Deixis and personalization in ad slogans. International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 6 (4):517–21.
   Google Scholar
• van Compernolle, R. A. 2008. Second-person pronoun use and address strategies in on-line personal ads from Quebec. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (12):2062–76. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, C., F. Heath, R. L. Thompson, and B. Thompson. 2001. Score reliability in Webor internet-based surveys: Unnumbered graphic rating scales versus Likert-type scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 61 (4):697–706. doi: 10.1177/00131640121971356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Core Team, R. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Coveney, A. 2010. Vouvoiement and tutoiement: Sociolinguistic reflections. Journal of French Language Studies 20 (2):127–50. doi: 10.1017/S0959269509990366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cruz, R., J. Leonhardt, and T. Pezzuti. 2017. Second person pronouns enhance consumer involvement and brand attitude. Journal of Interactive Marketing 39 (1):104–16. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2017.05.001.
   Google Scholar
• Debevec, K., and J. Romeo. 1992. Self-referent processing in perceptions of verbal and visual commercial information. Journal of Consumer Psychology 1 (1):83–102. doi: 10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80046-0.
   Google Scholar
• De Houwer, A. 2003. Language variation and local elements in family discourse. Language Variation and Change 15 (03):329–49. doi: 10.1017/S0954394503153033.
   Google Scholar
• Ditman, T., T. Brunyé, C. Mahoney, and H. Taylor (2010). Simulating an enactment effect: Pronouns guide action simulation during narrative comprehension. Cognition 115: 172–178. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escalas, J. 2004. Imagine yourself in the product: Mental simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasion. Journal of Advertising 33 (2):37–48. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2004.10639163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escalas, J. 2007. Self-referencing and persuasion: Narrative transportation versus analytical elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research 33 (4):421–9. doi: 10.1086/510216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foster, D., S. Aalberse, and W. Stoop. 2019. Examining Twitter as a source for address research using Colombina Spanish. In It’s not all about you: New perspectives on address research, ed. B. Kluge and M.I. Moyna, 75–94. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Funke, F. 2015. A web experiment showing negative effects of slider scales compared to visual analogue scales and radio button scales. Social Science Computer Review 34 (2):221–31. doi: 10.1177/0894439315575477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funke, F., and U. Reips. 2012. Why semantic differentials in web-based research should be made from visual analogue scales and not from 5-point scales. Field Methods 24 (3):310–27. doi: 10.1177/1525822X12444061.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• den Hartog, M., M. van Hoften, and G. Schoenmakers. 2022. Pronouns of address in recruitment advertisements from multinational companies. Linguistics in the Netherlands 39:39–54. doi: 10.1075/avt.00060.har.
   Google Scholar
• Hartung, F., M. Burke, P. Hagoort, and R. Willems. 2016. Taking perspective: Personal pronouns affect experiential aspects of literary reading. PloS One 11 (5):e0154732. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helmbrecht, J. 2013. Politeness distinctions in pronouns. In The world atlas of language structures (WALS) online, ed. M. Dryer and M. Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/45.)
   Google Scholar
• de Hoop, H., W. Boekesteijn, M. Doolaard, N. van Wel, L. Hogeweg, and F. Hubers. (2023). Effects of formal and informal pronouns of address in product ads on product price estimation. Unpublished manuscript at Radboud University, submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• de Hoop, H., N. Levshina, and M. Segers. 2023. The effect of the use of T or V pronouns in Dutch HR communication. Journal of Pragmatics 203:96–109. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.11.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Hoop, H., and S. Tarenskeen. 2015. It’s all about you in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 88:163–75. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornikx, J., and R. Hof. 2008. De effectiviteit van vreemde talen in productreclame: Moet het product passen bij de taal? [The effectiveness of foreign languages in product advertising: Should the product fit the language?]. Tijdschrift Voor Taalbeheersing 30 (2):147–56.
   Google Scholar
• Hradilova, V. 2014. The analysis of person deixis and its relation to visual images in selected advertisements. Master’s thesis at Masaryk University.
   Google Scholar
• Jansen, F., and D. Janssen. 2005. U en je in Postbus 51-folders [V and T in PO Box 51 brochures]. Tijdschrift Voor Taalbeheersing 27:214–29.
   Google Scholar
• Kretzenbacher, H. L., and D. Schüpbach. 2015. Communities of addressing practice? Address in internet forums based in German-speaking countries. In Address practice as social action: European perspectives, ed. C. Norrby and C. Wide, 33–53. London: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Kuo, S. 2006. From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text & Talk 22 (1):29–55. doi: 10.1515/text.2002.004.
   Google Scholar
• Lenth, R. 2022. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka least-squares means. R package, v.1.8.1-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
   Google Scholar
• Leung, E., A. I. Lenoir, S. Puntoni, and S. M. J. van Osselaer. 2022. Consumer preference for formal address and informal address from warm brands and competent brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology doi: 10.1002/jcpy.1322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levshina, N. 2017. A multivariate study of T/V forms in European languages based on a parallel corpus of film subtitles. Research in Language 15 (2):153–72. doi: 10.1515/rela-2017-0010.
   Google Scholar
• Macrae, A. 2015. ‘You’ and ‘I’ in charity fundraising appeals. In The pragmatics of personal pronouns, ed. L. Gardelle and S. Sorlin, 105–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.171.06mac.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers-Levy, J., and L. Peracchio. 1996. Moderators of the impact of self-reference on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 22 (4):408–23. doi: 10.1086/209458.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaelidou, N., and S. Dibb. 2008. Consumer involvement: A new perspective. The Marketing Review 8 (1):83–99. doi: 10.1362/146934708X290403.
   Google Scholar
• Mick, D. 1992. Levels of subjective comprehension in advertising processing and their relations to ad perceptions, attitudes, and memory. Journal of Consumer Research 18 (4):411–24. doi: 10.1086/209270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moncomble, F. 2017. Beauty and the tweet: How traditional media seduce in the digital age. E-rea 15 (15.1) doi: 10.4000/erea.5917.
   Google Scholar
• Pires, M. 2004. Usages et stratégies de tutoiement dans l’écrit public. Langage et société 108 (2):27–56. doi: 10.3917/ls.108.0027.
   Google Scholar
• Plevoets, K., D. Speelman, and D. Geeraerts. 2008. The distribution of T/V pronouns in Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch. In Variational pragmatics. A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages, ed. K.P. Schneider and A. Barron, 190–209. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.178.09ple.
   Google Scholar
• Posio, P. 2011. Spanish subject pronoun usage and verb semantics revisited: First and second person singular subject pronouns and focusing of attention in spoken Peninsular Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (3):777–98. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serrano, M. J. 2017. Going beyond address forms. Variation and style in the use of the second-person pronouns tú and usted. Pragmatics 27 (1):87–114. doi: 10.1075/prag.27.1.04ser.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singmann, H., B. Bolker, J. Westfall, F. Aust, and M. Ben-Shachar. 2022. afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. R package, v.1.1-1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex
   Google Scholar
• Smith, K. 2004. ‘I am me, but who are you and what are we?’: The translation of personal pronouns and possessive determiners in advertising texts. Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 23 (3):283–303. doi: 10.1515/mult.2004.013.
   Google Scholar
• Sorlin, S. 2015. Breaking the fourth wall: The pragmatic functions of the second person pronoun in House of Cards. In The pragmatics of personal pronouns, ed. L. Gardelle and S. Sorlin, 125–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.171.07sor.
   Google Scholar
• Sorlin, S. 2017. The second-person pronoun across genres. Recherches anglaises et nord americaines 50:135–48.
   Google Scholar
• Sušinskienė, S. 2013. The usage of deixis in advertising slogans related to fragrance. Acta Humanitarica Universitatis Saulensis 17:179–87.
   Google Scholar
• Tarenskeen, S. 2010. From you to me (and back). The flexible meaning of the second person pronoun in Dutch. Master’s thesis at Radboud University.
   Google Scholar
• Trush, T. 2012. The ‘You’ effect: How to transform ego-based marketing into captivating messages that create customers. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
   Google Scholar
• Vandekerckhove, R. 2005. Belgian Dutch versus Netherlandic Dutch: New patterns of divergence? On pronouns of address and diminutives. Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 24 (4):379–97. doi: 10.1515/mult.2005.24.4.379.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Mieroop, D., E. Zenner, and S. Marzo. 2016. Standard and colloquial Belgian Dutch pronouns of address: A variationist-interactional study of child-directed speech in dinner table interactions. Folia Linguistica 50 (1):31–64. doi: 10.1515/flin-2016-0002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vismans, R. 2013a. Aanspreekvormen in Nederlandstalige banneradvertenties. [Forms of address in Dutch banner advertisements]. Tijdschrift Voor Taalbeheersing 35 (3):254–76. doi: 10.5117/TVT2013.3.VISM.
   Google Scholar
• Vismans, R. 2013b. Address choice in Dutch 1: Variation and the role of domain. Dutch Crossing 37 (2):163–87. doi: 10.1179/0309656413Z.00000000035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vismans, R. 2018. Address choice in Dutch 2: Pragmatic principles of address choice in Dutch. Dutch Crossing 42 (3):279–302. doi: 10.1080/03096564.2015.1136122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vismans, R. 2019. Address negotiations in Dutch emails. In It’s not all about you: New perspectives on address research, ed. B. Kluge and M.I. Moyna, 254–79. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, S. 2010. What ‘you’ and ‘I’ mean to each other: Person indexicals, self-ascription, and Theory of Mind. Language 86 (2):332–65. doi: 10.1353/lan.0.0220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weyers, J. 2011. Tu and usted in Mexican advertising: The politeness systems of written public discourse. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 30 (1):117–33.
   Google Scholar
• Weyers, J. 2022. Attitudes toward ustedeo, tuteo, and voseo in Medellín: A test case for written domains. Hispanic Studies Review 6 (1): 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Yu, S., L. Hudders, and V. Cauberghe. 2017. Luxury brands in the digital era: A cross-cultural comparison of the effectiveness and underlying mechanisms of personalized advertising. In The essence of luxury: An Asian market perspective, 126–47. Singapore: Center for Marketing Intelligence.
   Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research 12 (3):341–52. doi: 10.1086/208520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky, J. L. 1994. The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising 23 (4):59–70. doi: 10.1080/00913367.1943.1067345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Zalk, F., and F. Jansen. 2004. ‘Ze zeggen nog je tegen me’: Leeftijdsgebonden voorkeur voor aanspreekvormen in een persuasieve webtekst [‘They still say you[T] to me’: Age-specific preference for forms of address in persuasive Web text.]. Tijdschrift Voor Taalbeheersing 26:265–77.
   Google Scholar