Lexical analysis findings...

Some of my findings after analysing the lexis in our love letters...

After dividing our discourse analysis between us, I have been assigned Lexis as my primary area of focus. I have no doubt that our collection of love letters will be rich with lexical features. In this analysis, I will explore and offer reasoning as to why these lexical devises have been used within the love letters - to come to a conclusion regarding the similarities and differences within the collection. Ruiz (2003) explains how “Love expression in letters differs as far as such parameters as the stage of relationship, intimate distance between the correspondents and the intensity of their emotional states, their gender, age, and social status...” (p220) and it is evident that these factors will prove prevalent within these letters.

The first letter was written by Henry VIII to Anne Boleyn whilst he was still married to his first wife Catherine of Aragon during the late 1520s. According to the book “Letters from Great Men”, Henry was ‘Obsessed with Anne.’ (p7) The second, taken from the same book, was an unsent letter written by Ludwig Van Beethoven to one of his many lovers. Referring back to the book from which it was sourced, ‘three passionate unsent love letters were found among Beethoven’s papers after his death, addressed to his ‘Immortal Beloved’’ (p56). However, the identity of this woman was never ‘conclusively established.’ (p57) The third letter was written by a young Jewish woman from Manchester whilst on holiday in Israel to her companion back in London in 1966. The third is a note from a young man to his fiancé, with whom he did not live with, a week before their wedding – written in 1982. The last letter was written in 2012 by a young soldier leaving for Afghanistan to his girlfriend who was staying at home.

Lexis findings...

The type of lexis used is obviously an important area to discuss. The two eldest letters use a lot of archaic lexis, which is expected due to the time at which they were written. For example, in Beethoven’s letter, the word “thine” and “farewell” are noticeably outdated words. Similarly, in Henry VIIIs letter, “fervor” is a word that has slowly become lesser used. The use of latinate lexis, such as “augment” in Henry VIIIs and “continuity” in Beethoven’s also mark the letters with age. This also gives the letter a rather formal tone – thus suggesting that the social etiquette of the time had an effect on the way that correspondents wrote to one another.

The later letters are noticeably less formal. The use of anglo-saxon lexis in all three is prevalent – for example “I have just washed my hair” and “present” rather than “gift” in the 1966 letter create an informal tone, suggesting a less constrained relationship. Likewise, in the letter from 1982, the writer directly asks the reader the simple, rhetorical question “Don’t I write well with this pen”, which again creates a very informal tone – as it creates the idea that the writer is simply writing down his every thought. In the 2012 letter, use of simple anglo-saxon lexis such as “my mom” and “look at our pictures” creates a modern, informal tone.

Superlative findings...

Ruiz explains how correspondents make use of complimenting their reader, upon explaining how: “Verbal compliments or words of appreciation are powerful vehicles of love.” (p223) In the 1982 letter, the reader uses the superlative “loveliest” to describe his fiancé – thus suggesting that he considers no other her equal with regard to loveliness.  Superlatives are used in several of the letters, for example, in Beethoven’s letter, he explains how “Your love made me the happiest and unhappiest at the same time” which is also an example of a contrastive pair. In the letter from 1966, the writer uses the superlative “fondest” to describe her love for the reader. In the 2012 letter, the writer describes the day of his departure as “one of the saddest days of my life.” The usage of superlatives in all of these letters suggests extremity from the writer and creates a forceful voice.

Hyperbole findings...

Ruiz (2003) explains how “Love declarations are overt expressions of the feeling” (p223) and the use of hyperbolic lexis used in most of the letters suggests this to be true. In Henry VIII’s letter, he uses hyperbolic modifiers such as “intolerable” to describe his time apart from Anne Boleyn. Additionally, he describes Anne’s affections as “indissoluble.” In the 2012 letter, the writer uses the phrasal term “one in a million” to describe their relationship. This emotionally loaded phrase voices the writer’s belief that their relationship is extremely special. Beethoven also explains how he “can only live” when he is with his lover – although the reader assumes that this is not completely true, he has used the most dramatic description of how far his love extends by saying that he could simply not exist without it.

Vocatives and Address Terms

‘Terms of address are words or linguistic expressions that speakers use to appeal directly to their addressees.’ (Jucker and Taavitsainen, 2003, p1)  There is a very evident use of vocatives and address terms in all five of the letters. In Henry VIII’s letter, he describes his reader as “My Mistress and My Friend” which is quite a formal address term. He does not use any more address terms throughout, although he does refer to himself as “Your servant and your friend” which is, again, very formal. These formal names do not seem particularly affectionate nor personal – and as Jucker and Taavitsainen suggest, “terms of address may differ according to the formality of the situation” (p1) – therefore one could argue that this is something to do with the social expectations of the time regarding the boundaries of relationships.  

Similarly, Beethoven uses rather formal – and very dramatic – address terms such as “Immortal Beloved” and “Angel.” Beethoven’s address terms are very lyrical, and have quite holy connotations, thus suggesting that he deems his lover as biblical.

On the contrary, the letter from 1982 and 2012 uses far less formal address terms. The letter uses a number of nonsense words such as “Your choo”, “Pooh”, “Woof” and “booby”. Morton (2000) suggests that ‘many terms of endearment used by lovers have origins that defy etymological investigation.’ (p49) These may indeed be names that the couple have created solely for one another. As a pair of friends may have an ‘in-joke’ exclusively between them, lovers may indeed have pet names solely intended to be kept within their relationship.  

In the letter from 2012, the writer refers to his reader as “babe” which is a clipping of the word “baby.” According to Keitlin (2003), ‘lovers of both sexes call each other baby’ (p56). Keitlin refers to the Oedipus complex to explain this. According to Keitlin, ‘In men, calling a beloved baby implies that his love object represents a child he can love in both a maternal and paternal fashion’ (p56) thus suggesting that the writer of this letter wishes to care for his partner in a way that a parent would look after their child.

 The writer of the letter from 1966 uses the word “Darling” before the reader’s name. According to Morton (2000), the term “darling” is the ‘oldest term of endearment in the English Language’ deriving from the word ‘dear’ meaning ‘worthy’ added to the suffix ‘ling.’ (p54) Although the word ‘darling’ is still widely-used, it seems somewhat dated in this letter, thus reflecting the fact that this letter is almost fifty years old.  

Pronouns 

Firstly, Ruiz suggests that, in love letters in general, “There is an extensive use of first-person pronouns ‘I’ and ‘we.’” (p227) The use of pronouns in these letters, on the whole, is interesting. In all five of the letters, there is an abundant use of the second person singular pronoun ‘you’ to directly address the reader, creating a direct voice from the writer. Similarly, the use of the first person singular pronoun ‘I’ creates a personal voice. For example, “I am risking my life” in the 2012 letter; “My heart and I surrender themselves” in Henry VIIIs letter; “I’m lonely without you” in the letter from 1982; “I hope you are keeping well” in the letter from 1966; and “I can only live” in Beethoven’s.  

‘We’ is also used. The use of ‘we’ suggests unity – for example in the 2012 letter, the writer says “What we got is one in a million” and “I leave this wonderful place we call home” to indicate their togetherness. Ruiz (2003) goes on to explain how “Men and women spotlight feelings of belonging, bond...the desire to stay together” (p224) which reinforces the notion that lovers may use pronouns to voice their bond.

            Posessive pronouns are also prevalent. For example, the first person possessive pronoun is used in the address terms in four of the five letters. (In Henry VIII’s, “My mistress and my friend”; in the 2012 letter, “my beautiful MJ”; in Beethoven’s, “My Immortal Beloved” and in the 1966 letter, “My darling David”.) This use of the possessive pronoun suggests that the writer sees their reader as a possession of theirs, and that they are committed solely to them. This works the other way, when the use of the second person possessive pronoun is used. For example, in the 1982 letter, the writer identifies himself as “Your choo” as if to give himself up to his correspondent. Similarly, Henry VIII offers himself to his reader when he says “My heart and I surrender themselves into your hands.” He also refers to himself as “your servant and friend” as if to offer himself, in every role, to Anne.

References

·         Jucker, A.H. and Taavitsainen, I. (2003) Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems John Benjamins Publishing

·         Keitlin, S. (2003) The Oedipus Complex: A Philosophical Study Virtualbookworm Publishing

·         Morton, M. (2000) The Lover's Tongue: A Merry Romp Through the Language of Love and Sex Insomniac Press

·         Ruiz, J. S. (2003) Género, lenguaje y traducción/ Gender, Language and Tradition Valencia: Universitat de València