VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS HUMANITARINIŲ MOKSLŲ FAKULTETAS UŽSIENIO KALBŲ, LITERATŪROS IR VERTIMO STUDIJŲ KATEDRA Saimonas Sonda ADRESATO FORMŲ ANALIZĖ DONNOS LEON „KILMINGŲJŲ SPINDESYS“ (2013) IR HARLAN’O COBEN’O „DVIVEIDIS“ (2009) DETEKTYVINIUOSE ROMANUOSE IR JŲ LIETUVIŠKUOSE VERTIMUOSE Magistro baigiamasis darbas Taikomosios anglų kalbotyros studijų programa, valstybinis kodas 6211NX042 Lingvistikos studijų kryptis Vadovas (-ė) prof. dr. Milda Danytė (parašas) (data) (parašas) (data) Apginta doc. dr. Rūta Eidukevičienė Kaunas, 2021 FORMS OF ADDRESS IN THE ENGLISH SOURCE AND LITHUANIAN TARGET TEXTS OF DONNA LEON’S A NOBLE RADIANCE (1997) AND HARLAN COBEN’S DEAL BREAKER (1995) By Saimonas Sonda Department of Foreign Language, Literary and Translation Studies Vytautas Magnus University Master Thesis Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Milda Danytė 26 May 2021 SANTRAUKA Šio darbo tikslas - išanalizuoti adresato formas dviejų kriminalinių romanų Donnos Leon „A Noble Radiance“ (1997) ir Harlan’o Coben’o „Deal Breaker“ (1995) anglų kalbos originaluose ir jų lietuviškuose vertimuose „Kilmingųjų spindesys“ (2013) ir „Dviveidis“ (2009). Darbo tikslui pasiekti darbe iškeliami uždaviniai: 1 Atlikti analizuojamų kūrinių „Kilmingųjų spindesys“ ir „Dviveidis“ pagrindinių pašnekovų tu/tu, jūs/jūs, ir tu/jūs įvardžių aprašomąją statistinę analizę; 2 Išanalizuoti pagrindinių veikėjų adresato formas su savo šeimomis, tam tikrais veikėjais ir santykiuose kurie tampa priešiški nagrinėjamuose literatūriniuose kūriniuose. Šis darbas sudarytas iš 8 skyrių. 1-jame skyriuje pristatomas darbo tikslas, uždaviniai, naudojama teorija ir tyrimo metodai. 2-jame skyriuje aptariami realios ir grožinės literatūros kalbų skirtumai pagal Bronwen’ą Thomas (2007), Norman’ą Page’ą (1973), Geoffrey’ų N. Leech’ą ir Michael’ą H. Short’ą (1981), Schlomith Rimmon-Kenan (1988) ir Elise Nykaten ir Dan’ą Koivisto (2016). 3-jame skyriuje pristatoma adresato formų klasifikacijai naudojama terminologija pagal Rolf’ą O. Kroger’į (1982), Roger’ą Brown’ą ir Albert’ą Gilman’ą (1960) ir Giedrę Čepaitienę (2007). 4-jame skyriuje pateikiamos vertimo strategijos pagal Eirlys E. Davies (2003). 5-jame skyriuje atliekama kūrinio “Dviveidis” veikėjų Mirono, Vino, Esperanzos, ir kūrinio “Kilmingųjų spindesys” Brunečio vartojamų lietuviškų įvardžių aprašomoji statistinė analizė. 6-jame skyriuje analizuojamos romanų pagrindinių veikėjų Brunečio ir Mirono adresato formų vartosena. Siekiant tai įvykdyti, analizėje nagrinėjami dialogai tarp Brunečio ir jo viršininko Patos, pavaldinio Vianelo, brolio Sergėjaus, uošvio Horacijaus, ir aukos pusbrolio Mauricijaus, bei Mirono dialogai su Džesika, Vinu, ir Esperanza - jo artimiausiais draugais. Taip pat analizuojama abiejų pagrindinių veikėjų adresato formų vartosena su jų šeimomis ir asmenimis su kuriais santykiai tampa priešiški. Šiame skyriuje taip pat palyginami pirmieji epizodai pristatantys dviejų kriminalinių kūrinių pagrindinius veikėjus ir jų lietuvių kalbos vertimai. 7-jame skyriuje adresato formos skirstomos į kategorijas ir išsiaiškinamos joms taikomos vertimo strategijos lietuvių kalboje. Darbas užbaigiamas išvadomis ir panaudotos literatūros sąrašu. Darbo pabaigoje pateikiami trys priedai - 1-ajį sudaro analizuojamų literatūros kūrinių siužeto santraukos - 2-jame pristatomi nagrinėjamų kūrinių žanrai ir pabrėžiami juose atsispindintys visuomenės aspektai - 3-jame pateikiami kūrinių “Kilmingųjų spindesys” ir “Dviveidis” 7-jame skyriuje nagrinėti adresato formų lietuvių kalbos vertimai kontekste. SUMMARY The aim of this research is to analyze forms of address in the English source texts of the novels A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker and their Lithuanian translations Kilmingųjų spindesys and Dviveidis. To achieve the aim of the paper, the following objectives are set: 1 To provide a descriptive statistical analysis of the use of Lithuanian “tu/tu”, “jūs/jūs”, and “tu/jūs” interactions among the main interlocutors in Kilmingųjų spindesys and Dviveidis; 2 To analyze the forms of address and their Lithuanian translations used in particular by the two protagonists, Myron and Brunetti, in their interactions with their families, selected characters, and in situations where relationships turn hostile. This paper consists of 8 sections. Section 1 provides the aim, objectives, data and methods of the research. Section 2 discusses the differences between fictional dialogue and real-life conversation from the perspective of researchers like Bronwen Thomas (2007), Norman Page (1973), Geoffrey N. Leech and Michael H. Short (1981), Schlomith Rimmon-Kenan (1988), and Elise Nykaten and Dan Koivisto (2016). Section 3 presents the terminology used in the theoretical presentation of forms of address according to Rolf O. Kroger (1982), Roger Brown and Albert Gilman (1960), and Giedrė Čepaitienė (2007). Section 4 presents the translation strategies suggested by Eirlys E. Davies (2003). Section 5 provides a descriptive statistical analysis of “tu/tu”, “jūs/jūs”, and “tu/jūs” dialogues of Deal Breaker’s Myron, Jessica, Win, and A Noble Radiance’s Brunetti. Section 6 focuses on analyzing the forms of address in the two novels’ protagonists Brunetti and Myron’s interactions; for Brunetti, it includes his interactions with his superior Patta, subordinate Vianello, brother Sergio, father-in-law Orazio, and the murder victim’s cousin Maurizio, while Myron’s dialogues with three people closest to him, Jessica, Win, and Esperanza, are investigated. Both protagonists’ forms of address with their families and with people whose relationship with them turn hostile are analyzed. This section also compares the two novels’ first scenes featuring the protagonists and their Lithuanian translations. Section 7 categorizes the forms of address encountered in the analysis based on their function and investigates the translation strategies employed for them in the novels’ Lithuanian translations. The paper ends with the conclusion and a list of works cited. Three appendices are given: the first provides plot summaries of A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker; the second describes their genres and societies; the third is a table that shows the Lithuanian translations of forms of address in context in A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker. TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary List of Tables 1. INTRODUCTION······································································· 1 1.1 Aim and objectives of the paper·····················································1 1.2 Data and Method of the paper·······················································1 1.3 Structure of the paper································································· 2 2. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FICTIONAL SPEECH AND SPEECH IN ‘REAL LIFE’ ······························································································· 3 3. TERMINOLOGY USED IN THE THEORETICAL CLASSIFICATION OF FORMS OF ADDRESS···················································································· 9 4. EIRLYS E. DAVIES’ TRANSLATION STRATEGIES ······················ 11 5. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF “TU/JŪS”, “JŪS/JŪS”, AND “TU/TU” PRONOUNS IN KILMINGŲJŲ SPINDESYS AND DVIVEIDIS ·············· 12 6. ANALYSIS OF FORMS OF ADDRESS IN A NOBLE RADIANCE and DEAL BREAKER ································································································································19 6.1 Comparative analysis of the first scenes in the novels that feature the protagonists ································································································· 19 6.2 Brunetti’s address forms with his subordinate, superior, brother, father-in-law, and victim’s family member·································································· 22 6.3 Myron’s address forms with his friends········································· 32 6.4 Forms of address between the protagonists and their families·············37 6.5 Forms of address in the protagonists’ interactions that turn hostile······ 44 7 ANALYSIS OF LITHUANIAN TRANSLATIONS OF FORMS OF ADDRESS IN KILMINGŲJŲ SPINDESYS AND DVIVEIDIS·················································52 7.1 Titles, polite forms, job titles, and kin titles as forms of address in Kilmingųjų spindesys and Dviveidis················································································ 52 7.2 Proper names and their replacements as forms of address in Kilmingųjų spindesys and Dviveidis····················································································· 54 CONCLUSION············································································ 57 WORKS CITED Appendix 1: Plot Summaries of A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker Appendix 2: Genres and Societies of A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker Appendix 3: Lithuanian Translations of Forms of Address in A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker in Context List of Tables Table 1. Number of “tu/tu”, “tu/jūs”, and “jūs/jūs” interactions of most important interlocutors. 13 Table 2. Forms of address and their frequency in Brunetti’s interactions with selected characters. Table 3. Number of dialogues of most important interlocutors. 22 23 Table 4. Forms of address and their frequency in Myron’s interactions with selected characters. 32 Table 5. Forms of address between the protagonists and their families. 37 Table 6. Forms of addresss in protagonists’ relationships that turn hostile. 44 1 INTRODUCTION This paper analyzes the forms of address in two contemporary crime novels, Donna Leon’s A Noble Radiance (1997) and Harlan Coben’s Deal Breaker (1995), and their Lithuanian translations. The use of forms of address can provide readers with a variety of information since they reflect the relationship between characters, especially power relations, as well as whether a character exerts his or her power in dominant-subordinate relationships, along with implications of changing to a different form of address. A speaker can use the same form of address consistently out of habit or may choose a different one to emphasize a shift in the relationship during a particular situation. Novels represent specific societies in their narratives and need to conform to general social norms. A character’s status in society influences the use of forms of address as differences in status and hierarchy are taken into consideration. In addition, genres establish the characters’ roles and the situations they find themselves in. The Lithuanian language provides further insight into characters’ relationships through the need to use either “tu” or “jūs” pronouns, which can indicate a variety of feelings (Čepaitienė 2007, 78-79). 1.1 Aim and objectives of the paper The aim of this research is to analyze forms of address in the English source texts of the novels A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker and their Lithuanian translations Kilmingųjų spindesys and Dviveidis. To achieve the aim of the paper, the following objectives are set: 1 To provide a descriptive statistical analysis of the use of Lithuanian “tu/tu”, “jūs/jūs”, and “tu/jūs” interactions among the main interlocutors in Kilmingųjų spindesys and Dviveidis; 2 To analyze the forms of address and their Lithuanian translations used in particular by the two protagonists, Myron and Brunetti, in their interactions with their families, selected characters, and in situations where relationships turn hostile. 1.2 Data and method of the paper The data for this thesis comes from the theoretical discussion of several authors on aspects of dialogue. Works of Bronwen Thomas (2007), Norman Page (1973), Elise Nykaten and Aino Koivisto (2016), Geoffrey N. Leech and Michael H. Short (1981), and John Mepham are used as background information for differences between fictional speech and real speech. Rolf O. Kroger’s (1982) system of classifying character relationships into reciprocal, non-reciprocal, and ones of solidarity is used for the analysis of characters relationships. Roger Brown and Albert Gilman’s (1960) distinction between power semantic and solidarity semantic is applied when presenting some of the relationships in the novels. Giedrė Čepaitienė (2007) work is used to provide information on the functions of address forms, different kinds of relationships based on used address forms, and Lithuanian pronoun usage. Eirlys E. Davies’ (2003) translation strategies are used as the basis for analyzing the Lithuanian forms of address encountered in section 6. The research objects are 1 dialogues in A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker that represent the use of forms of address and Lithuanian pronouns in relevant characters’ interactions. The necessary data is collected manually; it includes the most important interlocutors’ number of dialogues, characters they interact with, their “tu/tu”, “jūs/jūs”, and “tu/jūs” interactions, which is additionally indicated in percentages, and the variety and frequency of forms of address in the relevant characters’ relationships. Then a descriptive statistical analysis of representative samples from the population of the dialogues and, when their number is smaller, entire populations is performed with a focus the forms of address; this includes noting down visible tendencies, the differences in characters’ social status, and whether it impacted their address form usage. The forms of address encountered in the analysis are then categorized according to their function and investigated for their translation strategies based on Eirlys Davies’ suggested seven strategies in her analysis of the translations of culture-specific items in Harry Potter books. 1.3 Structure of the paper This paper consists of 8 sections. Section 1 provides the aim, objectives, data and methods of the research. Section 2 discusses the differences between fictional dialogue and real-life conversation from the perspective of researchers like Bronwen Thomas (2007), Norman Page (1973), Geoffrey N. Leech and Michael H. Short (1981), Schlomith Rimmon-Kenan (1988), and Elise Nykaten and Dan Koivisto (2016). Section 3 presents the terminology used in the theoretical presentation of forms of address according to Rolf O. Kroger (1982), Roger Brown and Albert Gilman (1960), and Giedrė Čepaitienė (2007). Section 4 presents the translation strategies suggested by Eirlys E. Davies (2003). Section 5 provides a descriptive statistical analysis of “tu/tu”, “jūs/jūs”, and “tu/jūs” dialogues of Deal Breaker’s Myron, Jessica, Win, and A Noble Radiance’s Brunetti. Section 6 focuses on analyzing the forms of address in the two novels’ protagonists Brunetti and Myron’s interactions; for Brunetti, it includes his interactions with his superior Patta, subordinate Vianello, brother Sergio, father-in-law Orazio, and the murder victim’s cousin Maurizio, while Myron’s dialogues with three people closest to him, Jessica, Win, and Esperanza, are investigated. Both protagonists’ forms of address with their families and with people whose relationship with the protagonists turns hostile are analyzed. This section also compares the novels’ first scenes featuring the protagonists and their Lithuanian translations. Section 7 categorizes the forms of address encountered in the analysis based on their function and investigates the translation strategies employed for them in the novels’ Lithuanian translations. The paper ends with the conclusion and a list of works cited. Three appendices are given: the first provides plot summaries of A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker; the second describes their genres and societies; the third is a table that shows the Lithuanian translations of forms of address in context in A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker. 2 2. Differences between Fictional Speech and Speech in Real Life This section focuses on defining fictional speech, discusses its differences to speech in real life and presents different approaches to analyzing fictional speech. This has relevance to forms of address because they are used both in fiction and real-life speech. Additionally, as characterization is one of the functions of fictional dialogue (Thomas 2008, 105), evaluative forms of address can also contribute to this cause. Fictional dialogue is understood as a kind of speech but does not successfuly imitate. It makes references to speech in real life through the use of paralinguistic elements. However, fictional dialogue can never perfectly imitate real-life speech and this notion is supported by several notable literary critics. Works of Bronwen Thomas and Norman Page are used to define the concept of fictional dialogue and to provide the primary functions it performs. Elisa Nykaten and Aino Koivito explain its relations to speech in real life and introduce approaches to analyzing fictional dialogue. Geoffrey N. Leech and Michael H. Short provide with features of real speech that cannot be replicated in fictional speech. In A Contemporary Guide to Literary Terms Edwin J. Barton and Glenda A. Hudson define fictional dialogue in literary works as “any written form of conversation between two or more speakers” (Barton and Hudson 2004, 56). These critics also present the two essential functions that fictional dialogue serves: “to advance the plot and to reveal character” (Barton and Hudson 2004, 56). Ross Murfin and Supriya M. Ray in The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms provide a similar definition of fictional dialogue; according to them, it is “conversation between two or more characters in a literary work (Murfin and Ray 2003, 108). In her article in Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory Bronwen Thomas defines fictional dialogue as “the direct representation of characters’ speech whereby some sense of interaction or exchange of views is created” (Thomas 2008, 105). Just like Barton and Hudson, she explains the primary functions of fictional dialogue, which are characterization and advancing the plot of the narrative (Thomas 2008, 105). Critics tend to analyze dialogue in fiction in relation to real-life speech. In their article “Introduction: Approaches to Fictional Dialogue” Elise Nykaten and Aino Koivito emphasize the importance of this issue. According to them, “While fictional dialogue is considered to be an independent narrative mode, it also makes use of the characteristics of everyday conversation” (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 1). Nykaten and Koivito state that a person’s ability to comprehend fictional dialogue is partly based on his/her experience in real-life conversations so that these are conversations an excellent point of reference for analyzing fictional dialogue (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 1). They also describe the visual design of the text and historically changing conventions as significant for the interpretation of fictional dialogue (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 1). Nykaten and 3 Koivisto claim that fictional dialogue can be studied by considering to what degree it imitates reallife conversations and how natural it sounds (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 1). At the same time, they observe that whether a conversation is realistic or more artificial depends on a variety of factors, including “the genre, style, and literary period to which the narrative belongs” (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 10). Thomas provides further insight on the relationship between fictional dialogue and everyday conversation. Thomas admits that there are writers who attempt to replicate actual real-life conversations as much as possible but argues that it is impossible to completely imitate everyday speech in writing (Thomas 2007, 83). According to her, “the term “eye-dialect” is used to refer to the fact that only very minimal changes in spelling or grammar are needed to signal a shift from standard to non-standard form of speech” (Thomas 2007, 83). So that readers do not get a fully dialectical text, but only indicators that the character speaks in dialect, Thomas claims that other writers use different techniques to portray this kind of change. According to Thomas, some use reporting to indicate it (Thomas 2007, 83). For example, Thomas states that “for other writes writers, a simple report that something is said ‘in a Glaswegian accent may suffice’ ” (Thomas 2007, 83). She adds another possible method to indicate this; writers “may rely on what Page calls ‘stage directions’ to give the reader an indication of how the words are spoken (‘she laughed’, ‘his face crumpled’)” (Thomas 2007, 83). Thomas indicates that the phrases presented in these examples can be treated as speech tags (Thomas 2007, 83). In her opinion, “they play a vital role not only in identifying who is speaking, but also in situating readers in time and place (‘she muttered, moving her chair into the evening sunshine’) and in evaluating the speech (‘he admitted grudgingly’)” (Thomas 2007, 83). Page presents the two kinds of choices that novelists make concerning paralinguistic elements of dialogue in fiction (Page 1973, 28). According to him, they can be included “either within the fictional dialogue itself (by, for instance, such devices as capitalization, italicization and hyphenation) or <…> in the accompanying comments (“he muttered”, “she shrieked”)” (Page 1973, 28). Page states that “to draw attention to them by direct comment is to throw a major burden. In Style in Fiction Geoffrey N. Leech and Michael H. Short emphasize an important point concerning the relation of fictional dialogue to real speech before introducing it in detail. They state that in fictional speech “the events being described as part of the mock reality are themselves linguistic, and so language is used to simulate, rather than simply to report, what is going on in the fictional world” (Leech and Short 1981, 160). These linguists point out three major features of language that are rarely incorporated into fictional dialogue; hesitation pauses, false starts and syntactic anomalies (Leech and Short 1981, 161). Leech and Short define hesitation pauses as “those which are plugged by stopgap noises such as er or erm “(Leech and Short 1981, 161). False starts, according to them, 4 “can take the form either of a needless repetition of a word, or of a reformulation of what has been said” (Leech and Short 1981, 161). Leech and Short explain that syntactic anomalies occur because “we fail to keep control of the syntax of what we are saying, and produce anomalous constructions, which <….> would <…> be regarded as awkward and unacceptable in written composition” (Leech and Short 1981, 161). All of these linguistic features, which are natural to real conversations, are regarded by Leech and Short as interruptions to the fluency of an interaction (Leech and Short 1981, 161). They provide a simple explanation for why these features of non-fluency occur in real-life interactions. According to Leech and Short, “features of non-fluency occur whenever our planning falls behind our delivery” (Leech and Short 1981, 162).They note that certain voiced fillers can be utilized to assist individuals in such situations (Leech and Short 1981, 162. Leech and Short state that “voiced fillers er and erm, for example, are useful delaying devices, so that we are able to continue holding the floor while we think of what next to say” (Leech and Short 1981, 162). Page emphatically states that “the whole concept of realism as applied to fictional speech is often based on inadequate or inaccurate notion of what spontaneous speech is really like” (Page in Thomas 2007, 84). He treats the notion of fictional dialogue being based on everyday conversation as a false ‘idealization of real speech’ by Page (Page in Thomas 2007, 84). Thomas also asserts that speech in fictional texts is never very close to real speech: Written representations of speech are always “tidied up,” and the pressure to attain some level of realism has to be measured against the need to entertain and sustain the reader’s interest. (Thomas 2007, 84) The issue about fictional dialogue and realism is discussed in more detail by Thomas. According to her, “realism in dialogue involves much more than accurately recording the surface of talk” (Thomas 2007, 84). She exemplifies this by arguing that “seldom do we see characters in novels interrupting one another, and even rarer are examples of ‘multi-party talk,’ where characters’ contributions overlap and clash” (Thomas 2007, 84). Thomas notes that it is self-evident why these aspects of everyday conversations are omitted from drama. If they were included, according to her, “in drama <...> audiences might struggle to follow what the characters are saying” (Thomas 2007, 84) However, Thomas points out that it “is interesting to consider why novelists who otherwise seem content to challenge every taboo and preconception depict speech situations where characters are astonishingly polite and formal” (Thomas 2007, 84). John Mepham suggests two distinctions, “verbal style” and “conversational style”, which can be used to analyze certain features of a fictional dialogue (Mepham in Thomas 2007, 85). Thomas states that their purpose is To uncover the underlying structures governing the speech of characters, and to approach dialogue not with a view to closing off its meaning, but prepared to immerse 5 ourselves in the give-and-take, the nuances, that make dialogue as a stylistic device so exciting. (Thomas 2007, 85) Mepham explains that “verbal style, where the novelist represents distinctive speech varieties, has important cultural significance, sometimes bringing to prominence marginalized or unprestigious varieties” (Mepham in Thomas 2007, 85). He notes that experimentation with conversational style only begun near the end of the 20th century (Mepham in Thomas 2007, 85). In his view, conversational style is “concerned much more with the dynamics and power relations of the talk rather than its surface variations (Mepham in Thomas 2007, 85). To analyze power relations, Mepham explains that one should examine “who is in control of a conversation, who speaks most, and for the longest amount of time” (Mepham in Thomas 2007, 85). In this way, he moves away from formal to underline questions of how fictional dialogue shows relations between characters. Bronwen Thomas gives credit to stylisticians for their contribution in this area. According to her, “it was stylisticians, drawing on linguistic models of speech and conversation, who have largely been responsible for demonstrating the value of analyzing verbal interactions as mini social systems rather than individual sentences thrown together” (Thomas 2007, 85). She gives the examples of Grice’s “co-operative principle” and “Grice’s maxims”, which “can be used to try to establish the extent to which participants share some common ground in terms of the parameters of the exchange they are engaged in and the direction it takes” (Thomas 2007, 86). She also refers to what Grice calls “conversational implicature” (Thomas 2007, 86). Nykaten and Koivisto discuss different approaches to analyzing fictional dialogue, including literary and linguistic ones (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 1). According to them, they are “rhetoricalethical approaches to narrative, cognitive, and ‘natural’ narratology; the study of everyday conversational storytelling; and Conversation Analysis (CA)” (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 1). The first approach that Nykaten and Koivisto introduce is the rhetorical perspective (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 2). According to them, “from a more rhetorical perspective, we are interested in how dialogue can be seen as a sympathy-promoting mode that is deployed to engage the reader empathetically and ethically with the characters and the storyworld” (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 2). In their view, the rhetorical perspective is also concerned with the function of fictional dialogue to depict character relationships (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 2). Nykaten and Koivisto point out that a focus on realistic elements in fiction has become a tendency in recent narrative studies (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 5). They refer to an important study by Monika Fludernik, who states that “the primary strategy of reading involves the reader’s tendency to interpret the fictional reality through certain cognitive models and scripts, such as ‘telling’, ‘experiencing’, ‘viewing’ and ‘reflecting’ “(Fludernik in Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 5). In general, how well a reader interprets 6 fictional dialogue depends on to the degree their cognitive frames have been developed in personal experience in real-life conversations (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 5). Nykaten and Koivisto state that different pragmatic models and stylistic approaches such as speech-act theory and politeness theory can be applied to the analysis of fictional dialogue (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 6). According to them “the general justification for the application of linguistic models is that, on the surface level, there are many resemblances between real and fictional conversation” (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 6). Nykaten and Koivisto consider turn-taking “the most visible indicator of realistic conversations between two or more people (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 6). For the analysis of fictional dialogue Nykaten and Koivisto argue that “it is essential to consider the role of the narrator as the mediator of dialogue” (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 6). This implies that another level of communication exists, one between the narrator and the audience (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 6). Nykaten and Koivisto argue that it is dangerous to disregard the presence of a narrator (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 6). They bring up Bronwen Thomas who claims that “the dialogue is approached as naturalistic and the complexities of the interface between the dialogue and the framing work of the narrator are overlooked” (Thomas in Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 6). For Nykaten and Koivisto, in the area of stylistics, fictional dialogue can be seen to use conventions and norms of daily conversations as tools for the creation of meaning (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 6). This approach also brings up important differences between real and fictional dialogue, despite their closeness to each other. To illustrate this, Nykaten and Koivisto state: for example, it has often been pointed out that written dialogue exhibits a restricted set of resources for indicating the way the turns-at-talk are uttered, since no paralinguistic resources, such as intonation, rhythm, or emphasis can be employed. (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 7) However, it is possible for writers to deal with this problem to a certain extent. As a compensation strategy, Nykaten and Koivisto state that “fictional dialogue may resort to typographical resources and commentary provided by the narrator” (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 7). Still, they list a number of features that are typical of everyday conversation but appear rarely in fictional dialogue: Typically, dialogue does not entail “features of normal non-fluency”, such as hesitation pauses, false starts, overlapping talk, and repair that are characteristic of natural conversation and to some extent overlooked by people when conversing. (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 7) Leech and Short argue that when these strategies are used, they must perform a communicative purpose (Leech and Short in Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 7). Leech and Short present non-fluency as one example and state that it “may be used as a way of depicting a character’s state of mind, such as nervousness or feeling awkward in a social situation” (Leech and Short in Nykaten and Koivisto 7 2016, 7). According to them, cases of non-fluency should be considered deliberate in fiction if they are included and as a strategy of characterization (Leech and Short in Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 7). Nykaten and Koivisto believe that “Conversation Analysis, which is compatible with modern Narratological approaches, seems particularly suitable for a detailed, interactionally oriented analysis of fictional dialogue (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 8). According to these critics, “CA offers tools for analyzing the moment-by-moment unfolding of interaction between the participants in natural conversation” (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 8). They provide examples of tools employed by CA. According to them, “CA-influenced readings of dialogue focus on the details of individual turns (i.e. turn design) and on the conversational actions they accomplish, but also <…> on the sequences of turns and social activities within them” (Nykaten and Koivisto 201, 8). The rhetorical approach is also relevant to fictional dialogue. Nykaten and Koivisto claim that Rhetorical approaches to narrative offer tools for analyzing the larger contexts of narrative transmission and the ways in which these communication structures are related to the characters’ discourse and interaction at the level of storyworlds. (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 8) Nykaten and Koivisto suggest that “as a narrative device, fictional dialogue is among the textual strategies used to engage an audience cognitively, ethically, and emotionally with a narrative” (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 9). They claim that, so far as the rhetorical approach to fictional dialogue is concerned, fictional dialogue can also be treated as “one of the narrative devices through which the (implied) author communicates his or her perspective of the fictional world to the authorial audience” (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 9). Nykaten and Koivisto present the typology of three different narrative components proposed by James Phelan, mimetic, thematic and synthetic, which they feel are relevant to fictional dialogue (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 10). According to Nykaten and Koivisto, “Responses to the mimetic component of dialogue involves an interest in the characters as possible, imaginary people interacting and communicating with each other within a storyworld, like people in the real world” (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 10). The thematic component focuses on various aspects. These critics state that Phelan understood it as responses to the thematic component involve speech representation in the context of the cultural, idealogical, philosophical, or ethical issues being addressed by the characters in their speech or by the implied author through indirect narrative communication. (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 10) The synthetic component focuses on different aspects than mimetic and thematic ones do. According to Nykaten and Koivisto critics, “Responses to the synthetic component involve the 8 audience’s interest in both the characters’ interactions and the larger narrative as an artificial construct” (Nykaten and Koivisto 2016, 10). In Narrative Fiction Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan expands on the subject of mimetic and diegetic, which she describes as “two ways of rendering speech” (Rimmon-Kenan 1988, 106). According to her, diegesis is present when “the poet himself is the speaker and does not even attempt to suggest to us that anyone but himself is speaking” (Rimmon-Kenan 1988, 106). Rimmon-Kenan also defines it in the context of poetry by stating that “in mimesis <…> the poet tries to create the illusion that it is not he who speaks” (Rimmon-Kenan 1988, 106). She pays attention to fictional dialogue. According to Rimmon-Kenan, “dialogue, monologue, direct speech in general, would be mimetic, whereas indirect speech would be diegetic” (Rimmon-Kenan 1988, 106). Concerning mimesis, Rimmon-Kenan highlights the limitations that act on writers. She states that “all that a narrative can do is create an illusion, an effect, a semblance of mimesis, but it does so through diegesis (in the Platonic sense)” (Rimmon-Kenan 1988, 108). Thus, she argues that due to this, “the crucial distinction, therefore, is not between telling and showing, but between different degrees and kinds of telling” (Rimmon-Kenan 1988, 108). As the discussion in section 2 shows, critics writing about fictional dialogue agree in emphasizing that it is never a reproduction of natural speech. However, it does try to imitate reallife dialogue. Therefore, some theoretical approaches used for real speech can be applied to fictional speech. 3. Terminology used in the Theoretical Classification of Forms of Address. In this section the necessary terminology for analysing forms of address is explained. The works of linguists Rolf O. Kroger, Roger Brown, Albert Gilman, Michael H. Short, Geoffrey N. Leech and Giedrė Čepaitienė are used as the sources to accomplish this task. Kroger defines Exchanges of forms of address as “events, or temporally patterned changes”, which he explains as “the way in which one person addresses another and is in turn addressed by the listener constitutes a social event of great regularity and orderliness” (Kroger 1982, 810). Kroger proposes that exchanges of forms of address in fictional dialogue can be categorized into three distinctive types, which are reciprocal, solidary and non-reciprocal (Kroger 1982, 813). According to him, an example of a reciprocal approach can be a ”mutual exchanges of first names”or of last names (Kroger 1982, 813). Kroger explains that, to call an exchange that of solidarity, there has to be a “reciprocal exchange of first names rather than reciprocal exchange of title and last name” (Kroger 1982, 813). According to Kroger, the third classification is known as non-reciprocal, in which one person uses a formal form of address while the other uses a informal one (Kroger 1982, 813). Then one must investigate “which member of the dyad uses a formal form of address and accepts an informal form of address, thus signifying a subordinate position” (Kroger 9 1982, 813). If this dominant-subordinate juxtaposition cannot be applied, then the exchange is not non-reciprocal. Kroger also introduces two other terms in his work, etiquettes and principles (Kroger 1982, 816). According to him, etiquettes can be defined as “prescriptions for moment-to-moment actions and are stated at the level of local culture and local language” (Kroger 1982, 816). He exemplifies this by presenting a specific case where “the selection of a particular form of address (e.g., sir or madam to a customer in a boutique) is dictated by local conventions – in this example, those prevailing in upper-middle-class shops in Anglo-Saxon countries” (Kroger 1982, 816). As for principles, Kroger states that those principles which are “implicated in ritualistic and agonistic episodes are more general” (Kroger 1982, 816). He relates this to an example presented in his explanation of etiquette and explains that “the use of sir or madam by the boutique owner entails both ritualistic and game-like or agonistic elements” (Kroger 1982, 816). Furthermore, Kroger makes an interesting observation regarding the use of kin titles as forms of address. According to him, “it is very informative for understanding the structure of interpersonal relations that a very small minority of persons address their parents by first name while in the vast majority of cases people call their parents by kin title” (Kroger 1982, 811). An illustration for this would be a person calling his parent by his name ,“John”, as opposed to the more common custom of using “father” as a formal variant or “dad” as an informal address. In their work Brown and Gilman make a distinction between the power semantic and the solidarity semantic, which they emphasize are important to the analysis of pronouns, adding that the “two dimensions are fundamental to the analysis of all social life” (Brown and Gilman 1960, 253). According to the critics, the power semantic is when “one person may be said to have power over another in the degree that he is able to control the behaviour of the other” (Brown and Gilman 1960, 255). Brown and Gilman emphasize that the minimum requirement is that at least two people are involved and their relationship is non-reciprocal, one participant is dominant over the other (Brown and Gilman 1960, 255). The solidarity semantic is defined by them as “a distinction <…> which is sometimes called the T of intimacy and the V of formality” (Brown and Gilman 1960, 257). Another way of looking at relations between participants in a dialogue is offered by Čepaitienė. She states that the use of different forms of address demonstrates how an addressor creates and manages a relationship with the addressee, while indicating the kind of relationship they have (Čepaitienė 2007, 70). On the basis of language etiquette, she makes a distinction between what are known as horizontal and vertical relationships. According to her, a horizontal relationship exists in cases when an addressor treats the addressee as an equal on the basis of social status and other social parameters; in a vertical relationship, the addressors regard themselves as having a higher or lower social status than the addressee (Čepaitienė 2007, 70). In addition, 10 Čepaitienė distinguishes between two types of politeness strategies, distance politeness strategy and contact politeness strategy; the choice between these strategies determines which forms of address are used (Čepaitienė 2007, 70). According to her, the use of a distance strategy requires a formal, social-oriented forms of address, while forms of address indicating a close personal relationship between the addressor and addressee belong to contact strategy (Čepaitienė 2007, 70). An additional distinction is noted by Čepaitienė between two types of forms of address. According to her, these are forms of address that perform only the functions of identification and communication, and forms of address which indicate the addressor’s evaluative view of the addressee (Čepaitienė 2007, 71). The first type can be treated as social labeling since it does not include information indicating the character of the addressor: forms of address which limit themselves to names, surnames, occupations and family relationships belong to this category (Čepaitienė 2007, 71). As for the second type, Čepaitienė states that, because it entails an evaluative function, these can perform an expressive function: they indicate the addressor’s opinion about the addressee. Where dialogues in fiction are concerned, Leech and Short state that “the way in which one character addresses or designates another is a revealing indicator of tone, particularly in novels of the nineteenth century” (Leech and Short 1981, 310). The two critics emphasize that during this period social status played a prominent role in all interactions in contrast to contemporary views (Leech and Short 1981, 310). According to Leech and Short, “there is a scale of politeness running roughly from titles of respect (My lord, madam) to titular prefixes (Mr, Miss) to surnames (Smith, Brown) to first names (Cecilia, Thomas) and to pet names and endearments (Cissy, Tom, my dear) (Leech and Short 1981, 310). However, they emphasize that one may use completely different forms of address or even a combination of more than one (Leech and Short 1981, 310). The novels analysed in this paper are all contemporary narratives. Therefore, it is interesting to see how much address systems still remain relevant indicators of status and relationships. 4. Eirlys E. Davies’ Translation Strategies for Culture-specific Items For the analysis of forms of address in the Lithuanian translations of A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker translation strategies by Eirlys E. Davies are applied; these are preservation, addition, omission, globalization, localization, transformation, and creation, which she discusses in her analysis of the treatment of CSI’s in the translations of Harry Potter books (Davies 2003). According to Davies, when“faced with a reference to an entity which has no close equivalent in the target culture, a translator may simply decide to maintain the source term in the translation”, a procedure which she calls preservation (Davies 2003, 72-73). Another of her proposed strategies is addition and, according to her, ”when simple preservation of the CSI may lead to obscurity <...> the translator may decide to keep the original but supplement the text with whatever information is 11 judged necessary” (Davies 2003, 77). Davies emphasizes that the translator should be careful when inserting additions directly in the text as it may be detrimental to the narrative and annoy the reader (Davies 2003, 77). Davies states that a translator may choose “to omit a problematic CSI altogether, so that no trace of it is found in the translation”, and she calls this omission” (Davies 2003, 79). According to her, there can be multiple reasons for this choice; a translator’s inability to convey the meaning in the source text or too much effort would be required of the translator or the readers to employ an adequate paraphrase or equivalent (Davies 2003, 80). Davies’ globalization is defined as “the process of replacing culture-specific references with ones which are more neutral or general <...> accessible to audiences from a wider range of cultural backgrounds” (Davies 2003, 83). She emphasizes that this process has its advantages and disadvantages; it avoids burdening the reader with foreign concepts but may result in the loss of association to a degree for the target text readers (Davies 2003, 83). According to Davies, when employing localization, in order “to avoid loss of effect”, a translator “may try to anchor a reference firmly in the culture of the target audience”, and she juxtaposes this process with globalization (Davies 2003, 83-84). Davies perceives transformation as “the modification of a CSI <...> beyond globalization or localization” which “could be seen as an alteration or distortion of the original (Davies 2003, 86). As an example, Davies notes Menard’s decision to translate the proper name Filch to Rusard in Harry Potter books to retain the connotations that the source text item has to stealing (Davies 2003, 87). Finally, Davies defines creation as “cases where translators have actually created CSI’s not present in the original text” and notes that it is rarely employed (Davies 2003, 88). 5. Descriptive statistical analysis of “tu/jūs”, “jūs/jūs”, and “tu/tu”pronouns in Kilmingųjų spindesys and Dviveidis Dialogues in Dviveidis and Kilmingųjų spindesys, the Lithuanian translations of Deal Breaker and A Noble Radiance, provide additional information because “you” has to be translated into either “tu” or “jūs, indicating the degree of politeness and possibly the relationship between characters. According to Giedrė Čepaitienė, the primary functions of “tu” and “jūs” are those of identification and individualization (Čepaitienė 2007, 78). She states that “jūs” is used in official and respectful relationships while “tu” is attributed to cases when people are familiar and is used between acquaintances and good friends (Čepaitienė 2007, 79). All dialogues in this novel fall into three categories: “tu/tu”, “tu/jūs”, and “jūs/jūs”. There are also dialogues in which three or four characters participate, and each of them can refer to the others differently. This is taken into consideration and noted. During some instances of dialogue the way characters refer to each other changes and sometimes reverts back to an earlier form of address. The dialogues are categorized in relation to the most important interlocutors, who are Myron, Jessica, and to a lesser extent, Myron’s best friend Win in Deal Breaker, and Brunetti in A Noble Radiance. The table below presents the 12 the numbers of characters Myron, Brunetti, Jessica, and Win interact with and with how many of them they have Lithuanian “tu/tu”, “jūs/jūs”, and “tu/jūs” interactions. Table 1 - Number of “tu/tu”, “tu/jūs”, and “jūs/jūs” interactions of most important interlocutors Interlocutors Total Number of characters Guido Brunetti Myron Bolitar Jessica Culver Windsor Lockwood III 20 51 51 51 Number of characters interlocutors interact with 19 (95%) 40 (71%) 9 (18%) 9 (18%) Lithuanian pronoun usage dynamic “tu/tu” “tu/ jūs” “jūs/jūs” 4 (20%) 23 (58%) 5 (55.5%) 5 (56%) 3 (15%) 10 (25%) - 9 (45%) 7 (18%) 4 (44.4)%) 4 (44%) In Deal Breaker, Myron interacts with 40 (72%) characters in total out of 51. He has “tu/tu” interactions with 23 (58%) of them, “tu/jūs” interactions with 10 (25%) of them and “jūs/jūs” interactions with seven (18%) of them. Characters such as Lucy (owner of a photography studio), Otto Burke (owner of Titans football team), Madelaine (wife of Reston University’s Dean Gordon), Carol (Myron’s ex-girlfriend Jess’s mother), Larry (Otto’s subordinate), and Brian (private investigator hired by Burke) all have changes in their dialogues with Myron. With Lucy, there is a transition from “jūs/jūs” to an informal “tu/tu”. This transition occurs when Myron’s secretary Esperanza joins the conversation and introduces Myron to her old friend Lucy; this indicates them getting familiarized with one another after meeting for the first time (Coben 2009, 157-166). With Otto, their first interaction has “tu/jūs”, with Myron using “jūs” to address Otto, a man of similar age but possessing higher social status; Larry also participates in the conversation. In their subsequent interaction, both Otto and Myron use “jūs” to address one another, despite being alone. Surprisingly, in their third interaction (Larry also participates), the two characters begin using “tu” as a form of address, making it a “tu/tu” interaction. No possible reasons have been found for this inconsistency. Myron interacts with Jessica’s mother Carol only once, and this exchange begins with him using “jūs and Carol using “tu” throughout most of this interaction. However, she uses “jūs” once through a Lithuanian verb form towards the end which is apparent from “juk suprantate tai, Mironai, tiesa?” (Coben 2009, 279). This could be interpreted as an indicator of distance from Carol’s perspective, as they have not keeping contact after Myron and her daughter Jessica broke up in the past. With Larry, both Myron and this character use “tu” to address one another in their first two interactions in which Otto is also a participant. Interestingly, in their third and final interaction,where both characters are alone in Larry’s office, Myron uses “jūs” to address Larry, while the latter addresses Myron with “tu”. Furthermore, Larry himself uses “jūs” once during the 13 dialogue to address Myron once again in the form of a verb “suprantate” (Coben 2009, 282). It is worth mentioning that Myron goes back to using “tu” to address Larry, which is evident from “eikš mėlynaki” and “tik tark žodį, mėlynaki” (Coben 2009, 283). This is likely an inconsistency, as in the novel Larry speaks with Myron in an extremely informal matter; he often insults him and uses very crude language as can be observed in sub-section 7.1. Myron interacts only once with Brian Sanford, a private investigator, and it is their first meeting in person. In the beginning both Brian and Myron use “jūs” to address each other but halfway through this interaction Brian begins to use “tu’ as a form of address due to warming up to Myron. Just as with Lucy, this may be interpreted as a result of their familiarization with one another. Jessica participates in numerous dialogues. She interacts with nine (18%) characters out of 51. Out of 23 dialogues that Jessica has in total, 13 (57%) of them are with Myron and in 11 of them they speak alone. Jessica has a “tu/tu” relationship with five characters, Myron, Win, her mother Carol, her brother Edward, and her late father’s best friend Paul. There are no cases of unequal “tu/jūs” exchanges for Jessica. There are four characters with whom Jessica interacts using a “jūs/jūs” dynamic: Dean Gordon, owner of the Realty getaway Tom, Baugmart restaurant owner Peter, and an unnamed client centre employee (by phone). Interestingly, all of Jessica’s dialogues are consistent in these three categories, and there is no transition from “tu” to “jūs” and vice versa as in Myron’s case. Windsor Lockwood III, nicknamed Win, is an important interlocutor but is a focalizer only in one episode. In the novel he has dialogues with nine (18%) characters out of 51 in total. They are Myron, Jessica, the erotic magazine publisher Fred Nickler, a high school teacher Gary Grady, Herman Ache, ex-football player Junior Horton, a kiosk cashier, a prostitute, and the dojo master Kwan. Aside from his interactions with the kiosk cashier and a prostitute, all others include Myron as the third participant. Win has “tu/tu” interactions with five (56%) characters, Myron, Jessica, Gary, Junior, and the prostitute. In terms of “jūs/jūs” dialogues, Win has them with 4 (44%) characters, Fred, Herman, the kiosk cashier and Kwan. Like Jessica, Win also has no dialogues with other characters that he uses the unequal “tu/jūs” dynamic. Furthermore, the “tu” and “jūs” address forms that Win and the characters interacting with him use remain consistent; they do not change or revert as in Myron’s case. In contrast, Kilmingųjų spindesys has only one character as an important interlocutor, and that is its protagonist, Guido Brunetti. This is evidenced by the fact that he interacts with 19 (95%) out of 20 characters presented in Leon’s police procedural. Brunetti has “tu/tu” interactions with four (20%) characters: his wife Paola, his brother Sergio, his daughter Chiara, and his son Raffi. There are three (15%) characters with whom Brunetti interacts using a “tu/jūs” dynamic; they are his subordinate Vianello, his father-in-law Count Orazio, and his superior in the police station Giuseppe Patta. For 14 Vianello, Brunetti uses “tu” ,while for Count Orazio and Patta he uses the formal “jūs”. Interestingly, Brunetti interacts with the majority of characters in the police procedural with “jūs/jūs”; he does so with nine (45%) of them. They include other professionals in the work system, Dr. Bortot, and Elettra, and those he interviews about Roberto, the murder victim: Roberto’s girlfriend Salviati, Roberto’s cousin Maurizio, Roberto’s father and mother Count and Countess Lorenzoni, Dr. De Call, Maurizio’s ex-girlfriend Bonamini, and Dr. Montini. The remaining four (20%) characters Brunetti interacts with are not given sufficient data to categorize them; their interactions with Brunetti are very short and do not include the use of “tu” or “jūs”. Just as in Dviveidis, Kilmingųjų spindesys also depicts interactions where more than two characters are all speaking to each other. There are two of them: Brunetti interacting with Paola, Chiara, and Brunetti interacting with Count and Countess Lorenzoni and Maurizio. Unlike Dviveidis, there are no changes in the forms of address used in any of Brunetti’s interactions. However, some of his relationships do change, which is shown by other factors: this is analysed in Section 7. As can be observed, additional information can be gathered about the characters’ relationships from “tu” and “jūs” pronouns in the Lithuanian language; this type of distinction in no longer applicable to the English language. The Lithuanian “Tu” and “jūs” are not necessarily always used as pronouns; they can be embedded into Lithuanian verbs such as, for example, “Klausai” and “Supratote” in cases where it is not used as a plural form, or can modified with Lithuanian grammatical cases. The use of “tu/jūs” pronouns is analyzed for the previously discussed relationships between the novels’ protagonists and certain characters in more detail here; the changes in “tu/jūs” pronouns in Deal Breaker are noted. A Noble Radiance protagonist Brunetti uses the “jūs” pronoun for his direct superior ViceQuestore Giuseppe Patta, while in turn is addressed by him with “tu”; this dynamic reflects their workplace hierarchy. Examples of direct “tu/jūs” can be observed from Patta’s “You’ve recommended only Venetians” (Leon 1997, 90) translation to “Tu rekomendavai tiktai venecijiečius”(Leon 2013, 77), and Brunetti’s “Then perhaps you can record that, sir” (Leon 1997, 93) which is translated into “Tuomet gal jūs, pone, galite tai užregistruoti” (Leon 2013, 80). The use of the verbs where “tu/jūs” are embedded can be seen from Patta’s “Are you out of your mind, Brunetti?” (Leon 1997, 90) and its translation to “Ar iš proto išsikraustei, Bruneti?” (Leon 2013, 77), while in Brunetti’s case it is evident from “You wanted to see me, Vice-Questore?” (Leon 1997, 90) and its translation to “Kvietėte mane, vicekvestoriau?” (Leon 2013, 77). Their interactions using “tu/jūs” pronouns are consistent throughout the novel; the hostility between the characters does not change it. 15 Brunetti interacts with his subordinate Sergeant Vianello by using the Lithuanian “tu”, while Vianello uses “jūs”, which is parallel to Brunetti with Patta’s interactions where workplace hierarchy is reflected. Brunetti never uses “tu” for Vianello directly; it can only be observed when it is embedded into verb forms: “Tell me the name of the place again” (Leon 1997, 19); “Pasakyk man vietovės pavadinimą dar kartą” (Leon 2013, 21). Vianello employs “jūs” both directly and by using Lithuanian verb forms: “Since when do you wear glasses, sir? (Leon 1997, 18)”; “Nuo kada jūs nešiojate akinius, pone?” (Leon 2013, 19). With his co-worker, the secretary Elettra, Brunetti uses the polite “jūs” pronoun, and she does the same. In the translation, Brunetti uses “jūs” both as a pronoun and has it embedded into verb forms, as in the example “How long have you been with us now, Signorina?” (Leon 1997, 30), “Kiek jau laiko jūs pas mus, sinjorina?” (Leon 2013, 29); “Could you make me a copy of everything here?” (Leon 1997, 35), “Ar galėtumėte man padaryti visų šių dokumentų kopijas?” (Leon 2013, 33). Just as Brunetti, Elettra refers to him by using Lithuanian “jūs” both as a pronoun and has it embedded into a verb: “You’d think that, wouldn’t you?” (Leon 1997, 36), “Jūs taip manote, tiesa?”; (Leon 2013, 34) “Why do you ask?” (Leon 1997, 30), “Kodėl klausiate?” (Leon 2013, 29). In the translation Brunetti and his wife Paola use the Lithuanian “tu” pronoun in their conversations; It indicates their familiarity. Brunetti employs “tu” both as a pronoun and by embedding it into verb forms: “will you eat, too?”, “O tu irgi valgysi pietus?”; “Only because of the frequency with which you remind me of it” (Leon 1997, 54), “Tiktai dėl to, kad tu taip dažnai man apie tai primeni” (Leon 2013, 48). Paola does the same in their interactions: “Guido, you’re obsessed with food” (Leon 1997, 54), “Gvidai, tu apsėstas valgymo”(Leon 2013, 48); “I’ll feed them, Guido, don’t worry” (Leon 1997, 54), “Aš juos pamaitinsiu, Gvidai, nesirūpink” (Leon 2013, 48). With his daughter Chiara Brunetti uses Lithuanian “tu”, which is reciprocated. In the novel, Brunetti never uses the base form of the pronoun “tu” but employs it with the dative grammatical case: “Would you like me to help you to fill them? (Leon 1997, 112) “Gal norėtum, kad padėčiau tau juos įdaryti?” (Leon 2013, 94). His use of verbs where “tu” is embedded can be observed when “would you like” is translated as “norėtum”. Chiara makes use of “tu” both as a direct pronoun and by embedding it into a verb form: “Did you eat, Papa?” (Leon 1997, 234), “Ar tu pavalgei, papa? (Leon 2013, 191). Brunetti and his father-in-law Orazio interact by using the Lithuanian “jūs” and “tu” pronouns; Brunetti uses the formal “jūs”, while Orazio refers to him with “tu”. By choosing the “jūs” pronoun, Brunetti emphasizes their inequality in social status rather than their familial ties. His chosen pronoun is used both directly and embedding it into Lithuanian verb forms: “Do you 16 know this or have you been told this?” (Leon 1997, 79), “Ar jūs tą žinote, ar kar nors jums pasakė?” (Leon 2013, 68); “I’d like to know whatever you can tell me about the Lorenzoni family”, (Leon 1997, 49) “Norėjau paklausti, ką galėtumėte man papasakoti apie Lorenconių šeimą” (Leon 2013, 44). Orazio’s “tu” pronoun is expressed both directly and by embedding it into verb forms: “What is it you want to know about the Lorenzonis?” (Leon 1997, 72), “Ką tu norėtum sužinoti apie Lorenconius?” (Leon 2013, 62); “Why is it you’re interested in them, Guido?” (Leon 1997, 49), “Kodėl susidomėjai jais, Gvidai?” (Leon 2013, 44). Brunetti and his brother Sergio both refer to one another by using the informal Lithuanian “tu” pronoun, which indicates familiarity. He uses “tu” for Sergio both normally and in verbs forms: “You’ve done the same for me” (Leon 1997, 45), “Ir tu dėl manes taip padarytum”(Leon 2013, 40). It is observed that Sergio does the same: “Guido, are you listening?” (Leon 1997, 244), “Gvidai, ar tu klausaisi?” (Leon 2013, 198). Additionally, the pronoun “tu” is often used with Lithuanian grammatical cases in their conversations Deal Breaker’s protagonist Myron and his ex-girlfriend Jessica both use the informal “tu” Lithuanian pronoun consistently; they know each other well and are on good terms. Both characters accomplish this by employing “tu” as a pronoun and by embedding it in Lithuanian verb forms. Myron’s use of “tu” pronoun can be observed from “Call me if you hear anything else” (Coben 1995, 159) and “You want me. Bad“ (Coben 1995, 22), which are translated as “Paskambink, jei dar ką sužinosi” (Coben 2009, 150) and “Tu manęs nori. Labai” (Coben 2009, 24). In Jessica’s case it is evident from her “Where are you going to be?” (Coben 1995, 159), which is translated as “Kur tu būsi?” (Coben 2009, 150). Here “tu” is used to indicate their familiarity as good friends. Myron and his friend best friend Win interact with each other using the Lithuanian “tu” pronoun; it is used in some form throughout all of their conversations in the novel. Both men use it as actual pronouns and have them embedded into verb forms; Myron’s use can be observed “How do you sleep so soundly?” (Coben 1995, 111) Lithuanian translation to “ Kaip tu sugebi taip kietai miegoti?” (Coben 2009, 105), while in Win’s case it is evident from his “And you’re disappointed” (Coben 1995, 30), which is translated as “Ir tu nusivylei” (Coben 2009, 32). Here “tu” is used to indicate familiarity in Myron and Win’s relationship as good friends. Myron interacts with his secretary Esperanza by using the informal “tu” pronoun, which is reciprocated by her. Just as with Jessica and Win, Myron uses the pronoun by itself and embeds it into a verb form; Esperanza does the same. This is observed in Myron’s “You’re so hung up on appearances” (Coben 1995, 228) and Esperanza’s “Are you deaf?” (Coben 1995, 56) translations to “Tu pernelyg kreipi dėmesį į išvaizdą”(Coben 2009, 212) and “Ar tu kurčias?” (Coben 2009, 55). Here the “tu” pronoun is an indication of their familiarity as good friends, which they choose to emphasize instead of their workplace hierarchy where Myron is Esperanza’s superior. 17 Myron and Otto Burke’s use of Lithuanian “tu” and “jūs” pronouns is unique in their interactions; it changes three times. In their first conversation Myron uses “jūs”, which is embedded into a verb, while Burke employs “tu” both as a pronoun and a verb; this is evident from Myron’s “You’re starting to fling mud” (Coben 1995, 5) and Burke’s “You don’t want to lose money, Myron” (Coben 1995, 5) translations as “Imate drabstytis purvais” (Coben 2009, 9) and “O juk tu nenori prarasti pinigų?” (Coben 2009, 8). The characters’ “jūs/tu” dynamic changes to “jūs/jūs” in one of their following interactions. It can be observed from Myron’s “You set it up. The Magazine” (Coben 1995, 82) and Burke’s “That’s funny Myron. You’re a very amusing man” (Coben 1995, 81) translations as “Čia jūs suorganizavot” (Coben 2009, 78) and “Kaip juokinga, Mironai. Jūs labai linksmas žmogus” (Coben 2009, 77). The final change is when the previous “jūs/jūs” dynamic changes into “tu/tu” and occurs during Myron and Burke’s last conversation. This transition can be observed from Myron’s “You keep the magazine and I keep the tape” (Coben 1995, 204) and Burke’s “I think you’re forgetting” (Coben 1995, 200) translations as “Atrodo, tu pamiršti” (Coben 2009, 187) “Tu pasilaikyk žurnalą, o aš pasilaikysiu įrašą” (Coben 2009, 190) and “Atrodo, tu pamiršti” (Coben 2009, 187) Myron and his client Christian interact by using “tu” and “jūs” Lithuanian pronouns; “tu” is used by the former, while “jūs” is employed by the latter. Just as with their forms of address, this is peculiar because Christian is the only Myron’s client who addresses him by using the polite “jūs’ pronoun; Myron’s other clients, Chaz Landreaux and Ricky Lane, always refer to him by using the informal “tu”. Myron and Christian both employ their “tu” and “jūs” as pronouns and by embedding them into verb forms. This can be observed from Myron’s “Where are you?” (Coben 1995, 77), “Is that why you wanted to see me?” (Coben 1995, 15) and Christian’s “You knew her” (Coben 1995, 15), which are translated as “Kur tu?” (Coben 2009, 77), “Ar todėl norėjai su manimi pasimatyti?” (Coben 2009, 18), and “Jūs ją pažinojot” (Coben 2009, 18). Furthermore, Christian’s use of the “jūs” pronoun does not change even when his relationship with Myron deteriorates as Christian is revealed as the culprit responsible for Kathy’s death. In A Noble Radiance, Brunetti uses the Lithuanian “tu” pronoun only with his family and subordinates at work; his formal “jūs” pronoun is reserved for people of higher social status, coworkers, superior at work, strangers, and acquaintances. One notable case is his interactions with Orazio, where he emphasizes their inequality in social status instead of familial relations. The pronouns used by Brunetti and the characters he interacts with are consistent; they do not change when the relationship worsens. Myron in Deal Breaker has a different tendencies. He employs the “tu” pronoun with people from his work environment like his client Christian, and Burke, who has higher social status than Myron; even though Myron uses the polite “jūs” pronoun for Burke in some scenes, his speech is not polite. With people close to him, Myron always uses and is referred 18 by the “tu” pronoun, and disregards such factors like a workplace hierarchy, as is the case for Esperanza. 6. Analysis of Forms of Address in A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker This section is focuses on analyzing the forms of address in the two novels protagonists’ Brunetti and Myron’s interactions. For Brunetti, his interchanges with his workplace superior and subordinate, brother, father-in-law, and the victim’s cousin are investigated, while Myron’s exchanges with close friends, Jessica, Win, and Esperanza are focused on. In addition, both of the two characters’ interactions with their families and people whose relationships with them turn hostile are examined for their forms of address. The forms of address that the characters use and their frequency is presented in tables; then the forms of address in chosen characters’ dialogues are described in terms of the relationship between the characters, which is then classified according to Kroger’s methodology based of the forms of address they use. However, before proceeding with the analysis, the first scenes where the novels’ protagonists are introduced, described and compared to each other, focusing on the their characterization and the relationships with the participants. Additionally, the scenes are compared to their respective Lithuanian translations. This is beneficial to the analysis of forms of address because it offers insight into the personalities of Brunetti and Myron, the two protagonists of the novels on whom the paper focuses to a significant extent. First, the scene that features Brunetti, the protagonist of A Noble Radiance, is investigated. 6.1 Comparative analysis of the first scenes in the novels that feature the protagonists In A Noble Radiance, the first scene in which Brunetti appears has three interlocutors, Brunetti, Vianello, and Dr. Bortot, the last of whom Brunetti phones. It occurs when Vianello meets Brunetti to inform him that human remains were found in Belluno; Brunetti then calls Dr. Bortot, a medico legale who performed the autopsy. In terms of social status, Brunetti and Bortot are equals as they both possess a university degree and are experts in their respective areas, while Vianello is lower in rank; he is a police sergeant working for Comissario Brunetti. The setting of the interaction is Brunetti’s office at the Venice Questura during work hours. Bortot only interacts on the phone with Brunetti. Thus, both characters are unable to infer each other’s facial expressions. The length of the scene is almost six pages. Brunetti is presented in this scene as an insightful and experienced police officer. This can be observed from his remarks such as “if whoever <...> didn’t want it to be identified, they certainly would have taken the ring” and “age, sex, cause of death” when asked by Bortot what information he needs (Leon 1997, 19-22). While Brunetti and Bortot’s conversation is strictly professional, this is not the case with Vianello. Sergeant Vianello immediately takes a seat in Brunetti’s office without being invited, and 19 the men discuss things that are not work-related, such as Brunetti uncharacteristically wearing glasses (Leon 1997, 18). The first scene depicts Brunetti as respectful and serious; he does not insult, joke, or use inappropriate address forms. According to Kroger, a reciprocal relationship entails a mutual use of first names, while in a non-reciprocal, one character uses a formal address form and accepts an informal one (Kroger 1982, 813). Based on Kroger’s methodology, the relationship between Brunetti with Vianello is non-reciprocal, while Brunetti with Bortot’s is reciprocal; Brunetti and Bortot address each other by work titles. Brown and Gilman distinguish between power and solidarity semantics; power semantic involves one character having power over another and being able to control their actions to an extent while solidarity is distinguished into T for intimacy and V for formality (Brown and Gilman 1960, 255). In this scene Brunetti has power over Vianello based on their institutionalized roles; Vianello is Brunetti’s subordinate in the police system. In the Lithuanian translation the length of the scene is over four and a half pages. There is a single segment omitted from the source text in which two forms of address are employed: ‘Would someone not in the family wear a ring - Argi kas nors ne iš jų šeimos mūvėtų tokį like that, sir?’ žiedą, pone? ‘I don’t know, Vianello. But if whoever put - Kas ten vadovauja tyrimui? (Leon 2013, 20) the body there didn’t want it to be identified, they certainly would have taken the ring. It was on his hand, wasn’t it?’ ‘I don’t know, sir. All he said was that the ring was found on him.’ ‘Who’s in charge up there?’ (Leon 1997, 19) The emboldenening on the left side shows the text omitted from the original. The loss of forms of address can have some negative impact; while no new forms of address are presented, it can potentially interfere when counting their frequency in the Lithuanian translation. From a general perspective, the decision to omit the particular text segment results in two different effects in the target text. The first is that there is a loss of information regarding Brunetti’s insights and that Vianello was not informed on where the ring was placed. The second is that in the target text Brunetti appears to ignore Vianello’s question entirely. All other information present in source text is retained. Just as in Leon’s first scene with Brunetti, the opening scene in Coben’s Deal Breaker has three characters as interlocutors, Myron, Burke, and Larry. The protagonist Myron is a former basketball player and FBI agent, and now a sports agent, while Burke owns The Titans football team and is the employer of Larry, a former football player who is now a manager. A significant difference is that all these characters interact with each other, while in A Noble Radiance Vianello 20 never interacts with Bortot. The differences in social status between these Myron and Burke are presented in Section 7. The setting for the meeting is the conference room at Myron’s sports agency MB SportReps located on Park Avenue in New York, and occurs during work hours. Myron is negotiating a deal with Burke and Larry regarding his client Christian’s contract. Unlike Leon’s opening scene with Brunetti, the entire scene is face-to-face; facial expressions can be observed. In contrast to Brunetti, Myron is presented as an individual who uses sarcasm quite often, especially if the other party is rude or hostile. This can be observed from “and you’re beautiful when you’re angry” and “can I jot that down? <...> don’t. . . want. . . to ... lose. . . money” (Coben 1995, 2-5). However, it is shown that he can be professional, especially when the other party does the same. For example, he says “the offer is on the table, gentlemen. <...> we think it’s more that fair” and “it’s final” when Burke expresses his dissatisfaction with the deal (Coben 1995 2-4). The dialogue in this scene is over five pages long, approximately of the same length as the two dialogues in the equivalent scene in A Noble Radiance. According to Kroger, “reciprocal exchange of first names rather than reciprocal exchange of title and last name” signifies solidarity (Kroger 1982, 813). Based on Kroger’s methodology, Otto and Myron’s relationship is reciprocal with solidarity; both use first names as address forms. Larry and Myron have a non-reciprocal relationship; Larry uses the surname, while Myron the first name as an address. Brown and Gilman emphasize that a power semantic requires a non-reciprocal relationship between at least two people where one has power over another (Brown and Gilman 1960, 255). In the scene only Burke has a power semantic over Myron and Larry but for different reasons; he is much wealthier and has higher social status than Myron and is Hanson’s employer. In the Lithuanian translation, this scene is five pages long. It differs in two aspects from the one in the original, although they are not related to forms of address. One of them is that some of Larry’s crude remarks to Myron, where swear words are often included, are softened to a varying degree: “You’re out of your league here, Bolitar. And you fucking know it.” (Coben 1995, 2) “It’s a load of crap!” (Coben 1995, 2) “Crap is more like it,” (Coben 1995, 4) “We don’t have all goddamn day to jerk off here.” (Coben 1995, 6) - Čia ne tavo lyga, Bolitarai. Ir tu velniškai gerai tai žinai. (Coben 2009, 6) - Visiška nesąmonė!(Coben 2009, 6) - Greičiau jau visiška nesąmonė (Coben 2009, 7) - Nesirengiame tūnoti čia visą prakeiktą dieną. (Coben 2009, 10) These are some examples of softening of Larry’s speech in this scene. The second aspect in which the target text scene is different is the omittion of information when Burke tells Myron what he allegedly thinks of him: “Not me, of course. I think you’re a very bright - Mano nuomone, tu - ryški asmenybė. Tačiau 21 guy. Shrewd. But the way you’re acting...” tavo elgesys... (Coben 2009, 8) (Coben 1995, 4) The adjective “shrewd present in the original provides supplemental information as Burke, by using it, emphasizes Myron’s practicality; the translator’s decision to omit it results in the loss of this information. There are differences between Myron and Brunetti in many ways. Brunetti is the chief investigator at the questura, officially a Commissario who manages the work of his subordinates. He has a secure and stable position in the police hierarchy. On the other hand, Myron needs to continually seek out and secure contracts as a sports agent. Unlike Brunetti, he has a powerful and influential friend Win who saves Myron in many situations as Myron’s influence is limited, although he has acquaintances from his former FBI career. The novels’ protagonists have different personalities: Brunetti is always professional, while Myron often employs humour and sarcasm, especially when others are hostile, but can also be professional if the characters he interacts with do the same. By applying Kroger’s methodology, Brunetti and Vianello’s relationship is non-reciprocal, while Brunetti and Bortot’s relationship is reciprocal; Vianello is Brunetti’s subordinate, but Brunetti and Bortot are equals in ther respective professions. In Deal Breaker Burke has a reciprocal relationship with Myron and a non-reciprocal one with Larry. However, he has a power semantic over both of them. 6.2 Brunetti’s Forms of Address with his Subordinate, Superior, Brother, Father-in-law, and the Victim’s Family Member This section offers an analysis of forms of address in specific episodes of dialogue between Brunetti and five characters, Vianello, Patta, Sergio, Orazio, and Maurizio. The criteria for choosing which episodes to analyze include the length and the number and variation of forms of address which the characters use. Their length of the analysed episodes is more or less consistent, while those with a higher frequency of forms of address and more variation have been selected since they offer more information to analyse. It is important to consider how characters address each other, how their choice of a particular address style indicates their relative status, the closeness of their relationship and the feelings they demonstrate during a particular encounter. The table below provides information on the forms of address and their frequency in Brunetti’s interactions with the five previously mentioned characters; this data is described in the upcoming analysis: Table 2. Forms of address and their frequency in Brunetti’s interactions with selected characters. Participant 1 Participant 2 Their relationship Address Frequency forms used of address by 1st forms by 1st participant participant Address forms used by 2nd participant Frequency of address forms used by 2nd 22 Guido Brunetti Lorenzo Vianello Superior and subordinate “Vianello” “Lorenzo” 6 1 Guido Brunetti Giuseppe Patta Subordinate and superior “Vicequestore” “Sir” 3 “Sir” “Commissar io” “Brunetti” 15 participant 16 1 8 Guido Brunetti Guido Brunetti Sergio Brothers “Sergio” 12 “Commissar io” “Dottor Brunetti” “Guido” 1 Orazio Falier - - “Guido” 19 Guido Brunetti Maurizio Lorenzoni Son-in-law and father-inlaw Investigator and victim’s family member “Conte Lorenzoni” 1 “Commissar io" 4 “Signor Maurizio Lorenzoni” “Signore” “Signor Lorenzoni 1 1 16 1 8 Additionally, in the analysis the episodes are classified as belonging to one of the categories suggested by Kroger, which are reciprocal, non-reciprocal and solidarity. The analysis begins by taking a closer look at three episodes of dialogue between Brunetti and Vianello. The first episode to be analyzed takes place in the Questura where Brunetti, unable to find Signorina Elettra, talks to Vianello, asking him to locate the three men whom Roberto Lorenzoni had asked to steal his car to get his father’s attention. However, first it is necessary to comment briefly on Guido Brunetti, the main character of the novel series. The table below shows the number of dialogues he participates in compared to the most important interlocutors in Deal Breaker: Title of the novel Character Total number of dialogues. A Noble Radiance Guido Brunetti 72 Number of dialogues where character participates. 70 Deal Breaker Deal Breaker Myron Bolitar Jessica Culver 123 123 114 24 Deal Breaker Windsor Lockwood III 123 23 Range of dialogue length ⅛ of a page approx.13 pages 4 lines - 9 pages 4 lines - 6 and ½ pages 4 lines - approx. 9 pages Table 3. Number of dialogues of the most important interlocutors. 23 As can be observed, Brunetti is the interlocutor in 70 of 72 episodes of dialogue and, with the exception of two preliminary episodes, the narrative is told from his point of view. Brunetti first introduces himself in the text when he tells Dr. Bortot: “this is Commissario Guido Brunetti of the Venice police“(Leon 1997, 20). In Italy, “Commissario” is a title equivalent to a chief inspector and is a high position in the police hierarchy. Brunetti, who lives in Venice, works at the police station in Venice which is called the Questura; he is in charge of criminal investigations. In the Questura he answers to his immediate superior Vice-Questore Giuseppe Patta. The novel adheres to the characteristics of a police procedural by not making Brunetti an almost superhumanly intelligent detective; he asks for help from others like Signorina Elettra, Sergeant Vianello and his father-inlaw Count Orazio during his investigations. Furthermore, there is no indication that Brunetti excels at dealing with physical confrontations. In one episode someone shoots at him and Vianello but the two men escape injury; Brunetti knocks his friend down to save him from the bullets but does not behave like a superhero character. Instead, he is presented as an intellectual man which can be inferred from his conversations with his wife Paola, and his favourite leisure activity, which is reading Roman and Greek classics. People who use Brunetti’s first name “Guido” to address him are his wife Paola, father-in law Count Orazio, and his brother Sergeo (Leon 1997, 54, 49, 42). Other people address Brunetti by the rank title “Commissario” or “Dottore” (because Brunetti has a university degree). In his workplace these include his subordinates Sergeants Vianello (“Commissario”) (Leon 1997, 18) and Puccetti (“Dottore”) (Leon 1997, 55), Vice-Questore’s secretary Elettra Zorzi (“Dottore” Leon 37, and “Commissario”, Leon 26), co-worker Lieutenant Scarpa (“Commissario”) (Leon 1997, 178) his immediate superior Vice-Questore Patta (“Dottor”, “Commissario”) (Leon 1997, 93-94). Others who address Brunetti by these forms of address include those questioned during the investigation: Maurizio Lorenzoni (“Commissario”) (Leon 1997, 97), Count Ludovico Lorenzoni (“Commissario”) (Leon 1997, 121) and also scientific specialists Dr. Bortot (“Commissario”) (Leon 1997, 21), Dr. Luciano De Cal (“Comissario”) (Leon 1997 151). However, of these only Vice-Questore Patta addresses Brunetti by his last name (Leon 1997, 90). Sergeant Lorenzo Vianello is a uniformed police officer working in the Venetian Questura. His immediate superior is Guido Brunetti, who he assists with specific tasks during an investigation, often accompanies him. Vianello takes part in eight episodes of dialogue with Brunetti, including one where Carabinieri officers(military police) are participants. Several observations have already been made in this paper about the relationship between Brunetti and Vianello. Brunetti always addresses Vianello by his family name with a single interesting exception when he uses his first name Lorenzo (Leon 1997, 233). Vianello usually calls Brunetti “sir”; only in one instance does he 24 use “Commissario”, when he goes into Brunetti’s office to pass on information about a body that has been dug up (Leon 1997, 18). In other cases, both characters simply use “you” to address each other. In the whole novel Vianello uses “sir” 16 times, and “Commissario” once, while Brunetti addresses him by “Vianello” six times, and once as “Lorenzo” . The first two episodes between Brunetti and Vianello are everyday situations where one can see how they interact normally, while the third episode portrays the two characters in an unexpected, dangerous situation. An additional Brunetti and Vianello’s episode is briefly analyzed to present the single instance of Brunetti calling his colleague by his first name. The first episode between Brunetti and Vianello takes place in the Questura where Brunetti, unable to find Signorina Elettra, asks Vianello to locate the three men whom in the past Roberto Lorenzoni asked to steal his own car in an attempt to get his father’s attention in the past. Vianello gives Brunetti the addresses of the three men and what they told him about the reasons for the car theft and Roberto’s health at that time. Here the total number of forms of address is seven. As can be observed, Brunetti and Vianello only use one form of address without variation to address each other; the novel is written in English, so that use of the pronoun “you” as a form of address, which both characters do, does not provide much information. Brunetti uses his colleague’s last name “Vianello” as a form of address; it is used only in one instance of the episode when he says “Vianello, this is two names and addresses. You need a computer to got this?” (Leon 1997, 194). Vianello addresses Brunetti as “sir” two times in the episode: “No, sir, I thought to call that girl who was going out with him <...>” (Leon 1997, 193); “Sir, if you’ll look at the addresses, you’ll see that one of them is in Genoa <...>” (Leon 194). According to Cambridge Dictionary’s definition, “sir” is “used as a formal and polite way of speaking to a man, especially one who you are providing a service to or who is in a position of authority” (dictionary.cambridge.org). These choices of forms of address do indicate their relationship, with Brunetti as superior and Vianello as inferior/subordinate. However, some arguments can be made to demonstrate that their relationship is actually closer than it may look at first. In one case Vianello brings up personal matters by mentioning his aunt: “My Aunt Lucia would say it was a warning” (Leon 1997, 194). In contrast, this does not happen in episodes with Brunetti and Patta, whose hierarchical relationship is also one of superior and subordinate in a work situation. This is evidence that these characters do not mind sharing information about their personal lives with each other, at least Vianello in this particular episode. By applying Kroger’s classification, the relationship in this episode can be regarded as non-reciprocal if judged strictly by the forms of address because these characters do not mutually exchange first or last names as forms of address. Their second episode chosen for the analysis (Leon 1997, 18-20; 23), like the one just discussed, depicts an ordinary situation where nothing life-threatening or surprising occurs. The 25 context for this episode is that Vianello goes to Brunetti’s office to report a phone call to the Questura from the Carabinieri in a distant northern part of Italy. By accident, the body of a young man was dug up. Near him was a signet ring with the crest of the aristocratic Venetian Lorenzoni family so that the body may be that of Roberto Lorenzoni, who disappeared some time ago. In this episode Vianello addresses Brunetti as “Comissario” once and as “sir” six times, which can be observed when Vianello says “Buon di, Commissario” (Leon 1997, 18) and “Would someone not in the family wear a ring like that, sir?” (Leon 1997, 19). Therefore, “sir” as a form of address prevails in terms of frequency, while “Commissario” is used only at the very beginning of the episode. Brunetti uses the sergeant’s last name “Vianello” to address him in the single case that he employs one mode of address except “you” It could be argued that Vianello’s constant use of “sir” and “Commissario” only once is because Vianello chooses not to emphasize the hierarchy of their professions but chooses “sir” as a more general but also polite form of address. Just as in the previously analyzed episode, there is evidence that the relationship between Brunetti and Vianello is a close one. At the start of the interaction, after Vianello greets Brunetti, the novel states “not having to be invited, took his usual place in the chair opposite of Brunetti <...>” (Leon 1997, 18). This indicates that Vianello very often sits in Brunetti’s office and feels comfortable around his superior. Another sign is when Vianello asks, “Since when do you wear glasses, sir?” (Leon 1997, 18). In this case Vianello asks Brunetti a personal question and, showing that, at least Vianello, does not converse only about work-related matters with Brunetti. Nevertheless, despite signs of friendship, according to Kroger’s classification, this exchange is nonreciprocal because there is no mutual exchange of first names; Vianello uses a formal form of address while accepting an informal one. Their third episode stands out from the other two because the situation is extreme. In this episode Brunetti, Vianello, and Pucceti arrive by car to the Lorenzoni villa located outside of Venice. They go there because Brunetti wants to find out how the kidnappers managed to block the gate to the villa from the other side with a heavy stone. As they are investigating outside, someone starts shooting at them from the villa. It turns out to be Maurizio, who mistakes them for burglars. After explaining the situation, the Carabinieri relay this to Maurizio by a phone call and the situation calms down. In this episode Brunetti addresses Vianello by his family name while Vianello uses “sir” to address Brunetti. This can be observed, for example, when Brunetti asks “No stones, are there, Vianello?” (Leon 1997, 159) and Vianello replies “No, sir. There aren’t. Why?” (Leon 1997, 159). The total number of forms of address used within this episode is nine (including five instances of “you”). “sir” is used four times and “Vianello” twice. The relationship of superiorsubordinate is maintained to a degree because the forms of address used here do not differ from those used in other episodes between Brunetti and Vianello but “Commissario” is not used as a 26 form of address. Because the situation of the episode is extreme, it differs from the other two in several aspects. One of them is that each of their interactions is considerably shorter, especially during the shooting, and this makes sense because their lives are in danger. For example, this can be observed when Brunetti asks if Vianello is okay and Vianello answers “Yes,’ <...> ‘Thank you, sir.” (Leon 1997, 161) to which Brunetti simply nods. Another difference in this episode is that in the other two presented episodes Vianello relays detailed information to Brunetti while in this case there is no need; survival and dealing with the situation is on their minds. As the two forms of address used in this episode are “sir” and “Vianello”, this is not a mutual exchange but nonreciprocal one according to Kroger’s methodology. The fourth episode between Brunetti and Vianello, as previously indicated, stands out because, for the first and only time in the novel, Brunetti addresses Vianello by his first name. In this episode Brunetti and Vianello, deeply affected by Count Lorenzoni murdering his nephew and Countess Lorenzoni finding out about it previously that day, stop by the first bar they find but do not order alcoholic drinks, only mineral water. The exchange is short and only Brunetti addresses his colleague once by his first name of “Lorenzo”: “Go home, Lorenzo, Brunetti finally said” (Leon 1997, 233). The two men sit in silence for a while before Brunetti says this, no doubt contemplating the tragedy that occurred that day. Brunetti addressing Vianello by his first name for the first time in the novel could be explained by the fact that, aside from witnessing the tragedy, the characters are situated in a non-work-related environment and are not performing their duties. It is not possible to apply Kroger’s methodology to classify their relationship within this episode because only Brunetti uses a form of address and does so only once. Another character whose dialogue episodes with Brunetti are analyzed is Giuseppe Patta. Patta is the Vice-questore of the Venetian Questura that Brunetti is working in. He is Brunetti’s immediate superior to whom Brunetti has to report his findings of the Lorenzoni case in the novel. The relationship between Patta and Brunetti is strictly work-related and with emphasis on hierarchy which can be observed from their exchanges that are to be presented. In the novel these characters have numerous disagreements and dislike each other due to differences: Patta appreciates loyalty, is particularly conscious about social status, does not appreciate people who disagree with him, and wants to keep up appearances while Brunetti is the opposite in most of these regards. The dialogue episodes that are analyzed include interesting observations regarding the variation of forms of address. In total, Patta addresses Brunetti eight times as “Brunetti”, once as “Commissario” and also once as “Dottor Brunetti”, while Brunetti addresses Patta three times as “Vice- Questore and 15 times as “sir”. In the first Brunetti and Patta’s episode Brunetti is notified by his co-worker Pucceti that his superior Vice-questore Patta wants to see him in his office. After arriving, he learns that Patta is 27 outraged by Brunetti’s recommendations for which officers to promote, especially by his failure to recommend and suggested transfer of Lieutenant Scarpa whom Patta is fond of. Brunetti refuses to retract them, even when Patta demands him. Here are 12 forms of address used along with 13 additions of “you”. In all episodes between Brunetti and Patta including this one the most frequent used forms of address are “sir” by Brunetti and “Brunetti” by Patta. In this episode alone, forms of address used by Brunetti are “sir” (five times), “Vice-questore” (twice), while Patta uses “Brunetti” (thrice), “commissario” (once), and “Dottor Brunetti” (once). It can be observed that whenever there is a variation in a form of address used by Patta, and it is used only once, Patta does it very consciously and with intention to make certain implications. For example, it can be observed in “When Brunetti said nothing, Patta asked, ‘Did you hear me, Comissario?” (Leon 1997, 93). In this case Patta demands Brunetti to retract his remarks about Lieutenant Scarpa, and, when he gets no answer, addresses Brunetti once as “commissario” to remind him that Patta is superior in the Questura and it that is his duty to do comply. In another example “If I’m boring you, Dottor Brunetti, just tell me and you can leave” (Leon 1997, 94), a similar observation can be made. Here Patta emphasizes that Brunetti has a university degree and, also by asking his if he is boring Brunetti, Patta attempts to mock him by implying that Brunetti is too impertinent in his view. By applying Kroger’s classification it can be inferred that the relationship between Brunetti and Patta is non-reciprocal because there are no cases of mutual exchange of first or last names. During their second episode Brunetti, after finishing lunch and returning to work, is informed by a guard in the Questura that Vice-Questore Patta wants to see him in his office. After Brunetti arrives Patta asks him about his progress in the investigation of Lorenzoni case and also tells him about TV studio’s offer asking Brunetti to be a consultant in their creation of a police programme. Within the episode, Patta addresses Brunetti by his last name “Brunetti” three times, while Brunetti addresses Patta “sir” 11 times. As can be observed, Brunetti uses a form of address more frequently, and there is no variation in forms of address that Brunetti and Patta use in this episode. In this episode, there is no explicit attempt to use a form of address to mock or exert power, but certain words, thoughts, and expressions show their dislike of each other. In Brunetti’s case, it can be observed from excerpt like “<...> Brunetti found Patta in an uncharacteristically friendly mood. Brunetti was instantly on his guard” (Leon 1997, 188), “One of the things Brunetti most disliked about Patta was the fact that the cheap melodrama of his life always had such bad scripts” (Leon 1997, 189), and “you know, sir, someone who speaks dialect or at least sounds like he’s from the Veneto” (Leon 1997, 191) (referring to Patta). In Patta’s case, it is apparent from examples such as “I told them they needed someone with broader experience, someone who has a wider vision of police work, can see it as a whole, not as a series of individual cases and crimes” (Leon 1997, 189), 28 referring to Brunetti: “All warmth disappeared from Patta’s voice or manner” (Leon 1997, 191). Patta being overtly conscious about social status, even when speaking privately with Brunetti, can be observed from“Count Lorenzoni, Patta corrected automatically” (Leon 1997, 193) when Brunetti only uses Count Lorenzoni’s family name. By applying Kroger’s methodology, the relationship in this episode is non-reciprocal as neither character mutually exchanges first names, and Patta uses an inferior form of address, while Brunetti accepts it and uses a formal one. Sergio is Brunetti’s blood-related older brother and a specialist in the area of nuclear research. Throughout the novel, Brunetti never meets him in person but does keep in contact with him through telephone calls. The content of their conversations and the forms of address they use for each other imply that their relationship is close. During the initial phone calls Brunetti and Sergio talk about their families but later on Brunetti, knowing that Sergio is a researcher in a medical radiology lab, asks him about Roberto’s murder, specifically what Roberto’s blood test results indicate, and his brother strongly believes that it could have been radiation poisoning. Only one Brunetti and Sergio’s episode is analyzed, which is sufficient because the forms of address used in Brunetti and Sergio’s episodes are consistent. In the novel Sergio addresses Brunetti only as “Guido” and does this 16 times, while Brunetti, likewise, addresses Sergio as “Sergio” but 12 times. In the first Brunetti and Sergio episode, Sergio phone calls Brunetti in the Questura, intending to ask Brunetti to visit their sick mother for the next two weekends. Brunetti agrees and Sergio explains that the reason why he cannot do this himself is because he is scheduled to participate in a six-day long conference on Chernobyl. The total number of forms of address in this episode is 17 along with additional 20 cases of “you”. Brunetti uses Sergio’s first name “Sergio” to address him (eight times). This can be observed, for example, from “I know that Sergio. I’ll go” (Leon 1997, 42) when Brunetti agrees to Sergio’s request. Likewise, Sergio uses Brunetti’s first name “Guido” as a form of address (nine times), and this is visible from one of the examples “Guido. I know you’ve gone to see Mamma the last two weekends” (Leon 1997, 42). Their familial relationship is close because they, aside from work, talk about their spouses and children. This is apparent from “Tell me about the kids, Sergio” (Leon 1997, 45) when Brunetti, with the intention to change the subject, asks Sergio. Another observation is that both characters tend to use a form of address quite frequently in contrast to some other episodes, for example, between Brunetti and Patta, where the use of “you” is more frequent. The fact that they are family could be a factor in this. Additionally, the lack of demanding and pressure towards Brunetti when Sergio asks Brunetti to visit their sick mother in his place indicates that Sergio does not exert power over Brunetti as the older sibling. By applying Kroger’s methodology, it can be observed that this relationship is reciprocal and one of solidarity because Brunetti and Sergio mutually exchange their first names as forms of address. 29 Count Orazio Falier, Brunetti’s father-in-law, is an important character whom Brunetti consults for information regarding the case. He belongs to the aristocracy and is well-connected in terms of information as he has many contacts due to his social status. Aside from consulting Brunetti with his investigations, he also talks with him about his daughter and Brunetti’s wife Paola, and is worried that she is unhappy in her marriage. Only a single Brunetti and Orazio’s episode is analyzed, and it is sufficient to show the tendencies in the use of forms of address between them. In the novel, Count Orazio addresses Brunetti 19 times as Guido, while Brunetti never uses a form of address for the Count. In this episode, after arranging a meeting, Brunetti arrives at La Busolla restaurant to meet up with Count Orazio to ask him about Lorenzoni’s case and Roberto. After providing the necessary information to Brunetti, the Count begins talking about his daughter and Brunetti’s wife Paola. The total number of forms of address used in this episode is nine with additional significant 63 cases of “you”. Count Orazio addresses Brunetti by his first name “Guido” (nine times). This can be observed from one out of many examples when Count Orazio says “Guido, I don’t mean to offend...” (Leon 1997, 81). What is interesting and exceptional is that Brunetti never uses any forms of address except “you” to address the Count. The difference in social status is not a leading factor here because Brunetti, when addressing Roberto’s father, Count Lorenzoni, addresses him by his title but never does address Count Orazio in such a matter. However, Count Lorenzoni is a stranger, while Count Orazio is family. It is likely that Brunetti is conflicted because, on one hand, their difference in social status is apparent, but on the other hand, they are family, thus addressing him by a title could be considered too formal, while Brunetti is unable to ignore the social status and address him using an informal form of address. This is strongly implied in Brunetti’s thoughts, when he, intending to ask about the well-being of the Count and his wife, who also belongs to aristocracy, says “We’re all well. And both of you?’ He couldn’t call her ‘Donatella’, and he couldn’t call her ‘The Countess” (Leon 1997, 49). The relationship between Brunetti and Count Orazio is close because, aside from work-related matters, they also discuss their opinions on general topics and their family. This exchange, including others between Brunetti and Count Orazio, is nonreciprocal after taking Kroger’s methodology into account because Brunetti accepts an informal form of address. Although he does not use a form of address for Count Orazio, he still holds him in high regard. Maurizio Lorenzoni is the nephew of Count Ludovico Lorenzoni and cousin of Roberto Lorenzoni. In the novel, he becomes the prime suspect, and Brunetti interacts with him the most out of all Lorenzoni family members. Their relationship is that of strangers and polite in terms of conversation content and use of forms of address but becomes less polite as Brunetti grows suspicious that Maurizio is hiding something. Two of Brunetti and Maurizio’s episodes are 30 analyzed here, and a notable change in their relationship can be observed from them. In the novel Maurizio addresses Brunetti only as “Commissario” 4 times; Brunetti addresses Maurizio once as “Conte Lorenzoni, once as “Signor Maurizio Lorenzoni”, once as “Signore”, and eight times as “Signor Lorenzoni”. In the first episode, Brunetti calls Count Lorenzoni to set up a meeting with him in order to inform him that his son Roberto’s body has been dug up and ask him for Roberto’s dentist’s contact information, but Maurizio answers the call instead. He informs Maurizio about this and schedules a meeting with the Lorenzoni family. The total number of forms of address in this episode is six, with additional nine cases of “you”. Brunetti addresses Maurizio as “Signor Lorenzoni” (3 times), a polite address form for an Italian-speaking mean that corresponds to “Mr” or “Sir”, and once as “Conte Lorenzoni” when he attempts to ascertain whether he is speaking to Count Lorenzoni, which can be obseved from “I don’t know, Signor Lorenzoni<...>” (Leon 1997, 98) and “Conte Lorenzoni?’ Brunetti asked” (Leon 1997, 97). Maurizio uses “Commissario” (twice) as a form of address for Brunetti, referring to his profession, and one of the examples of such instance is “What is this in relation to, Comissario” (Leon 1997, 97). As it can be seen, both forms of address used by the characters are formal, but Brunetti uses a more general form of address than Maurizio. Furthermore, Brunetti’s social status is lower than Maurizio’s, who is part of the aristocracy and this, aside from the fact that they are strangers, leads to Brunetti being even more polite. This is evident from when Brunetti says “I’ll come and speak to them if you’d like me to” (Leon 1997, 99), “Thank you, Signor Lorenzoni” (Leon 1997, 99), and “I’d like to speak to your uncle, and your aunt, if that’s possible.This evening?” (Leon 1997, 99). After applying Kroger’s methodology, this exchange can be classified as reciprocal because Brunetti and Maurizio mutually exchange titles as address forms, but there is no indication of solidarity. However, it is important to note that the titles they use refer to different aspects of character; “Comissario” emphasizes Brunetti’s profession, while “Signor” corresponds to Mr. In the second Brunetti and Maurizio episode Brunetti with two sergeants, Vianello and Pucceti, arrive at the Lorenzoni villa to investigate the place of Roberto’s kidnapping. After entering through the gates into the surrounding garden area, they are suddenly being shot at by Maurizio, who mistakens them for burglars. After the misunderstanding is cleared up, Brunetti goes to talk with him. In this episode, the total number of forms of address is nine, with additional 29 cases of “you”. Brunetti addresses Maurizio here as “Signor Lorenzoni” (five times), and as “Signore” once. In this episode, there is also an instance when Brunetti addresses Vianello as “Sergeant” but he does not get the chance to respond. Maurizio addresses Brunetti as “Commissario” here but does this only once. This can be observed from “I’m sorry, Commissario” (Leon 1997, 168). Unlike the previous exchange, in this one Maurizio feels hostility towards 31 Brunetti, while Brunetti, in response to his growing suspicions and frustration, asks Maurizio provocative questions. Maurizio’s hostility can be observed from cases like “of course not,’ he said, making no attempt to disguise his mounting anger”(Leon 1997, 166), “I’m not sure that’s any of your business” (Leon 1997, 167), and “As he watched, he saw Lorenzoni bite back a sharp response” (Leon 1997, 167). Examples of Brunetti’s provocative questions are “And is the villa your property?” (Leon 1997, 166), “And so you used a shotgun? To shoot at people” (Leon 1997, 166). The fact that, despite the episode being eight pages, Maurizio addresses Brunetti only once, is another indicator of the change in Brunetti and Maurizio’s relationship. Therefore, as can be observed, this exchange differs from the first one in various aspects. Still, the exchange can be defined as reciprocal when applying Kroger’s methodology as there is no case of one character accepting an inferior address form while also lacking solidarity. 6.3 Myron’s forms of address with his friends This section analyzes the forms of address used in Myron’s interactions with Jessica, Win, and Esperanza, three people whom he considers his closest friends. Just as in A Noble Radiance, the chosen address forms indicate relative status, the closeness of of their relations with Myron, and the feelings they experience in the particular conversation. The table below indicates the address forms and their frequency in Myron’s interactions with Jessica, Win, and Esperanza, and is described in the upcoming analysis: Table 4. Forms of address and their frequency in Myron’s interactions with selected characters. Participant Participant Their Address Frequency Address Frequency 1 2 relationship forms used of address forms used of address by 1st forms by by 2nd forms used st 1 by 2nd participant participant participant participant Myron Jessica Ex-lovers, “Jessica” 6 “Myron” 7 Bolitar Culver close friends “Jess” 4 “Captain 1 fun” “Sweetcakes” 1 “Zorro” 1 Myron Windsor Best friends “Win” 7 “Myron” 7 Bolitar Lockwood “Grasshopper” 1 “Myron 1 III Bolitar Myron Esperanza Superior “Esperanza” 1 “Myron” 2 Bolitar Diaz and “Mom” 1 “Daddy” 1 subordinate, close friends The criteria for choosing the specific episodes in this novel, Deal Breaker, are different; people close to Myron are analyzed, but the length of scenes and variations in forms of address is not considered. The reason for this is that, unlike in A Noble Radiance, the novel’s protagonist rarely uses address forms with people that are especially close to him; this tendency is the opposite when Myron talks with strangers and acquaintances as can be observed, for example, in his interactions 32 with Burke or Hanson. People whom Myron considers especially close are his best friend Windsor Lockwood, his secretary Esperanza Diaz, and his ex-girlfriend Jessica Culver. Jessica Culver is a successful novelist and Myron’s ex-girlfriend. Her father’s death and sister’s disappearance are major plot elements in the novel. She interacts with Myron more than other characters, and some episodes are presented from her perspective as she, like Myron, investigates the case. The number of characters that she interacts with is eight. In total, Jessica has 22 dialogues in which she participates, 14 of which are with Myron. In their interactions, she addresses Myron nine times: seven times by his first name “Myron”, and once each as “Captain fun” and “Zorro” to tease him. Myron addresses Jessica six times, once by her first name “Jessica”, four times by its shortened version “Jess”, and once as “Sweetcakes”. In this section, four of Myron and Jessica’s interactions are analyzed for their forms of address. The first interaction is their meeting again at the beginning of this novel after not seeing each other for a long time. Myron goes to a bar in the building which he works and unexpectedly encounters Jessica. The length of this conversation is about two pages. In this scene, Myron addresses Jessica once as “Sweetcakes”, once as “Jessica, and once as “Jess, while Jessica addresses him once as “Myron”. Myron is the first to use an address form, which is “Sweetcakes”; the context is that he pretends to play the role of a playboy flirting with an unfamiliar woman, and Jessica plays along. After this, they address each other by first names as they finally greet. Myron is the last to use an address form in this scene; he calls her “Jess” as he unsuccessfully attempts to invite her for lunch: “Jess <...> can we have lunch sometime<...> just talk, okay?” (Coben 1995, 24). During this scene, both characters address one another by first name, with “Sweetcakes” as an affectionate joke. Therefore, according to Kroger, here Myron and Jessica’s relationship is reciprocal and shows solidarity; the address forms are a mutual exchange of first names. The second scene takes place when Myron and Jessica are tailing the car of Gary Grady, a person responsible for putting the ad of Kathy into a pornographic magazine (Coben 1995, 67-71). The length of their discourse is over four pages. Here only Jessica addresses Myron; she does so by calling him “Captain Fun” once in response to Myron’s sarcastic remark when she has implied he is boring: “Do you like being an agent, Captain Fun?” (Coben 1995, 68). However, their relationship is particularly close; they have a lingering affection for one another, which can be observed from Jessica’s implicit compliment and Myron protecting her by meeting Grady alone: “Right. But you’re not any of those things”, “No. I go inside. You wait here <...> if this guy has something to do with your sister, how do you think he’ll react?” (Coben 1995, 70-71). Myron and Jessica’s third conversation occurs when he calls her to inform her of Dean Gordon’s involvement with Kathy (Coben 1995, 158-159). The scene is particularly short, just a single page. Here only Jessica addresses Myron; she refers to him by using “Zorro”. The context 33 here is that Myron sarcastically answers her question about his plans by referring to a real-life striptease dance troupe Chippendales, saying he is part of it and his stage name is “Zorro”. In turn, Jessica uses this name later when asking Myron to visit her: “I’m not sleeping much. Just knock on my bedroom window Zorro” (Coben 1995, 159). The fourth scene differs significantly from the three previous ones; Myron, informed that Jessica had been injured, rushes to visit her at the hospital (Coben 1995, 191-192). It is, once again, very short, one page-long, but because Jessica falls unconscious. Here both characters address one another once; Jessica calls him “Myron”, while Myron uses “Jess”. Jessica uses it to confirm Myron’s identity due to being weak and Myron tries to convince her to rest: “Listen to him, Jess. There’s nothing we can do tonight” (Coben 1995, 192). Here his choice of an address form shows Myron’s deep concern for her; he knows that she possesses important information but prioritizes her well-being by encouraging the woman to rest. Overall, there are several things to note in Myron and Jessica’s relationship and their address forms. Myron predominantly uses the contracted form of her first name “Jess” as an address form, while she calls him using his entire first name “Myron”. The use of address forms is not frequent in their interactions, which is a tendency when Myron converses with people close to him. The address forms reflect the characters’ equal social status; both belong to the middle class. Windsor Lockwood is Myron’s best friend, whom he has known since their college days. They work in the same office building; Myron rents an office for his sports agency from Win, while Win is in charge of an investment company there. He is of higher social status than Myron as he belongs to a wealthy family. In Deal Breaker, Win is a very important character; he often saves Myron from danger and helps solve his problems. Additionally, just like Jessica, Win is one of the few characters whose point of view is occasionally presented. In the novel, Myron and Win have 11 interactions together. In total, Myron uses address forms for him eight times, while Win does so six times. Myron’s used address forms for Win are “Win” and “Grasshopper”, while Win uses “Myron” and “Myron Bolitar. The first Myron and Win’s interaction in the book takes place in Myron’s office where he is about to call the number in the pornographic magazine featured the ad for Kathy (Coben 1995, 26, 30-31). The scene consists of two pages, and here only Win addresses Myron. He does this twice, using his first name in both cases. He does this the first time when he is making a joke: “Well, golly, Myron, I thought we’d call the White House”(Coben 1995, 26). Both characters employ humour and sarcasm. The second use of an address form occurs when Win attempts to get Myron’s attention in order to warn him: “Myron?” (Coben 1995, 31). The second scene occurs when Myron, intending to invite Win to question one of the suspects in Kathy’s case, calls him early in the morning (Coben 1995, 109, 111). It is about 1.5 34 pages in length; both characters use address forms for each other. Myron addresses Win four times by his contracted first name “Win”, which is how he always refers to him. This address form is used as the only word in every one of the character’s sentences where it is present; Myron uses it to wake up Win; he becomes confused with Win’s sleepy answers. Win addresses Myron twice in this scene, using the character’s full name “Myron Bolitar”. He does this as he tries to confirm the caller’s identity; he addresses Myron twice due to being half-awake; his friend ordinarily never calls him in the morning. Thus, this is not how Win usually addresses Myron. The third scene takes place in a martial arts dojo after the characters have finished their physical exercise to clear their minds (Coben 1995, 60). This is a short scene; it consists of less than a quarter of a page. Myron is the only one to use an address form, and he uses an uncharacteristic one, “Grasshopper” for Win: “Yes, Grasshopper. You want me to snatch the pebble from your hand now? (Coben 1995, 60). He is making a humorous reference to the 1980s action movie Karate Kid. The address form implies that the addressor has superior knowledge of the specific subject. However, it is not how Myron usually addresses Win. Overall, by using Kroger’s approach, Myron and Win’s relationship can be categorized as reciprocal and one of solidarity. The general tendency is that both characters predominantly use each other’s first names as address forms; they address one another equally. The use of Win’s “Myron Bolitar” and Myron’s “Grasshopper” is uncharacteristic and, as can be observed, is linked with the specific situations. Their use of address forms for one another ignores their inequality in social status; Win comes from a wealthy family and is a successful businessman, while Myron belongs to the middle class. In their relationship Myron predominantly addresses Windsor by his shortened first name “Win”, while Win calls him Myron; he does this seven times and is addressed five times by his partner in this matter. Esperanza Diaz is the secretary of Myron’s sports agency MB SportReps and his close friend. In the novel, aside from work, she assists him with investigating Kathy’s disappearance, looking up information on persons of interest, and going together with Myron to visit the pornography studio where Kathy’s pictures were taken. Additionally, Myron discusses personal topics with her, including his relationship with Jessica. In the past both characters felt sexually attracted to each other, but this never resulted in a relationship; they are currently close friends. In total, Esperanza has 15 interactions with Myron, although many of them are short. In the whole novel, Myron addresses Esperanza once as “Mom” and once as “Esperanza”, while she calls him twice by his first name “Myron” and once by “Daddy”; address forms are less frequent when compared to Myron’s interactions with Jessica or Win. 35 The first scene between them takes place in MB SportReps office when Myron returns from his meeting with Otto and is informed by Esperanza about a phone call he missed (Coben 1995, 87). The scene consists of a quarter of a page. Only Esperanza uses an address form, “Myron”; in the novel, this is the only time she addresses him by the first name. She does this to get Myron’s attention before asking a personal question concerning Jessica: “Is she back? Jessica, I mean” (Coben 1995, 87). The second conversation occurs in his office as Myron is about to leave in order to investigate the pornography studio “Global Globes Pictures” (Coben 1995, 160-161). The scene is about two pages long. Just as in the previous scene, Esperanza is the only one to use address forms; she uses two variations, addressing him once as “Myron” and once as “Daddy”. Esperanza calls him by his first name when she expresses her disapproval over Myron’s infatuation with Jessica: “Right. You disgust me, Myron” (Coben 1995, 160). The “Daddy” address form is used in a joke when, after she has expressed her desire to accompany Myron, he asks if she has to attend university today; Esperanza addresses him as such: “And I’ve done all my homework, Daddy. Really, I have” because she thinks he is being too patronizing (Coben 1995, 161). As observed, all the people close to Myron in the novel except his family tend to employ humour in their interactions with him. In Esperanza’s case, the inclusion of humour and rude remarks shows that both characters put their personal relationship over the workplace hierarchy; Myron is officially Esperanza’s employer. The third interaction featuring address forms occurs when Myron returns to his workplace after meeting the mobster Herman Ache; Esperanza informs him about the phone calls and a message he missed (Coben 1995, 212-214). The episode is relatively long, consisting of over two pages. In contrast to previous scenes, Myron is the only one who used an address form, which is “Mom”; he addresses her as such only once. The context is that Myron is about to visit Madeleine Robinson, an attractive woman from whom he intends to gather information regarding Kathy’s investigation, and Esperanza, expecting this to become a sexual encounter, encourages Myron to use protection to which he responds with humour: “Thanks, mom” (Coben 1995, 213). According to Kroger’s methodology, Myron and Esperanza’s relationship can be categorized as reciprocal and of solidarity. They seldom use address forms, but Esperanza predominantly addresses Myron by his first name; Myron addresses her by her first name once. Just as in Myron’s interactions with Win and Jessica, the predominant address forms in Myron and Esperanza’s relationship are their first names. She addresses him once as “Myron” and uses “Daddy” once in a humorous context, while Myron addresses her jokingly as “Mom” once and once by using her first name. This coincides with the tendency of infrequent use of address forms when Myron interacts with people close to him. Myron and Esperanza’s relationship is categorized 36 as reciprocal and of solidarity; both characters use first names to address each other equally, prioritizing their friendship over the workplace hierarchy. 6.4 Forms of address between the protagonists and their families In this section, Brunetti’s relations and the used address forms he uses with his family are analyzed; his relationship with his brother Sergio is contrasted to Jessica’s relationship with her brother Edward. Then Myron and Jessica’s interactions with their family members are analyzed for their forms of address, and the interactions are compared. The table below presents the data regarding the forms of address used in these interactions; it shows the specific forms of address and their frequency in the respective novels, which is described in the upcoming analysis: Table 5. Forms of address between the protagonists and their families. Participant Participant Their Address 1 2 relationship forms used by 1st participant Guido Brunetti Guido Brunetti Guido Brunetti Guido Brunetti Guido Brunetti Paola Brunetti Chiara Brunetti Raffi Brunetti Sergio Husband and wife Father and daughter Father and son Brothers “My dear” “Paola” “Angel” Frequency of address forms by 1st participant 1 2 1 Address forms used by 2nd participant “Guido” “Dear” “Pappa” Frequency of address forms used by 2nd participant 9 1 7 - - - - “Sergio” 12 “Guido” 16 Orazio Falier - - “Guido” 19 Myron Bolitar Myron Bolitar Jessica Culver Myron’s mother Myron’s father Carol Culver Son-in-law and fatherin-law Son and mother Son and father Daughter and mother “Mom” 5 “Dad” 5 “Mom” 3 Jessica Culver Edward Culver Sister and brother “Edward” 1 “Hon” “Myron” “Myron” “Son” “Honey” “Jessica” “Girls” “Sweetheart” “Jess” 1 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 However, first it is important to establish some of the differences in how the protagonists’ homes are presented. In contrast to Deal Breaker, Guido Brunetti’s home in A Noble Radiance is depicted as clearly separated from his work environment. In Deal Breaker, the homes of Myron and Jessica are highly affected by the problem of Kathy’s disappearance; her family members are all involved or directly affected by the case while at one point Myron cannot return to his parents’ house due to having a price put on his head by mobsters. However, Brunetti’s wife Paola and two 37 children Chiara and Raffi are entirely unrelated to the crime story, the death of Roberto Lorenzoni. Even though at times Brunetti does consult Paola on work-related matters, his home is still an environment he can relax in as he does not experience any threats, although he has a relatively dangerous occupation. Brunetti has six individual dialogues with Paola, including one in which Chiara and one in which the whole family participates. While the interactions are fewer, they are lengthier than in Deal Breaker, ranging from one to six pages. In addition, Brunetti also has phone conversations with his older brother Sergio, but they never meet in the novel. He has three interactions with him in total, which range from two to four pages. Brunetti’s mother is mentioned in the brothers’ phone calls but does not make an appearance. The very first dialogue between Brunetti and Paola occurs when he calls her from his workplace to tell her he is unable to make it home for lunch (Leon 1997, 54). Here Brunetti addresses her once with an affectionate “my treasure” while Paola calls him by first name “Guido” twice. Their second interaction is at home some time after Brunetti returns from work. It is approximately one page in length, but no forms of address are used. The third dialogue takes place when Brunetti returns home after interviewing the Lorenzoni family at their family house. It is quite long; there are four pages dedicated to it. Here Brunetti does not use an address form for his wife, but she uses “dear” and “Guido” once. Their fourth dialogue occurs, once again, when Brunetti returns home from the Lorenzoni home in the evening; it is three pages long. Here Paola advises Brunetti on his investigation, but no address forms are used by either character. Brunetti and Paola’s fifth dialogue is situated after Brunetti, deeply affected by Count Lorenzoni murdering Maurizio, returns home and tells her what happened. It is 4.5 pages long and forms of address are used by both characters; Brunetti uses “Paola” once while she uses “Guido” four times. Brunetti and Paola’s final dialogue occurs at their home right after the mystery is solved, and the culprit Count Lorenzoni is arrested. It is five pages in length and their most prolonged dialogue. They discuss the Count’s punishment, and both characters use an address form once; Brunetti addresses her as “Paola” while the wife uses “Guido”. Their relationship is positive, partly due to the shared attitudes they have. One of them is a deep affection for each other that they show using romantic words and actions: “because I love you with all my heart”, he took her hand, pressed her palm to his lips, and kissed it”, and “when I knew that I liked you as much as I did” (Leon 1997, 127). Another shared attitude is their strong sense of justice. Brunetti and Paola want the perpetrators responsible for Roberto Lorenzoni’s death to be punished accordingly: “oh I hope they 38 get them”. However, Brunetti, loving his family deeply and being directly involved in the investigation, is more extreme; he is unsatisfied with the perpetrator’s Count Lorenzini’s punishment and believes the Count murdered his son and nephew in cold blood: “Paola, he sent the men to kill the boy <...> he killed his nephew in cold blood” (Leon 1997, 275). Still, both Brunetti and Paola share a deep affection for their children Chiara and Raffi. In one case, Brunetti related the kidnapping and murder of Roberto Lorenzoni to his own children and, imagining them being in such danger, rushes home from his workplace (Leon 1997, 110). Similarly, Paola also has thoughts of her children when talking about the Lorenzoni case with Brunetti: “he felt her grow tense as the thought came to her that it might have been her child” ( Leon 1997, 114), and “a mother’s loss of her only son wasn’t something Paola wanted to contemplate“ (Leon 1997, 126). Overall, based on Kroger’s methodology, their relationship is reciprocal and of solidarity; both use first names to address each other as equals. The three attitudes that Brunetti and Paola share depict their relationship as constructive. Brunetti interacts with his children Chiara and Raffi in three scenes. Interestingly, in their only meeting, he and Raffi never address one another but are together during a family dinner. With Chiara, he interacts in three separate instances; once alone, once together with the family, and finally with his wife as a participant. Their individual interaction occurs in the doorway when he returns home. It only consists of a quarter of a page, but both characters use address forms here; Chiara calls him “Papa” twice, while Brunetti calls her “Angel” once, an affectionate address form he uses to express familial love similarly how he addresses Paola as “treasure” in one scene. At the family dinner interaction, just like Raffi, Chiara and Brunetti do not address each other; she only addresses Paola as “Mamma”. The interaction with Paola as a participant occurs when Brunetti returns home from work and Chiara is learning how to cook. It is four pages long, and approximately half of it consists of Chiara’s speech. Chiara addresses Brunetti five times as “Papa”, but Brunetti does not use an address form here. Interestingly, the “Papa” address form has three different variations in the Lithuanian translation, which are papa (thrice), tėti (once), and tėte (once). Brunetti’s home as separate from his workplace is further demonstrated by the fact that he never discusses work-related matters with his children. By applying Kroger’s methodology, Chiara has a non-reciprocal relationship with Brunetti; she uses the subordinate “Papa” to address her father. Brunetti’s relationship with Raffi cannot be categorized as neither character uses address forms for one another in the novel. Brunetti interacts with his brother Sergio for the first time in the novel when he receives a call from him at work; Sergio asks Brunetti to visit their sick mother as he has to read his paper at a conference on Chernobyl in Rome. The interaction is over four pages long; both characters use an address form but without variation. Brunetti addresses his brother by his first name “Sergio” eight 39 times, and Sergio addresses him as “Guido” nine times here. Their second conversation occurs at Brunetti’s office when Sergio, who came back from the conference, calls him to share his experiences and invite Brunetti’s family for dinner. It is two pages in length, and only Sergio uses address forms. He addresses Brunetti as “Guido” four times in this interaction. Their final interaction in the novel occurs when Brunetti, struggling with his investigation, calls Sergio to get medical information regarding the Lorenzoni case. It is four pages in length, and the brothers use address forms for one another. Brunetti uses “Sergio” four times while Sergio addresses him as “Guido” also four times. Overall, Brunetti discusses both family and work-related matters with Sergio; it includes topics such as visiting their mother, wives and children, Sergio’s conference on Chernobyl, Brunetti asking about the victim’s blood test results. It is necessary to mention that Brunetti consults about his work solely in their final interaction but never gives context; he only asks about the meaning of the victim’s blood results. Brunetti and Sergio’s relationship is very close and loving, which can be observed from three factors. First, Sergio had made two major sacrifices for Brunetti in the past; he had begun contributing to their family early in order to give Brunetti the opportunity to study at a university, and had his marriage delayed by three years to help Brunetti financially with commuting for his education (Leon 1997, 47). Second, the brothers are well-aware of each other’s personalities and habits; an implication that they regularly keep in touch. This can be observed from their thoughts: “they’d fallen into the familiar pattern: his need to justify everything; his younger brother’s refusal to find that necessary” and “Brunetti knew that Sergio had to be headed off once he got on to the subject of” (Leon 1997, 43). Finally, Sergio is mindful of Brunetti and quickly catches on his subtle mood changes: “how careful Sergio had always been not to abuse his position as an elder brother”, “Sergio, ever sensitive to things he couldn’t name, caught his brother’s mood” (Leon 1997, 45-46). Additionally, Brunetti also is fond of their conversations; in their first scene, he notes finding Sergio’s voice calming, congratulates him about his upcoming presentation at the conference on Chernobyl, asks about its details despite knowing he is unlikely to understand, and talks about their families in great detail. Based on Kroger’s methodology, their relationship is reciprocal and of solidarity as they use first names as address forms. Several inferences can be made from a comparison of Brunetti and Sergio’s interactions in A Noble Radiance to Jessica and Edward’s interactions in Deal Breaker. First, in both cases, the siblings use only first names as address forms. Unlike Sergio, the main plot directly affects Edward; the victims are his sister Kathy and father Adam. In contrast, the Lorenzoni case in Leon’s novel has no personal relations to Brunetti or his family. In A Noble Radiance, Brunetti addresses Sergio twelve times, and Sergio does this seventeen times, while in Deal Breaker, Jessica addresses Edward once. Another difference is that Sergio uses Brunetti’s first name “Guido” to address him, 40 while Edward uses the shortened and more familiar “Jess” instead of his sister’s full first name “Jessica” to address her, an indication that their relationship is informal. Edward’s relationship with Jessica is not always positive; in one scene, they have a quarrel because Edward refuses to accept that their sister Kathy has photos in a pornographic magazine and walks out of the kitchen in anger: “I’m out of here”, “the hell we do” (Coben 1995, 119). They eventually reconcile, but their relationship was never close in the past as observed from Jessica and Edward’s statements: “we were never very close” and “but I still love you” (Coben 1995, 209). In contrast, Brunetti and Sergio’s relationship, as noted in the analysis, is warm and close; they constantly keep in touch and show mindfulness to one another. Overall, in Deal Breaker, Myron and Jessica both address their mothers informally with “mom”. However, Jessica’s mother is integral to the plot; she has more conversations with Jessica than Myron does with his mother, and she uses more address form variations for her daughter. Myron’s interactions with his father are also informal; Myron addresses him as “dad”. In A Noble Radiance, the emotional atmosphere is important, and Brunetti has close relations with all his family members. He and his wife Paola often express concern and show affection towards each other. Furthermore, she consults him with his work, and Brunetti also uses affectionate address forms like “my treasure”. He deeply cares about his children, as observed in a scene where he rushes home in fear that something may have happened to them and addresses them affectionally; in one scene, he addresses his daughter as “angel”. Brunetti and his brother Sergio’s relationship is very close; Sergio has made several significant sacrifices for Brunetti, they both know each other’s personalities well and keep in touch often. There is a notable contrast between Brunetti’s relationship with Sergio and Jessica’s relationship with her brother Edward; the siblings in Leon’s novel are close and have positive conversations, while in Coben’s novel they are shown to have never been close and even have quarrels. Myron has three dialogues with his mother and two with his father. One of the two interactions with his father is presented as a flashback. All five dialogues are relatively short, ranging from a quarter of a page to half a page. Jessica has three individual dialogues with her mother Carol Culver and two additional ones in which where another character participates. Unlike Myron, Jessica has a brother named Edward; she has one dialogue alone with him and one with another character as a participant. Her father Adam Culver is already dead by the beginning of the novel; thus, there are no dialogues involving him. The very first dialogue between Myron and his mother occurs when he returns home to spend the night and his mom checks up on him at midnight (Coben 1995, 41). As the dialogue is brief, only three forms of address are used; Myron addresses his mother as “mom” twice while she calls 41 him “Hon” once. Both characters interact using a “tu/tu” dynamic. This is additionally demonstrated by Myron’s use of “mom” instead of the formal variant “mother”. Myron’s second dialogue with his mother occurs when she enters his room to invite him for breakfast and inquires about him coming home late (Coben 1995, 102-103). Likewise, there are also three forms of address used in the dialogue, but Myron’s mother uses a different one. Myron addresses his mother as “mom” once, and she addresses him by his name “Myron” twice. The third Myron’s and his mother’s dialogue is in the form of a phone call. Myron calls to inform her that he will be staying with Win for a while (Coben 1995, 154). Myron addresses her as “mom” twice and she in turn addresses him as “Myron” (Mironai) once. Indications that is a “tu/tu” exchange can be observed from his mother’s use of “lieki”, “būk atsargus”, and “nevaikščiok (Coben 2009, 145). Myron also uses sarcasm which his mother does not appreciate. This is observable from Myron’s reply “ No, Mom. Kuwait City” (Coben 1995, 154) and her reacting to it with “Don’t be such a wise guy with your mother, save it for your friends” (Coben 1995, 154). However, it is worth mentioning that Myron uses sarcasm when interacting with most other characters except his clients; therefore, this is not unique in this situation; it is part of his character. The first interaction of Myron and his father in Deal Breaker is the latter greeting the former and offering him some rolls. This dialogue is concise and has one form of address,“Myron”, which is used by the father once. This instance barely provides any information on forms of address but their second dialogue supplies more. Their second interaction in the novel is presented in the form of a flashback. It occurs in the distant past when Myron,as a child, was going to the bathroom and accidentally wakes up his father (Coben 1995, 110). Here his father addresses his son once as “Myron” and once as “son”. Myron uses the informal variant of father “dad” four times. The dialogue explicitly shows that the father uses “tu” to address Myron from verbs like “atsikėlei”, “jautiesi” and directly using “tu” (Coben 2009, 104). Jessica’s first dialogue with her mother Carol takes place at their family home, is brief, and consists of them greeting each other (Coben 1995, 33). Carol addresses her daughter as “honey” here once while Jessica uses the informal “mom” also once. Jessica and Carol’s second dialogue occurs with late Jessica’s father’s best friend Paul Duncan as a participant. The context is that Carol interrupts their conversation as she tries to find out who Jessica is talking to (Coben 1995, 37). In terms of forms of address, Paul uses “Carol” once, Carol uses “Jessica once, and Jessica uses “mom” also once. The third dialogue that Jessica and Carol have involves another participant, Jessica’s younger brother Edward. The three family members are talking together in the kitchen, and Jessica explains that her little sister Kathy might be alive (Coben 1995, 117-119). Edward addresses Jessica as 42 “Jess” once, Carol uses “honey” to address her once, and Jessica uses “Edward” for her brother also once. As it can be observed, there is a discrepancy in how Jessica and Edward address each other. Despite being the younger sibling, he calls her “Jess, while she uses his full name as a form of address. This is touched upon in the novel from “her brother had always been Edward, not Ed or Eddie or Ted” (Coben 1995, 118), but no further reason is provided. All three characters have “tu/tu” interactions and this can be inferred from such instances like “jautiesi?” and “ką turi omeny?” (Coben 2009 117-119). The fourth dialogue between Jessica and her mother occurs in Adam Culver’s study, with Jessica investigating her sister’s disappearance, and Carol abruptly interrupting her (Coben 1995, 124-126). There are four kinds of forms of address being used. Carol uses “Jessica” once, “girls” to address both Jessica and her sister twice, and “sweetheart” once, while Jessica addresses her as “mom” once. Just like with previous dialogues, the “tu/tu” dynamic remains consistent and is even more explicit as Jessica uses “veiki”, “tave” and Carol directly uses “tu” to address her (Coben 2009, 118-119). Jessica’s second dialogue with Edward is situated when Edward goes to his father’s study to talk with Jessica who was making phone calls (Coben 1995, 209-112). Despite it being a longer interaction, there is only one form of address being used, which is “Jess”, and Edward uses it once in the whole dialogue. Jessica’s use of “aš tavo sesuo” and Edward’s “arba tu su Kete” consolidates that their relationship is that of an equal “tu/tu”(Coben 2009, 195). It is impossible to compare Myron’s and Jessica’s dialogues with their fathers because Jessica’s father is already deceased by the beginning of Deal Breaker. Furthermore, Myron is a single child (his brother is deceased), while Jessica has two siblings, Edward, and Kathy, who is presumed missing. However, there are some notable observations to be made when comparing Myron’s and Jessica’s dialogues with their mothers. Both characters use only the informal “mom” to address them. In the whole novel, Myron does this four times and Jessica three times, but her dialogues with Carol are longer. Jessica’s mother also uses a more extensive variety of forms of address for her daughter, which are “Jessica”, “honey”, and “sweetheart” while Myron’s mother uses only two variants, “Myron” and “Hon”. This could be explained by the fact that Carol is important to the plot of Deal Breaker. Myron’s mother is not related to the main plot of Jessica’s sister Kathy’s disappearance or any sub-plots, but Carol’s involvement is integral to solve the case. Also, Myron and Jessica both use the informal “tu/tu” dynamic to interact with their mothers, which is generally considered natural between family members. According to Kroger’s methodology, Myron and Jessica have a non-reciprocal relationship with their mothers. Myron’s interactions with his father are also non-reciprocal, but Jessica has a reciprocal relationship with her brother Edward; they both use first names to address each other equally. 43 6.5 Forms of address in the protagonists’ interactions that turn hostile The protagonists of both A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker have some relationships which change over the course of the novels. This is sometimes accompanied by a change in forms of address, but not always; other times the changes in a relationship are indicated in the context of the address forms. In this sub-section, Myron’s interactions with two characters Christian and Burke in Deal Breaker, and Brunetti’s interactions with Maurizio and Count Lorenzoni in A Noble Radiance are analyzed. The table below provides with the specific address forms and their frequency in the protagonists’ interactions with these four characters: Table 6. Forms of addresss in protagonists’ relationships that turn hostile. Participant Participant Their Address Frequency Address Frequency 1 2 relationship forms used of address forms used by of address by 1st forms by 2nd forms used st 1 by 2nd participant participant participant participant Myron Christian Sports agent “Christian” 6 “Mr. Bolitar” 10 Bolitar Steele and his “Sir” 1 client Myron Otto Burke Businesslike “Otto” 15 “Myron” 24 Bolitar (negotiations of Christian’s contract) Guido Maurizio Investigator “Conte 1 “Commissario” 4 Brunetti Lorenzoni and victim’s Lorenzoni” family “Signor 1 member Maurizio Lorenzoni” “Signore” 1 “Signor Lorenzoni” Guido Ludovico Investigator “Signor 3 “Commissario” 2 Brunetti Lorenzoni and victim’s Conte” family “Sir” 1 “Signor” 1 member “Signore” 1 “Signor 1 Brunetti” “Ludovico 1 Lorenzoni” Additionally, although not indicated in a table, in the analysis the relationships are categorized using Kroger’s methodology as reciprocal, non-reciprocal, or showing solidarity. Christian Steele is an important character and interlocutor in Deal Breaker who also serves the function of a focalizer at specific instances, although not in dialogues. He is the fiance of Kathy Culver and, as it eventually turns out, the killer responsible for her death. Myron and Christian’s relationship is intriguing; Christian is a rising football player who is a client of Myron, a sports 44 agent. Myron, who is in his thirties, is older than him, and Christian had just finished college. Myron and Christian have seven dialogues alone, and one where Jessica and Jake Paul, a police officer investigating the case of Kathy’s disappearance, are participants. In total, address forms are used in Myron and Christian’s interactions 17 times; six times by the former character and 11 times by the latter. However, there are only three variations of address forms used, which are “Mr. Bolitar”, “Sir”, and “Christian”. In the novel Christian uses “Mr. Bolitar” ten times and “Sir” one time, while Myron addresses Christian by his name six times. According to Cambridge Online Dictionary, Mr. Is a “title used before the family name or full name of a man who has no other title, or when talking to a man who holds a particular official position” (Cambridge Dictionary). This particular address form used by Christian is unusual in the regard that other Myron’s clients like Ricky Lane and Chaz Landreaux address Myron by his first name despite also being younger. Below three particular dialogues between Myron and Christian are presented, and these forms of address are analyzed in context and more detail. The first selected dialogue between Myron and Christian is their initial interaction in Deal Breaker, and a distressed Christian makes a phone call to set up a meeting (Coben 1995, 8-9). Christian addresses Myron as “Mr. Bolitar” twice, and the latter uses “Christian” also twice. At the beginning of the dialogue, the football player tries to confirm the speaker’s identity after Myron calls him by his name, which can be observed from “Mr. Bolitar? Is that you?” (Coben 1995, 8). The Lithuanian translator Reda Žekienė translates the “you” address into “jūs, a decision likely made from Christian’s use of “Mr. Bolitar”. Interestingly, right after this, Myron attempts to make their relationship more informal and closer, albeit unsuccessfully, which is observed from “Yes. And please call me... Myron” (Coben 1995, 8). Christian ignores this remark and continues addressing him as “Mr. Bolitar”. In the translation, there is no use of “tu” or “jūs” by Myron in the first dialogue, but a possessive variant of “tu” is used as observed from “Užsiėmęs derybomis dėl tavo kontrakto” (Coben 2009, 11). The second chosen dialogue between Myron and Christian follows the first one and occurs when Myron arrives at his client’s home after receiving his phone call to meet in person (Coben 1995, 14-20). In the whole interaction, Myron uses his name “Christian” to address his client two times while the latter addresses Myron as “Mr. Bolitar” thrice. Christian’s first use of “Mr. Bolitar” address here is together with his expression of confusion “I-I don’t understand it, Mr. Bolitar” (Coben 1995, 15). As mentioned, it is used only three times in a dialogue of six pages of length; not frequently compared to one of Myron’s interactions with Otto Burke where he addresses Myron by first name 11 times and Myron does the same 13 times in a five-page long dialogue. The third Myron’s interaction with Christian is very interesting because it occurs after it is revealed that the football player is the real culprit responsible for Jessica’s sister and father’s deaths. 45 The dialogue’s setting is in remote woods where Myron tricks Christian into believing that his victim Kathy is alive by pretending to have arranged a meeting with her. Here, like in previous dialogues, Myron uses “Christian” to address him once while the football player addresses Myron as “Mr. Bolitar” thrice. Myron uses this address form only at the beginning to greet Christian as observed from “Hello, Christian” (Coben 1995, 335). Right after, Christian responds with “Don’t move Mr. Bolitar. Put your hands up”. One could expect Christian to become more informal towards Myron as his position becomes threatened and address him as “Bolitar” or “Myron” but he does not. In addition, in the Lithuanian translation of Deal Breaker, he still uses the formal “jūs”. Furthermore, Christian attempts to get Myron to understand his perspective. This can be observed from the context of his subsequent use of forms of address “Kathy wanted me to still love her, Mr. Bolitar” (Coben 1995, 335), “Mr. Bolitar, tell her” (Coben 1995, 336), and “You understand, Mr. Bolitar” (Coben 1995, 336). Still, it could be argued that there is a decrease in formality because Christian uses an imperative “Hands up. Now” (Coben 1995, 335) as he threatens Myron with a gun. Overall, after applying Kroger’s methodology, Myron’s relationship with Christian is nonreciprocal; Myron addresses informally Christian by his first name, which he accepts and in turn uses the polite “Mr. Bolitar” as an address form. Myron attempts to change this dynamic during their first interaction into a reciprocal but unsuccessfully. Burke is also relevant to the central plot of Kathy’s disappearance. Brian Sanford, a private investigator he hires, is responsible for distributing the pornographic magazines featuring Kathy, which Burke uses to blackmail Myron in their negotiations over Christian’s contract. Otto Burke is one of the owners of the National Football League (NFL), is wealthy, and has high social status. Most of his meetings with Myron involve business negotiations since, as a sports agent, Myron has to get good contracts for the players he represents. In the novel, Myron and Burke have two dialogues alone and two in which Larry Hanson, a football manager and Burke’s subordinate, also participates. In total, both characters use address forms for one another 39 times, 15 times by Myron and 24 times by Burke. There are no variations of forms of address; Myron always addresses Burke by his first name “Otto”, while Burke, likewise, uses “Myron”. Myron tends to address people of higher status by their first names, and, in turn, be addressed the same way by them; reflecting the informality. The first dialogue chosen for the analysis is the first scene in the novel; Myron and Burke are negotiating a contract for Christian, a young football player; they are in Myron’s office. Here Myron addresses Burke as “Otto” once, while the latter uses “Myron” five times. The first time Burke addresses is to encourage him to accept his offer: “Come on, Myron” (Coben 1995, 1). However, in the other four cases, Burke threatens him, attempting to patronize him: “you don’t 46 want to lose money, Myron”; “Now, Myron, let’s speak rationally here, okay”; “Great, Myron, that’ll be helpful”; “You’re new at this, Myron, an ex-jock” (Coben 1995, 1-5). The second interaction takes place when Myron goes to the stadium to find out why Christian has been locked out of the football practice (Coben 1995, 80-83). Here only Burke uses address forms, using Myron’s first name “ eight times. In the beginning, he does this in a friendly way, placing importance on keeping up appearances: “Myron! Come on over. Have a seat” (Coben 1995, 80). However, soon Otto expresses his discontent and begins threatening Myron directly: “I’m not sure I like your tone, Myron”; “You’re going to take our current offer <...> if not, the picture of Ms. Culver goes public” (Coben 1995, 82). As in their first conversation, Myron uses sarcasm, mostly in response to Burke’s lies about having no involvement with the pornographic magazine and an exaggeration about another football player: “Sure. I guess you’re just a charter subscriber to Nips”, “He can almost throw a spiral” (Coben 1995, 81-82). The third conversation occurs when Myron meets Burke at the Titans stadium to have Christian’s contract signed (Coben 1995, 199-204). In this interaction, Myron uses Burke’s first name “Otto” to address him 13 times, while Burke addresses him as “Myron” 11 times. It is too challenging to analyze the context for every address form due to the frequency of their use, but most of them can be attributed into categories. At first, Otto is quite polite to Myron: “Please, Myron, sit wherever you like”; “I do try, Myron. Thank you for noticing”; “Care for a drink, Myron?” (Coben 1995, 199-201). However, Myron is familiar with Burke’s true opinion from their previous interaction and immediately responds with sarcasm: “Always the perfect host, Otto”, “Very perceptive, Otto”, “Thanks for keeping within the metaphor, Otto”, “Chicks dig that, don’t they, Otto?” (Coben 1995, 199-203). Here their relationship undergoes a more drastic change as Burke, unable to convince Myron to sign the offer, uses direct threats and even wants to employ violence:“Sign it, Myron. Or I’ll ruin you”; “Sign it. Now”; “Take the tape away from him. Forcibly, if necessary” (after Myron records their conversation to blackmail Burke); “I can call in security guards to help” (Coben 1995, 203). At times Burke makes condescending remarks to Myron, showing that he perceives himself as superior: “Remember this, Myron <...> appearance is far more important than reality”, “ I must caution you, Myron <...> there is a big difference between practice and games” (Coben 1995, 201-202). Myron and Burke’s relationship is reciprocal when Kroger’s methodology is applied; they both address one another using first names. However, Burke tries to exert power over Myron as he is a wealthy owner of a team and Myron only a beginning sports agent. Maurizio Lorenzoni is highly important to the main crime plot in A Noble Radiance; the murder victim is his cousin Roberto, and he knows about his uncle’s Count Lorenzoni’s involvement in it. Maurizio is the nephew of the count, himself a successful businessman, and is now set to inherit the 47 Lorenzoni family wealth due to his cousin’s death. He becomes the prime suspect in the course of Brunetti’s investigation as he would have benefited the most from Roberto’s death. In the novel, Brunetti and Maurizio have three private conversations and two in which his uncle and aunt, Count and Countess Lorenzoni, participate. In total, forms of address are used 13 times; ten times by Brunetti and three times by Maurizio. Maurizio always addresses Brunetti as “Commissario” but Brunetti uses several address forms for him, which are “Conte Lorenzoni”, “Signor Maurizio Lorenzoni”, “Signor Lorenzoni”, and “Signore”. In A Noble Radiance Brunetti addresses Maurizio as “Conte Lorenzoni”, “Signor Maurizio Lorenzoni” and “Conte” once, but uses “Signor Lorenzoni” seven times. Both Brunetti and Maurizio consistently address one another with polite address forms despite having their relationship undergo a drastic change at one point; this is indicated in the context of their discourse and forms of address. Brunetti and Maurizio’s first interaction occurs through a phone call when Brunetti attempts to contact Count Lorenzoni to inform him that the remains of his son Roberto have been found; unexpectedly, the count’s nephew answers the phone. In this scene, Brunetti uses the address forms “Conte Lorenzoni” and “Signor Maurizio Lorenzoni”once, but “Signor Lorenzoni” twice to address Maurizio, while the latter addresses Brunetti as “Commissario” twice. At the beginning of the scene, Brunetti is unsure of the speaker’s identity and tries to ascertain it by using “Conte Lorenzoni” and “Signor Maurizio Lorenzoni” as questions. Brunetti uses the “Signor Lorenzoni” address form here twice, once to express his uncertainty and once to thank Maurizio: “I don’t know, Signor Lorenzoni. It could be”; “ Thank you, Signor Lorenzoni” (Leon 1997, 98-99). Maurizio’s first use of “Commissario” is when he answers the phone: “What is this in relation to, Commissario?” (Leon 1997, 97). He uses this address form for a second time when he asks Brunetti if he is certain about the body’s identity: “Commissario, is there a chance that this isn’t Roberto? (Leon 1997, 99). As is later revealed, Maurizio is deeply involved in the murder, so that his motives for asking are not out of concern, as Brunetti believes here: at this point, the Commissario is completely unsuspecting of Maurizio. Another conversation takes place at Lorenzoni country villa, where Brunetti, after Maurizio mistakes him for a burglar and confronts him (Leon 1997, 165-173). In this scene Brunetti addresses Maurizio six times as “Signor Lorenzoni” and once as “Signore”, while Maurizio addresses him once by his work title “Commissario”. Brunetti first uses an address form in this scene as a response to Maurizio’s bluster over the shooting: “Do you always greet visitors that way, Signor Lorenzoni?” (Leon 1997, 165). In other cases, Brunetti uses the “Signor Lorenzoni” address form when he reprimands Maurizio for shooting and interrogates him: “I don’t like being shot at, Signor Lorenzoni”; “Do you have a license to carry a revolver, Signor Lorenzoni” (Leon 1997, 166167). He addresses Maurizio as “Signore” when the man attempts to ignore his question: “I think 48 you heard me, Signore” (Leon 1997, 166). During this scene, their relationship is tense because Brunetti becomes suspicious of Maurizio’s actions and uses a reprimanding tone, while Maurizio is hostile and evasive. However, over the course of the scene, Brunetti, aware of possible repercussions from his superior, tries to amend their relationship, and, in turn, Maurizio apologizes: “Perhaps we’re both in the wrong, Signor Lorenzoni”; “I’m sorry, Commissario. I was alone here, and it frightened me when the gates opened” (Leon 1997, 167-168). This exchange is effective because Maurizio is not hostile to Brunetti in their further interactions. In the novel, according to Kroger’s methodology, Brunetti and Maurizio have a non-reciprocal relationship as they use do not use equal forms of address for one another; Brunetti addresses Maurizio primarily as “Signor Lorenzoni”, while Maurizio only calls him by his work title “Commissario”. Count Ludovico Lorenzoni is a major character in the crime plot; he turns out to be responsible for his son Roberto’s death. The count is a wealthy businessman, owning transportation and construction companies in Italy and the rest of Europe; Most Venetians know about the Lorenzoni family. In the past, the count’s grandfather collaborated with the Nazis in their genocide of Italian Jews, but the count has managed to improve the family reputation. In the novel, Brunetti and Count Lorenzoni have two interactions alone; in one of these the count’s nephew Maurizio participates, and in another both his wife and Maurizio participate. All of their conversations take place at the Lorenzoni family home in Venice. The total number of address forms used by Brunetti and Count Lorenzoni is ten; the count addresses Brunetti four times, while Brunetti does so six times. The address forms that Brunetti uses for Lorenzoni include “Signor Conte”, which he employs three times, and “Sir”, “Signore”, “Ludovico Lorenzoni”, all of which he uses once. Count Lorenzoni uses three variations of address forms, which are “Commissario”, “Signor”, and “Signor Brunetti”, using the first twice, and the two following once each. As with Maurizio, Brunetti’s relationship with Count Lorenzoni also undergoes a significant change, which is indicated by the context and, to some degree, the address forms. The first dialogue between Brunetti and Count Lorenzoni takes place in the Lorenzoni Palazzo after Brunetti comes to discuss the finding of Roberto’s body in a province of Belluno (Leon 1997, 121-123). The count’s wife and his nephew Maurizio also participate in this scene. Here Brunetti uses the address form “Signor Conte” twice and “sir” once, while the count addresses Brunetti as “Commissario”, also twice. This is their first meeting; like most other Venetians, Brunetti has only heard of the Lorenzoni family. The count greets Brunetti very politely: “Good evening. Commissario. Excuse me if I don’t offer you something to drink. I think you’ll understand”, and Brunetti notes the softness of his voice (Leon 1997, 121). Brunetti responds by warning the family of the tragic news he brings: “I bring you the worst of news, Signor Conte” (Leon 1997, 121). Later 49 in the scene, it can be observed that the count does not pay much attention to Brunetti: “The Count turned away from Brunetti”; “the Count said, still not looking at hin”; “The Count said, still not bothering to take his eyes from” (Leon 1997, 122-123). The following times Brunetti speaks to the count in this scene is to express the urgent need to get information about Roberto’s kidnapping: “Signor Conte, as soon as possible, I’d like to speak to you about the <...> kidnapping”; “I realize how terrible this is, sir” (Leon 1997, 123). Interestingly, the count responds by using an imperative form, speaking with arrogance, and asserting his power as someone of higher social status. His hostility can be observed from “You’ll talk to me when I please, Commissario; he uses “Commissario” to remind Brunetti of their social inequality, which is the first sign of a change in their relationship. However, Brunetti does not respond to this remark. The two men’s second interaction occurs when Brunetti, having discovered new facts, meets with the count and Maurizio to question him; Countess Lorenzoni is present but only speaks briefly. Here Brunetti uses “Signor Conte” to ask Lorenzoni for additional information and “Sir” to specify what he says: “Is there anything else you can think of, Signor Conte?”; “Could you be more specific, sir?” (Leon 1997, 203, 205). The count’s demeanor is more hostile; now the count is clearly angry as he did not want to meet Brunetti and does not even greet him: “I don’t see why any of this is necessary <...> making no attempt to disguise his anger” (Leon 1997, 201). At first, it appears that Lorenzoni is afraid of hurting his wife as Roberto’s death weighs heavily upon her. However, as his involvement in the murder is revealed later, he may be more concerned not to give Brunetti any helpful information. As Brunetti questions him, their relationship worsens; the count expresses impatience and even makes fun of Brunetti: “Then why not just say it, for God’s sake?” and “Where do you live, on the moon?”. Brunetti, however, remains professional and does not react in kind (Leon 1997, 202-203). Lorenzoni suddenly ends the conversation, and his nephew Maurizio takes over: “I think this has gone on long enough” (Leon 1997, 205). The final scene between the two occurs when Brunetti, finally convinced that the count is involved in the murder, goes to his house to question him (Leon 1997, 259). At first, Lorenzoni refuses to meet him but agrees when Brunetti states that otherwise an official investigation into Roberto’s murder will be reopened. In this scene, Brunetti addresses the count twice, once as “Signor” and once using his full name “Ludovico Lorenzoni”. While the count also addresses Brunetti twice but uses the address forms “Signor” and “Signor Brunetti”. The emotional atmosphere and their relationship here differ again; the count does not express anger or make fun of Brunetti. Instead, he tries to make Brunetti sympathize with him by expressing concern about the effects the deaths of Roberto and Maurizio have had on his wife. His attempts to appeal to Brunetti can be observed in “Signor... I’m sorry, I’ve forgotten your name” followed by “Signor Brunetti, the police have been investigating my family for almost two years” (Leon 1997, 260). This is the 50 first and only time in the novel when the count addresses Brunetti by his last name; in other cases, he uses his occupation “Commissario”. In this scene, Brunetti addresses Lorenzoni without a title for the first time when he arrests him: “Because I am arresting you, Ludovico Lorenzoni”. The change in Brunetti and Count Lorenzoni’s relationship is also indicated by Brunetti’s internal conclusions about the count’s character. Brunetti recognizes whenever Lorenzoni: “making no attempts to disguise his skepticism”, “For it was at this point that the Count began to lie”, and “his belief that anything the Count said from now on would be a lie” (Leon 1997, 259, 268-269). As in other scenes with Lorenzoni, Brunetti manages to remain professional throughout most of the scene; he does not say more than necessary and retains his calm tone. However, in one case he becomes emotional when demanding for the names of people that the count hired to kidnap Roberto: “I want their names”; “Again that fervent tone. He lowered himself back <...> embarrassed at his own anger” (Leon 1997, 262). In this case, his strong sense of justice overcomes Brunetti. (Leon 1997, 214, 218). By applying Kroger’s methodology, Brunetti and Lorenzoni’s relationship is classified as nonreciprocal. They use unequal address forms; the count addresses Brunetti by his work title “Commissario”, while Brunetti addresses Count Lorenzoni more formally, such as, for example, “Signor Conte”. Guido Brunetti and Myron Bolitar, the protagonists of A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker, interact differently when their relationships with certain characters undergo changes. Brunetti always remains professional with Maurizio and Count Lorenzoni; he does not act very emotionally with them, despite being affected, as is evidenced by his thoughts. In Deal Breaker, Myron retains a non-reciprocal but positive relationship with Christian throughout most of the novel; he unsuccessfully tries to make it closer by encouraging him to address him using his first name. However, this relationship drastically changes near the end; one indication of this is when Christian changes from the polite “Mr. Bolitar” to “Bolitar”. With Burke, Myron has what seems like a reciprocal relationship; both use first names as address forms. However, Burke exerts his power through threats and mocking; the threats become explicit when the relationship becomes hostile, but the address forms do not change once the relationship changes. In Leon’s novel Brunetti and Maurizio have a non-reciprocal relationship; the address forms they use remain consistent even after their relationship changes; Maurizio always uses “Commissario” while Brunetti’s address forms are varied, but he mostly uses “Signor Lorenzoni”. The relationship between them changes twice; after Maurizio shoots at him it becomes hostile as Maurizio acts suspiciously but is amended by the efforts of both characters. Brunetti’s relationship with Count Lorenzoni is also non-reciprocal; Brunetti primarily addresses him as “Signor Conte” while he always calls him“Commissario”. Their relationship also changes twice; in their first 51 interaction, he is polite and courteous except in one instance, but in their second encounter, he is visibly angry and even makes fun of Brunetti. In their final interaction, the count exhibits more calm and appeals to Brunetti rationally, attempting to gain his sympathy. 7. Analysis of Lithuanian Translations of Forms of Address in Kilmingųjų spindesys and Dviveidis Forms of address in both novels are categorized according to their function and are analyzed for their translation strategies, noting down any exceptions and explaining them. The forms of address used in the analysis of the protagonists’ interactions analyzed in previous sections are included. A table is included in Appendix 3 to show the Lithuanian translations of the presented forms of address in context. 7.1 Titles, polite forms, job titles, and kin titles as forms of address in Kilmingųjų spindesys and Dviveidis Many forms of address used by characters in Leon’s A Noble Radiance reflect the formal manners common in many interchanges in Italian society. These include “Signor”, “Signor Conte”, “Contessa”, “Signorina”, and “Signora”, “Commissario”, and “Dottore”. The “Dottore” form of address is a polite way of addressing a person in Italy who possesses a university degree. In the translation, the original term is retained and italicized to indicate it is a foreignism to the Lithuanian readers; Davies’ preservation strategy is employed (Davies 2003, 72-73). Additionally, the choice to employ preservation leads to retaining the linguistic atmosphere of the Venetian setting of the novel for the target audience, even though Leon is an American writer aiming at English-speaking readers. For the “Signor” (Leon 1997, 97) form of address which Brunetti uses to address Maurizio Lorenzoni, it is adapted phonologically, resulting in “Sinjore” (Leon 2013, 82) as a form of address. According to Lionginas Pažūsis, the first process entails the changing of foreign names by applying the pronunciation, spelling, and morphology of the target language (Pažūsis 2014, 48). Brunetti’s “Signor” (Leon 1997, 121, 123) for Count Lorenzoni has two different translations; it is adapted phonologically as “Sinjore” (Leon 2013, 102) and localized as “Pone” (Leon 2013, 103). “Signorina” and “Signora” also undergo phonological adaption; they also have an established tradition in Lithuanian culture, which are “Sinjorina” and “Sinjora”. “Signorina” is employed for unmarried women, while “Signora” is used for married ones. The Lithuanian equivalents would be “Panele” and “Ponia” but the translator does not use them; the choice to translate them as “Sinjorina” and “Sinjora” adds on the Italian flavour to the Lithuanian text. A different approach is used for translating “Conte” (Leon 1997, 121) and “Contessa” (Leon 1997, 121), which are forms of address that refer to social rank. They are translated in Lithuanian as “Grafe” (Leon 2013, 101) and “Grafiene” (Leon 2013, 101) by employing what Davies calls localization. Here the titles “Conte” and “Contessa” refer to a specific level of nobility in Italy; their 52 translations as “Grafas” and “Grafienė” do not refer to the same social rank in Lithuanian texts which results in loss of specificity. “Conte” receives two different treatments in the translation. Brunetti’s “Signor Conte” form of address for Count Lorenzoni is localized: “Signor Conte, <...> i’d like to speak to you about the original kidnapping” (Leon 1997, 123); “Sinjore grafe <...> norėčiau pasikalbėti su jumis apie pagrobimą” (Leon 2013, 102). However, Valeria, a waitress working in a restaurant where Brunetti and his father-in-law Count Orazio have lunch, addresses Orazio by using “Signor conte”, and Davies’ preservation strategy is employed: “Molte bene, Signor Conte” (Leon 1997, 73); “Molte bene, Signor Conte” (Leon 2007, 63). As a result, Valeria’s form of address retains the same effect as in the source text, where it is also italicized, but an inconsistency arises due to its different treatment by Brunetti in the translation. The “Commissario” (Leon 1997, 119) form of address is used by people addressing Brunetti in his professional setting as it is his job title. It is translated as “Komisare” (Leon, 2013, 99) in the Lithuanian version as a form of address. Davies’ strategy of localization is used, which results in the loss of the Italian foreign flavour present in the original English text. Other job titles as forms of address in the novel are “Vice-Questore” and “Doctor”. “Vice-Questore” (Leon 1997, 90), is used by Brunetti to address his superior Patta and, by applying Davies’ localization strategy, is translated as “Vicekvestoriau” (Leon 2013, 77). “Doctor” (Leon 1997, 21) as a form of address is translated as “Daktare” (Leon 2013, 22) by also employing localization. In all cases it is used by Brunetti to refer to medical professionals. In the A Noble Radiance, two characters use kin titles as forms of address and they are Brunetti’s daughter Chiara and Roberto Lorenzoni’s girlfriend Francesca; Chiara uses “Papa” and “Mamma” to address her parents while Francesca uses “Mamma” to address her mother. In the Lithuanian translation, there is an inconsistency in Chiara’s use of “Papa”. Chiara calls Brunetti “Papa” (Leon 1997, 111-113) five times in one specific episode; in three instances it is italicized and left as it is in the source text, while in the two remaining occurences it is translated as “Tėti” (Leon 2013, 94) and “Tėte” (Leon 2013, 95). Preservation is used for those three cases for the translation of “Papa”, but “Tėti” and “Tėte” are translated by employing Davies’ localization, and both refer to an informal way of addressing one’s father. Chiara’s “Mamma” form of address is consistently translated as “Mama” (Leon 2013, 94) in all four cases, which is an informal Lithuanian variant of addressing one’s mother. Francesca addresses her mother in the source text also as “Mamma” (Leon 1997, 62), but, in contrast to Chiara’s case, preservation is employed and it is left as “Mamma” (Leon 2013, 54), resulting in the retention of the Italian foreignism that is present in the English source text. Kin titles as forms of address are used in Deal Breaker, but there is not much variation. Myron, his father, Jessica, and her brother Edward are the only characters who use them in the novel. Myron addresses his mother and father with informal “Mom” (Coben 1995, 154), and “Dad” 53 (Coben 1995, 110), which are localized as “Mama” (Coben 2009, 145) and “Tėti” (Coben 2009, 104). His father addresses him as “Son” (Coben 1995, 110) and localization is once again employed, which results in the Lithuanian “Sūnau” (Coben 2009, 104). Like Myron, Jessica uses “Mom” (Coben 1995, 33) to address Carol, which undergoes localization for the Lithuanian version, resulting in “Mama” (Coben 2009, 34). 7.2 Proper names and their replacements as forms of address in Kilmingųjų spindesys and Dviveidis Characters’ proper names used as forms of address in Kilmingųjų spindesys are all translated by using localization, one of Davies’ strategies. In the target text, they are phonologically adapted and have their endings modified. This is the case for both first and last names. In the target text “Guido”, “Maurizio”, and “Vianello” (Coben 1995, 49, 97, 110) become “Gvidas”, “Mauricijus”, and “Vianelas” (Coben 2009, 44, 82, 92); they are written according to pronunciation with the Lithuanian case endings “-as” and “-us” added to make them grammatically correct. According to the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language, endings are not added for most women’s first names (Valstybinė lietuvių kalbos komisija). In A Noble Radiance, they are phonologically adapted; “Cornelia”, and “Francessca” (Leon 1997, 122, 62) become “Kornelija” and “Frančeska” (Leon 2013, 102, 54), in the Lithuanian translation. No changes occur in the target text for Brunetti wife’s name “Paola”(Leon 1997, 114) (Leon 2013, 96). Unlike in A Noble Radiance, where the use of formal titles is prevalent, proper names are more commonly used in Deal Breaker. Proper names as forms of address, whether complete or contracted, are translated to Lithuanian by applying Davies’ localization strategy. Thus “Myron”, “Otto”, and “Christian” (Coben 1995, 1, 15) become “Mironas”, “Otas”, and “Kristianas” (Coben 2009, 18), taking into consideration their pronunciation and adding the masculine nominative Lithuanian ending “-as”. However, for “Myron” the strategy of localization is not completely applied because the vowel “y” is not pronounced as Lithuanian “i”. To compare, another character’s first name “Frank” (Coben 1995, 222) is localized as “Frenkas” or “Frenkai” (Coben 2009, 206) as a form of address; here the pronunciation of the vowel “a” is transferred to Lithuanian correctly as the vowel “e”. According to Pažūsis, there is still a tendency in Lithuania to transform long English vowels to Lithuanian “i” and “u” vowels is due to strong Russian language influence, which does not differentiate between short and long vowels (Pažūsis 2014, 53-54). This may be why the translator makes such a choice. Localization is also used for contracted first names so that “Jess (Jessica) (Coben 1995, 24) and “Win” (Windsor) (Coben 1995, 89), are translated as “Džese” (Coben 2009, 26) and “Vinai” (Coben 2009, 84); this is also done according to their pronunciation but an ending is only added to Win’s contracted form. Additionally, as the consonant “w” is not part of the Lithuanian language system, the consonant “v” is used. For women’s proper names, they also all 54 undergo localization where they are adapted the same way as those in A Noble Radiance. This is evident, for example, when the female first names “Jessica”, “Esperanza” and “Lucy” (Coben 1995, 23, 45, 169) are translated as “Džesika”, “Esperansa” and “Liusė” (Coben 2009, 24, 45, 159), including the phonological adaptation of Lithuanian endings. In a Noble Radiance, four characters use affectionate names as replacements for a character’s name at some point; these are Brunetti, Paola, Count Orazio, and Count Lorenzoni. Brunetti uses “My treasure” (Leon 1997, 54), for his wife Paola, and “Angel” (Leon 1997, 234) to address his daughter Chiara, while Paola uses “My dear” (Leon 1997, 126) for Brunetti ; these forms of address are translated as “angelėli”, “ brangenybe”, and “brangusis” (Leon 2013, 48, 191, 106). “brangenybe” and “brangusis” are simply localized but “Angelėli” is an interesting case; in addition to undergoing Davies’ localization, it is transformed into a diminutive form where an appropriate suffix is added to have the address form become more affectionate in correspondence to Brunetti’s close relationship with his daughter. Count Orazio uses “My dear” (Leon 1997, 73) often to refer to the waitress Valeria with whom he is acquainted; here localization is used, and it becomes “brangioji” (Leon 2013, 63). In Deal Breaker, four characters use affectionate names as forms of address; they are Myron, his mother, Jessica’s mother Carol Culver and her lover Paul Duncan. Myron uses “Sweetcakes” (Coben 1995, 22) for Jessica once when flirting with her, which is translated as “Meilute” (Coben 2009, 24) in Lithuanian. “Sweetcakes” appears to be culture-specific as a form of address; in Lithuania, unlike the USA, it is not acceptable to address one by using the names of cakes. A literal translation would sound unnatural to the Lithuanian audience; localization is applied as a translation strategy, and it becomes “Meilutė”, which is also affectionate form of address that can be used when flirting in Lithuanian culture. Other affectionate forms of address are translated by using Davies’ localization strategy consistently; Carol’s “Honey” (Coben 1995, 33) as “Mieloji” (Coben 2009, 34). Paul’s “Beautiful” (Coben 1995, 35) as “Gražuole” (Coben 2009, 36), and Myron mother’s “Hon”, (Coben 1995, 41), which is an abbreviation for honey, as “Mielasis” (Coben 2009, 41). In Deal Breaker, playful names as forms of address are also sometimes used as replacements for character proper names. Myron’s “Grasshopper” and “Mom” (Coben 1995, 60, 229), Jessica’s “Captain Fun” and “Zorro (Coben 1995, 68, 159), Esperanza’s “Daddy” (Coben 1995, 161) are some examples of this; “Mom” and “Daddy” are employed humorously in this context. In the Lithuanian version they are translated as “Žioge”, “Mama”, “Kapitone Pramoga”, “Zoro” and “Tėveli” (Coben 2009, 58, 213, 66, 150, 152). All of these forms of address except “Zorro” undergo literal translation”. “Zoro” is an established form in the Lithuanian culture that originates from the 1920s Zorro. Another category for forms of address in the novel is insults, which are not used in A 55 Noble Radiance. Only Danny Clarke, a football coach, uses insults as forms of address for Myron, which are “Asshole” and “Shithead” (Coben 1995, 132). They are translated by Reda Žekienė as “Žioply”, and “Šikniau” (Coben 2009, 125). Interestingly, the translation of “Asshole” to “Žioply” can be considered less offensive in the Lithuanian target text. Playful names are not employed as forms of address in A Noble Radiance. 56 CONCLUSION This thesis focused on forms of address used in two contemporary English-language novels and their translation into Lithuanian. The two novels, Donna Leon’s A Noble Radiance (1997) and Harlan Coben’s Deal Breaker (1995) are from the same genre, crime fiction. This genre was chosen because the investigation of a crime naturally involves questioning a wide variety of people from different social circles. In addition, there are usually many dialogues in this kind of fiction. There are 72 dialogues in Leon’s novel and 123 in Coben’s. As the analysis in this thesis shows, forms of address are an interesting topic since they reveal a good deal about social and individual relations. Every society has its norms for what forms of address should be used between, for example, friends and family members as opposed to two strangers. Questions like class and relative age are significant. The translator of a novel with many different kinds of social relations has to consider a variety of factors in choosing a translation in the target language that is socially appropriate and fits the specific situations in the novel. When the source and target languages are English and Lithuanian, the Lithuanian translator has an additional decision to make in terms of using the formal or informal equivalent for “you” – “tu” or “jūs”. Lithuanian style allows one to omit the pronoun in many cases, but the choice between formal and informal is still evident in the verb ending. The particular analysis of the Lithuanian translations in this respect shows that Rita Kubilienė, the translator of Kilmingųjų spindesys, and Reda Žekienė, the translator of Dviveidis, do not have freedom in choosing which pronoun to employ but must interpret correctly by studying the situations at hand and social relations. They have to consider such aspects as the characters’ relationships, their differences in age, and social status. The societies depicted in the novels dictate the choices that Kubilienė and Žekienė have to make. The Venetian society in a Noble Radiance emphasizes formal social relations; age, gender, social status, education are considered and reflected in the specific choices of forms of address. In contrast, the American society depicted in Deal Breaker tends to prefer informality, even with strangers. Kubilienė and Žekienė keep such social codes in mind when making the appropriate translation choices. For example, Kubilienė uses the formal “jūs” in the protagonist’s interactions with his co-worker, father-in-law, and with people he meets for the first time to show this. Žekienė’s awareness of American society’s tendency towards informality is observed in her decision to use the informal “tu” when the protagonist interacts with strangers, some of whom are older than him and have more power. The analysis of the translation strategies employed for the forms of address in the Lithuanian translations of the two novels concluded that localization and preservation are primarily used. Both translators make use of the localization strategy, but preservation is used only in 57 Kilmingųjų spindesys, and with the intention to retain the Italian foreignisms present in the English source text. The results of the descriptive statistical analysis of the “tu/tu”, “tu/jūs, and “jūs/jūs” in the Lithuanian translations of the two novels show interesting patterns. In Dviveidis, interactions with an equal dynamic of pronoun use are most common, especially those where “tu/tu” is employed. The number of people with whom the protagonist interacts by using an equal dynamic is four times higher than with those where an unequal dynamic is used. Only a small number of characters, including the protagonist, have unequal dynamics, which suggests the American society depicted in the novel does not readily recognize and accept inequalities. Two tendencies regarding pronoun usage have been found. Žekienė reserves the equal “tu/tu” dynamic for family members and friends, while the “jūs/jūs” dynamic is present in interactions with strangers that occur in formal settings. In Kilmingųjų spindesys, one could expect the unequal dynamic to prevail because Italian society places significant importance on social relations. However, relationships with an equal dynamic are more common, especially those of “jūs/jūs”. Two observations have been made regarding pronoun use in the translation. Kubilienė employs an equal “tu/tu” dynamic only for the protagonist’s family members, while the unequal “tu/jūs” dynamic is present in all workplace relationships between a subordinate and their superior, regardless of their education level. Kubilienė uses the appropriate Lithuanian pronouns consistently throughout the novel, but pronouns translated by Žekienė sometimes undergo change. Occasionally, it is done to reflect the changing relationship, but at other times, it is likely a result of her oversight. 58 WORKS CITED “Adaptuotų asmenvardžių ir galūnių rašymas”.N.d. Valstybinė lietuvių kalbos komisija. Accessed 19 March 2021, vlkk.lt/aktualiausios-temos/svetimvardziai/adaptavimas Adeane, Olinda. 2020. “A palazzo on Venice’s Grand Canal decorated by Jacques Grange”. House&Garden. Accessed 25 January, houseandgarden.co.uk/gallery/ palazzo-faliervenice Baldick, Chris. 2001. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barton, Edwin J. and Glenda A. Hudson. 2004. A Contemporary Guide to Literary Terms: With Strategies for Writing Essays About Literature. 2nd edition. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman. 1960.“The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity”. In Style in Language, ed. T. A. Sebeok. Massachusetts: MIT Press. 253-276. Coben, Harlan. 1995. Deal Breaker. New York: A Dell Book. Coben, Harlan. 2009. Dviveidis. Translated by Reda Žekienė. Kaunas:UAB „Jotema”. Cuddon, J. A. 1992. “Police procedural”. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. 3 rd ed. London: Penguin. 727-728. Čepaitienė, Giedrė. 2007. Lietuvių Kalbos Etiketas: Semantika ir Pragmatika. Šiauliai: Šiaulių universitetas. Danytė, Milda. 2011. Introduction to the Analysis of Crime Fiction. Kaunas: Vytautas Magnus University. Web. 25 September 2020. Davies, Eirlys E. 2003. “A Goblin or a Dirty Nose. The Treatment of Culture-specific References in Translations of Harry Potter Books. The Translator 9: 72-89. Horsley, Lee. 2005. Twentieth-Century Crime Fiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. “Italian Police Hierarchy”. N.d. Hierarchy Structure. Accessed 22 January 2021, hierarchystructure.com /italian-police-hierarchy/ Kroger, Rolf O. 1982. “Explorations in Ethogeny with Special Reference to the Rules of Address”. American Psychologist 37, No. 7 (July): 810-820. Leech, Geoffrey N. and Michael H. Short. 1981. Style in Fiction. Ed. Randolph Quirk. London and New York: Longman. 159-171. Leon, Donna. 1997. A Noble Radiance. London: Penguin Books. Leon, Donna. 2013. Kilmingųjų spindesys. Translated by Rita Kubilienė. Vilnius: “Charibdė” Murfin, Ross and Supryia M. Ray. 2003. The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms. 2nd edition. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s. “Mr.”. Cambridge Dictionary, s.v. Accessed 10 October 2020, dictionary.cambridge.org/ dictionary/english/mr Nykaten, Elise and Aino Koivisto. 2016. “Introduction: Approaches to Fictional Dialogue.”Literary Linguistics International Journal 5, No. 2 (May): 1-10. Page, Norman. 1973. Speech in the English Novel. New York: Humanity Books. Pažūsis, Lionginas. 2014. Kalba ir Vertimas. Vilnius: Vilniaus universitetas. Penzler, Otto. N.d. “What is a police procedural?”, Crime Reads. Web 26 April 2020 Porter, Dennis. 2003. “The Private Eye”, in The Cambridge Companion to Crime Fiction,ed. Martin Priestman. New York: Cambridge University Press: 95-105. Ray, Michael. 2021. “Grand Canal”. Britannica. Accessed 23 January 2021, britannica.com/topic/Grand-Canal-Venice-Italy Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. 1988. Narrative Fiction, 106-108. London: Routledge. “Santi Apostoli”. 2011. TouristLink. Accessed 21 January 2021, https://www.touristlink.com/italy/santi-apostoli-venice/overview.html “signorina”. 2011 Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster. Accessed 26 April 2020. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/signorina “sir”. 1999. Dictionary.cambridge.org. Cambridge Online Dictionary. Accessed 30 April 2020. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sir Statista Research Department. 2021. “Tourism in Venice - Statistics & Facts”. Statista. Accessed. 11 March 2021, statista.com/topics/5979/tourism-in-venice/ “Strada Nova: for Rialto go straight”. 2015. My Venice Apartment. Web 22 January 2021, https://www.myveniceapartment.com/strada-nova-for-rialto-go-straight/ “Church of San Marcuola”.N.d. Venice-tourism.com. Accessed 23 January 2021, venicetourism.com/en/places/cannaregio-district/church-san-marcuola Thomas, Bronwen. 2007.”Dialogue.” In The Cambridge Companion to Narrative, Ed. David Herman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 80-86. Thomas, Bronwen. 2008. “Dialogue in the novel.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory, Eds. David Herman, Manfred Jahn and Marie-Laure Ryan. New York: Routledge. 105. “Who really owns Britain?”. 2010. Country Life. Accessed 24 January 2021, https://www.countrylife.co.uk/articles/who-really-owns-britain-20219 Appendix 1: Plot Summaries of A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker Leon’s A Noble Radiance starts with the discovery of the body of Roberto Lorenzoni, a young member of a prominent noble family in Venice; it is found buried on a property in Belluno, Italy. This murder case is passed onto Guido Brunetti, the Comissario in the Venice Questura. From his investigation he finds out that it began with a kidnapping; the kidnappers were asking for a ransom from Roberto’s father, Count Ludovico Lorenzoni, but this eventually leads to the murder of the boy. Brunetti receives help in this case from Signorina Elettra, the Vice-Questore’s secretary, Vianello, his subordinate, Count Orazio, his father-in-law, and Sergio, his brother. Roberto’s cousin Maurizio becomes the primary suspect but later is murdered by his uncle Count Lorenzoni, in what the Count claims was an act of self-defense. Late in the narrative Brunetti finds out that Roberto was unknowingly transporting a briefcase filled with hazardous radioactive material across Europe as part of the family business; out of curiosity because he is kept in the dark by his family, he opens it in a hotel room in Belarus. He eventually gets very sick from deadly radiation poisoning. Count Lorenzoni and Maurizio realize what has happened and devise a plan to have him killed to keep the illegal family dealings a secret. At the end of the novel, after being confronted with the truth by Brunetti, the count is arrested; he appeals to the sentimentality of the public as a poor father who tragically lost his family. This disgusts Brunetti, who does not think the Count pays enough for his heinous crimes. Coben’s Deal Breaker starts with Myron Bolitar, an ex-basketball player and currently a sports agent, negotiating a deal for his client Christian Steele. Right after, Christian contacts Myron to tell him that his fiance Kathy Culver, who disappeared and was presumed dead, is potentially alive after finding her photo in an erotic magazine. This becomes personal for Myron as Kathy is his ex-girlfriend Jessica’s sister. From his investigation, he finds out that Kathy was getting involved in scandalous affairs as revenge to her mother, whom she found cheating with her late father’s best friend. Myron receives help with the case from his best friend Win, Esperanza, and Jessica. In the end, it becomes apparent that Christian murdered Kathy and two other people; he is arrested for his crimes. Appendix 2: Genres and Societies of A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker From a broad perspective, Leon’s A Noble Radiance can be ascribed to the genre of crime fiction. According to Danytė, a crime fiction narrative can be defined as “any story that has a crime and its solution as a central feature of its plot” (Danytė 2011, 5). However, critics make an important distinction regarding this genre; She explains that “literary specialists reserve the term crime fiction for a more recent genre that developed in the late 19th century, in which there is more mystery about the crime that has taken place” (Danytė 2011, 5). She states that for these type of narratives more focus is brought onto the process of crime-solving which the main character performs (Danytė 2011, 5). Danytė lists a number of elements common in crime fiction as a genre: and some of them are, for example, “a crime, most often murder, is committed early in the narrative, a central character formally and informally acts as a detective, usually the detective interviews the suspects, as well as witnesses” (Danytė 2011, 5). A Noble Radiance belongs to a sub-genre of crime fiction known as the police procedural. According to Danytė, “after the second world war, both in Britain and the United States, a new kind of crime fiction appears in which the police and their methods of investigation are at the heart of these narratives” (Danytė 2011, 29). She also introduces a new narrative element that distinguishes this genre from other kinds of crime fiction: “it pays a good deal of attention to the way that police investigations really work and so seems more realistic than Golden Age or Noir crime fiction” (Danytė 2011, 29). She emphasizes that the police in police procedurals consist of “ordinary individuals that may be clever or stupid, hard-working or lazy, have a strong variety of private interests that interfere with their work and are presented as individualized characters” (Danytė 2011, 29). Danytė puts significant emphasis on particular aspects regarding these characters and deems them extremely important: “they belong to a strict hierarchy, are assigned specific tasks in an investigation, <...> work in pairs and teams, reporting back regularly to police headquarters, <...> the requirements of the law for evidence against criminals means that they have to write a vast number of shorter or longer reports” (Danytė 2011, 29). She notes eight major characteristics of police procedurals, which are social realism, moral and ideological values of a conservative kind, the detective represents and re-establishes order,<...> rational studying of evidence and psychological deduction, <...> the police officer is often in danger, romance and love in the lives of police officers are often part of the plot, police detectives <...> feel very much part of their community, the general tone <...> is exciting, fast-moving, and action-oriented and the narratives begin with one or more crimes that need to be investigated <...>. They conclude with some crimes being solved, though the criminals may not be brought to justice (Danytė 2011, 33). J. A. Cuddon also emphasizes the realism of police procedurals. According to him, “Police procedurals deal realistically with crime from the point of view of the police and how they solve crimes and catch criminals. The central figure is a professional police officer …” (Cuddon 727). Cuddon states that “The procedural is predominantly a British and American genre...” (Cuddon 1992, 727). Otto Penzler defines police procedurals by explaining that “In terms of solving a crime, the most realistic approach is offered in stories in which the police are the dominant figures” (Penzler). According to Penzler, in murder cases, “an entire squad cooperates to find the killer … uniformed cops, followed by detectives, medical examiners, forensic experts, psychologists, sketch artist, etc” (Penzler). Just like Cuddon, Penzler also notes the realism of this genre by stating that “the methodology of detection is based on real-life police work” (Penzler). Penzler also emphasizes that police officers are depicted realistically by stating that “police officers are recognizably human, neither evil nor angelic” (Penzler). Donna Leon’s A Noble Radiance has features that can be ascribed to police procedural. One is that, as previously mentioned by Danytė, “the detective represents and re-establishes order” (Danytė 2011, 32). This notion applies to the main character Brunetti because he has the motivation to establish justice while doing his job and investigating the case of Roberto Lorenzoni’s death. This is made apparent when Brunetti’s wife Paola asks Brunetti why he is so interested in this case; he assures her that he wants to learn the truth. Another characteristic of a police procedural is “rational study of evidence and psychological deduction” (Danytė 2011, 32). Brunetti spends a good amount of time during his investigation interviewing potential witnesses, researching, consulting people for information, awaiting laboratory results for example, the victim’s dental records, blood, and other information about his health) and drawing conclusions from information and evidence. In addition, Danytė states that “police interviews are often very official, both with suspects or people who have been arrested” (Danytė 2011, 32). Brunetti is always polite during his interviews and never shows his strong emotion, although many interactions do upset him; he never makes this apparent to the other party, but later discusses his feelings with others. However, the novel has features not typical of the police procedural genre. In her explanation of the social realism characteristic, Danytė states that “Although the police hierarchy and police stations are fictionalized to some extent, they still closely reflect the real police in a specific place” (Danytė 2011, 31). Donna Leon’s A Noble Radiance does not completely conform to the social realism requirement because she simplifies the police system in several aspects. One of them is that in A Noble Radiance there are no police officers of the same or lower rank than Brunetti’s subordinate Sergeant Vianello presented. Real-world police stations of such size would have a considerable number of lower-rank police officers. Another feature atypical of a police procedural is that the novel’s main character Guido Brunetti’s high-ranking position of a Commissario is not represented realistically; he is too active. According to Hierarchy structure, in Italy a Commissioner or Commissario is a “second in command and subordinate to chief of commissioner” (Hierarchy Structure). Therefore, Brunetti would be expected to have numerous subordinates to do active field-work and brings reports to him. However, in the novel he conducts the investigation himself by traveling to places of interest, directly questioning witnesses outside of his workplace. This is observed from cases when Brunetti questions the victim Roberto Lorenzoni’s family at their residence and the victim’s cousin Maurizio’s ex-girlfriend at her workplace. Therefore, Leon’s attempt to portray the police system is not realistic but is likely understandably done with the audience’s entertainment in mind; realistic portrayal of Brunetti’s position would not be interesting. Coben’s Deal Breaker stands in an individual position as a sub-genre of crime fiction. It cannot be explicitly attributed to a specific one but bears the closest resemblance to hard-boiled crime fiction, which is largely American. According to Danytė, a hard-boiled crime novel is also “often called the noir thriller” (Danytė 2011, 19). She notes that its development was “much the same time as Golden Age fiction” (Danytė 2011, 19). Regarding the development of hard-boiled fiction, Dennis Porter says that “class-based assumptions and economic determinism of the interwar years was supplanted by other pre-occupations during later decades (Porter 2003, 69)”. Danytė explains that in hard-boiled crime fiction or the noir thriller the detective is “at first always a man, is a professional private detective (or private investigator, from which the American term, the private eye, a pun on the letters “p.i.”comes from)” (Danytė 2011, 19). Furthermore, she emphasizes that this character “is always a young man, physically very strong and able to fight, familiar with guns and ready to risk his own life to solve crimes” (Danytė 2011, 19). Dennis Porter states that this type of crime fiction, which he calls private eye crime fiction, “depended on particular on a particular historical, socio-economic and cultural conjuncture (Porter 2003, 95)”. Porter also places importance on the modern American industrial capitalist system and notes that “it was the decades following the civil war <...> that laid the foundations of modern American industrial capitalist system which was more or less fully formed by the 1920s (Porter 2003, 95)”. Porter uses Hammet’s Red Harvest as an example and states that in this type of fiction: the voice establishes itself as a distinctive male voice <...> who has knocked about a bit, and knows how to handle himself on a tough urban street <...>. The reader <...> is worlds away from the polite speech of S. S. Vanderdine’s contemporary American detective fictions <...> British golden age writers as Dorothy L. Sayers and Agatha Christie (Porter 2003, 99). Porter uses the example of Sam Spade’s “San Francisco” to highlight another feature and emphasizes that “people appear and disappear or turn up inconveniently dead. Deceit and the double-cross in the observable pursuit of in the obsessive pursuit of wealth, or even occasionally of sex, are a way of life (Porter 2003, 100)”. In Deal Breaker, Christian Steele deceives Myron and other characters through manipulation in the pursuit of his sports career and is revealed to be the culprit. Porter states that in Raymond Chandler’s work the central character Phillip Marlowe “In the popular idiom of the time, he is a wise-cracking wise guy <...> he is first of all a pragmatic man of action but one with a work ethic that requires him all the punishment low-life hitmen or venal cops can hand out and come back for more (Porter 2003, 105)”. Although not having such encounters with the police, Myron encounters these kinds of hitmen several times and takes physical punishment from them. One example of this is Myron getting beaten up by New York gangster Herman’s thugs in Clancy’s tavern: “the kicks came in a nonstop flurry. Myron curled into a fetal position and tried to ride it out” (Coben 1995, 218), which is translated as “spyriai nesiliovė. Mironas susirietė kaip embrionas ir stengėsi kiek įmanoma jų išvengti (Coben 2009, 203). Lee Horsley brings up another defining characteristic of hard-boiled crime fiction. She states that “the cityscape itself is generally taken to be one of the defining features (Horsley 2005, 71). According to Horsley, in hard-boiled crime fiction “it is the big city that most regularly threatens a protagonist’s sense of a discrete self, his powers of understanding, and his physical safety (Horsley 2005, 71)”. In the analyzed novel, Myron gets a hefty bounty put on his head by an influential mobster Frank Ache; the city of New York is unsafe for him as danger lurks in every corner. Horsley emphasizes another trait of this sub-genre is states “voice is crucial to hard-boiled fiction, and the verbal armoury of the private eye - slang and tough talk, the laconic wit of the wisecrack, the hard boiled simile-affords him an aura of mastery, however illusory this control might be (Horsley 2005, 73)”. This is evident in cases where Myron is threatened, either physically or verbally. In Coben’s novel, the main character Myron Bolitar is, although unofficially, a detective because he performs the tasks of one. In the past, he worked for the FBI, and although now he is a sports agent, throughout the novel Myron investigates cases related to him, people close to him, or work acquaintances. He is proficient in fighting (has a black belt in taekwondo), carries a gun, knows how to operate it, is fairly young (30 years old), feels fear but does not let it show, and risks his life to achieve his objectives. According to Danytė, another important characteristic of hard-boiled crime fiction is that they “tend to move very quickly and include a large number of physical confrontations as the detective tries to gather information” (Danytė 2011, 19). As opposed to Leon’s A Noble Radiance, a police procedural where there is only a single physical confrontation, Coben’s Deal Breaker has numerous scenes of physical confrontations and Myron is included in all of them (scene with Myron confronted by Fedora and another goon in the parking garage, Myron and Esperanza held at gunpoint by Fedora and a new goon, Myron getting beat up by Herman’s goons). Like Brunetti, Myron also carries a gun, but both characters only use it once. Brunetti uses it together with Vianello in a confrontation with Maurizio at Lorenzoni villa while Myron uses it to deescalate a dispute with Lucy and Hector at the photography studio but he never shoots. Donna Leon’s A Noble Radiance and Harlan Coben’s Deal Breaker depict two very different societies which are linked to their respective genres. Occasionally there are specific references to certain cultural aspects that are prevalent in the locations in which the novels take place in. They can influence the characters’ interactions and even forms of address depending on what is valued in that society and its norms. First, an analysis is made on Venice, the setting of A Noble Radiance, and its cultural aspects. There are numerous references to the architecture and topography of Venice in A Noble Radiance. An existing university is being referred to from “Paola, Brunetti’s wife, taught English Literature at the University of Ca Foscari” (Leon 1997, 46). Another reference to architecture is Palazzo Falier, where it first comes up from “had he no idea of the exact number of phone lines going into Palazzo Falier” (Leon 1997, 48). In the novel, Palazzo Falier is Brunetti’s father-in-law Count Orazio Falier’s family home. However, in real-life Venice, it was the property of the actual Falier family which currently belongs to Giovanni Giol, the president of Conservatorio di Musica Benedetto Marcello (House&Garden). According to House&Garden, the building’s “pivotal position, near the Academia bridge, reflects the importance of the Faliers, with three doges in the family history” (House&Garden). References to the topography of Venice can be observed from “He cut through to Santi Apostoli and up Strada Nuova as far as San Marcuola where he took the traghetto across the Grand Canal” (Leon 1997, 57). According to Tourist Link, “San Apostoli is a 7th century Roman Catholic church located in the Cannagerio sestiere of the Italian city of Venice” (Tourist Link). My Venice apartment states that “Strada Nuova is one of the most important streets in the city that connects the Port of Venice to the heart of Venice” (Venice apartment). Venicetourism.com describes San Marcuola as a church which “faces the Grand Canal and was erected by Family Memmo” (Venice-tourism.com). The final reference in this passage is the Grand Canal, which, according to Britannica, is the “main waterway of Venice, Italy” (Britannica). This is one example but there are numerous cases where Leon describes Brunetti’s movements in detail when he travels on foot. Another notable feature of the Venetian society in Leon’s novel is that there is an emphasis on food; it is described in detail, and visiting cafes is common. An example of this is when Brunetti and his father-in-law have lunch at La Busolla, and the waitress asks for their orders. The waitress tells the men when the food items were procured and how they were prepared This can be observed from “we made the sarde last night, and the seppie came from Rialto this morning” and “the rombo’s grilled, and the coda’s baked with white wine, zucchini, and rosemary” (Leon 1997, 73-74). Brunetti pays great attention to the food the waitress offers; he doubts about the freshness of cuttlefish roe, thinks about how his wife makes it, and his reason for refusing a particular dish is explained in detail (Leon 1997, 73-74). The detailed descriptions also apply to drinks. Count Orazio becomes upset that he cannot order the Chardonnay brand of wine and contemplates about the reason why. His reaction is described as “<...>the Count said with sudden fury. Best wine they make, and they can’t serve it, probably because of some legal nonsense<...>” (Leon 1997, 75). Additionally, even the process of Brunetti and Orazio eating is described in “neither man bothered to bone the tiny fish, but forked them up, dripping oil, sliced onions, <...> and ate them whole” (Leon 1997, 76). Throughout this long conversation, Leon often focuses on describing how they eat. Another example of the importance of food is when Brunetti returns home, and his daughter and wife are making ravioli (Leon 1997, 111). Their appearance and the process of making them are emphasized; Brunetti describes their shape, his wife instructs their daughter on how long the mushrooms used for filling must be cooked. Just like in the previous example, the dish is emphasized numerous times in the conversation between Brunetti and his family. Furthermore, food often becomes a topic in Brunetti’s interactions with family at home. Another important aspect of Venetian society in Leon’s A Noble Radiance is aristocracy and business. The two aristocratic families in the novel are the Lorenzonis and Orazios. For example, Great Britain, where the nobles profited from renting their numerous owned lands, and, according to Country Life, currently “more than a third of land is still in the hands of aristocrats and traditional landed gentry” (Country Life). However, in Venice, the nobles do not own much land; most of their profits are procured from their business dealings. One of Count Orazio’s business dealings includes textiles. This becomes apparent when he tells Brunetti about his business relations with Lorenzonis “in the past, I used their trucks to take textiles to Poland and to bring back <...> vodka” (Leon 1997, 72). Brunetti describes that Lorenzonis are famous for their businesses in steel, cotton, and own numerous diverse foreign companies, such as trucking companies, beet processing plants, chain of luxury beach hotels, a cement company (Leon 1997, 35). In the course of the novel, it is revealed that they illegally sell nuclear material in Eastern Europe. Finally, Venice is unique because the tourists outnumber the local citizens. Leon references this in Orazio’s speech “now all we have is tourists, and the rich ones are accustomed to fancy food like this” (Leon 1997 80). According to Statistita, “the number of overnight stays <...> roughly doubled from 2003 to 2019, making it the second Italian municipality by number of overnight stays” (Statista). It can be inferred from the Count’s speech that he does not appreciate the significant rise of tourists and the decrease in the local population. This is a reference to the fact that many local Venetians believe that the number of tourists is too big for Venice to cope. Coben’s Deal Breaker depicts the US society in New York City. It differs significantly in some aspects compared to Venetian society; there has never been an aristocracy and there is rarely any emphasis on manners. Unlike A Noble Radiance, famous architecture is not referenced, and explicit information on Myron’s movements and surroundings when he is travelling is not provided. Often, details of him moving around New York are omitted; it is skipped to destinations. This could be explained by the common use of vehicles to get around New York due to its size; a contrast to Venice, where traversing using such a method is impossible, and people must walk or use boats. However, in one instance, the movements of Gary Grady whom Myron and Jessica are tailing in his car are described in detail (Leon 1997, 70). Overall, there are some specific aspects of New York society depicted in the novel that are unlike in Venice presented in Leon’s work. First, in Coben’s Deal Breaker, none of the powerful and influential characters are aristocratic and they all have achieved their status due to business dealings. Three notable characters, Windsor Lockwood, Otto Burke, and Herman Ache belong to this category. The first character, Win, achieved his wealth as a result of the successful financial investment company Lockwood Investments which he established. Otto Burke, the owner of a prominent football team NFL Giants, also achieved his status through his successful career. However, the novel also presents instances where he exerts his influence by hiring private investigators to obtain his players’ secrets, which he uses for blackmail to benefit his career. Herman Ache is a notorious mobster in New York city who thrives due to his illegal and shady business practices, one of which is lending money at high-interest rates. This is how he acquires Myron’s business competitor Roy O Connor’s sports agency, which Roy sells to him to cover his debts. In the novel Herman exercises his influence by blackmailing and hiring hitmen to intimidate or even kill an individual. This can be observed when he and his brother Frank puts a 30000 USD bounty on Myron’s head over his refusal to terminate Chaz’s contract; New York city becomes unsafe for Myron (Leon 152). Overall, it is important to emphasize that no one, including these three characters, hail from the aristocracy. The society of New York depicted in Coben’s Deal Breaker places significant emphasis on sexuality. This is presented in the forms of the sex industry, which Myron encounters a great deal in the novel, the personality of a specific character, and the circumstances of Kathy Culver, the victim who disappeared, herself. In contrast, the Venetian society in A Noble Radiance has no references to sexuality at all, a possible implication that the people living there consider it a private matter that is seldom discussed or encountered in daily life. In Deal Breaker, sexuality is observed in various sex industries like pornographic magazine publishing, sex phone lines, and erotic photography studio. They are significant because are linked to the case of Kathy disappearance which is at the center of the plot. Christian Steele’s, Kathy’s fiance’s, discovery of a pornographic magazine Nips featuring a photography and telephone number of the girl is what sets the case in motion (Coben 1995, 18). The topic of sex phone lines becomes relevant once Myron tries to call the number in that magazine, although unsuccessfully; a worker named Tawny answers the phone (Coben 1995, 28). The introduction of the photography studio, which is run by a friend of Myron co-worker’s friend Lucy, is pertinent as means of showing Kathy father’s involvement; before his death, he purchased all photos that Kathy’s high school teacher Gary Grady took of his daughter. His intention was to stop their circulation. Dean Gordon’s wife Madeleine Gordon can be perceived as a representation of the sexuality present in Coben’s work in her character traits. The protagonist Myron first encounters Madeleine unexpectedly when he visits Dean Gordon’s, one of the persons of interest in Kathy’s disappearance, home (Coben 1995, 139). Her mature sexuality is immediately noticed by Myron and repeated throughout the interaction. This as can be observed from “she was not young, but she had a grace and beauty and sex appeal that made Myron’s mouth a little dry”, “she was also long legged and curvy. All in all, a nice package”, and to grace, beauty, and sex appeal <...>” (Coben 1995, 139140). Furthermore, she makes a subtle attempt to seduce Myron as observed when she refers to her husband in “he won’t be home for hours” and Myron reports that “heavy accent on the word hours” (Coben 140). In their second encounter Madeleine becomes more explicit in the presentation of her sexuality as evident from “that kind of thing turn you on” and “your ass <...> it looked nice in those little shorts” (Coben 1995, 234-237). This sexuality is also evidenced by her sexual life; Madeleine and Harrison Gordon have an open marriage where they periodically have sexual encounters with other people. Despite Myron, once again, emphasizing her sexuality continuously in his thoughts, he refuses to have sex with her to stay faithful to his lover Jessica. Sexuality is also is intertwined in the case of Kathy’s disappearance and her circumstances. In the past, she witnessed her mother Carol cheating with her father’s best friend Paul Duncan. As revenge, Kathy had many sexual encounters of all kinds and sent explicit photos to her mother. Tragically, this leads to her being raped and blackmailed by a group of football players and results in her disappearance. Appendix 3: Lithuanian Translations of Forms of Address in A Noble Radiance and Deal Breaker in Context Titles, polite forms, and job titles as forms of address in Kilmingųjų spindesys Addressor and addressee English source text Lithuanian target text Elettra Zorzi to her co‘Certainly, Dottore, and - Gerai, dottore, [...] ir worker Guido Brunetti (A I’ll bring you the copies of pasirūpinsiu, kad Noble Radiance’s the report as soon as I originalas atsidurtų protagonist) make them. (Leon 1997, saugykloje (Leon 2013, 37) 35) Guido Brunetti to ‘Signor Maurizio - Sinjoras Mauricijus Maurizio Lorenzoni Lorenzoni?’ Brunetti Lorenconis? - perklausė (murder victim’s cousin) asked. (Leon 1997, 97) Brunetis (Leon 2013, 82) Guido Brunetti to Count ‘I bring you the worst of - Aš atnešiau jums Ludovico Lorenzoni news, Signor Conte,’ blogiausią žinią, pone (murder victim’s father) Brunetti said. (Leon 1997, grafe, - pasakė Brunetis 121) (Leon 2013, 101) ‘Signor Conte, as soon as - Sinjore grafe, kai tik bus possible, I’d like to speak galima, norečiau to you about the original pasikalbėti su jumis apie kidnapping. (Leon 1997, pagrobimą (Leon 2013, 123) 102) Valeria to Count Orazio “Molte bene, Signor - Molte bene, Signor Falier Conte. (Leon 1997, 73) Conte. (Leon 2007, 63). Guido Brunetti to ‘Yes, Contessa, I am.’ - Taip, grafiene. (Leon Countess Cornelia (Leon 1997, 121) 2013, 101) Lorenzoni (murder victim’s mother) Maurizio Lorenzoni to ‘Good evening, - Labas vakaras, Guido Brunetti Commissario. (Leon komisare. (Leon 2013, 99) 1997, 119) Guido Brunetti to his ‘You wanted to see me, - Kvietėte mane, superior Giuseppe Patta Vice-Questore?’ Brunetti vicekvestoriau? asked in a neutral voice. paklausė Brunetis (Leon 1997, 90) neutraliu balsu. (Leon 2013, 77) Guido Brunetti to Dr. ‘Could you explain, - Paaiškinkite, daktare. Bortot Doctor?’ (Leon 1997, 21) (Leon 2013, 22) Kin titles as forms of address in Kilmingųjų spindesys and Dviveidis Addressor and addressee English source text Lithuanian target text Chiara Brunetti to her ‘Ciao, Papa. Mamma’s - Ciao, papa. Mama moko father Guido Brunetti teaching me how to make mane, kaip gaminti ravioli (Leon 1997, 111) raviolius. (Leon 2013, 93) ‘They will be Papa, as - Jie, papa, bus paruošti soon as we get them filled. iškart, kai juos (Leon 1997, 111) užvyniosime. (Leon 2013, 94) ‘Oh Papa, don’t be silly. - Ai, tėti, nebūk kvailas. Chiara Brunetti to her mother Paola Brunetti Francesca Salviati (murder victim’s girlfriend) to her mother Myron Bolitar (Deal Breaker’s protagonist) to his mother Myron Bolitar to his father (Leon 1997, 112) ‘All right, Papa, if you want to, you can.’(Leon 1997, 112) ‘Oh, Papa,’ Chiara moaned. ‘Only people in the movies say things like that. (Leon 1997, 113) ‘You said I could do it myself, Mamma,’ Chiara insisted. (Leon 1997, 112) (Leon 2013, 94) - Gerai, papa, jei nori, prašau. (Leon 2013, 94) - O, tėte,- sudejavo Kiara. - Tik per filmus žmonės taip kalba. (Leon 2013, 95) ‘This is the policeman, Mamma. (Leon 1997, 62) - Mama, sakei, kad pati galėsiu juos įdaryti, užsispyrė Kiara. (Leon 2013, 94). - Čia policininkas, mamma. (Leon 2013, 54) “No, Mom. Kuwait City.” (Coben 1997, 154) - Ne, mama. Kuveite. (Coben 2009, 145) “Just me, Dad.” (Coben 1997, 110) “Are you okay, son?” (Coben 1995, 110) “Hi, Mom.” (Coben 1995, 33) - Aš, tėti. (Coben 2009, 104) - Ar gerai jautiesi, sūnau? (Coben 2009, 104) - Labas, mama. (Coben 2013, 34) Myron’s father to Myron Bolitar Jessica Culver (Myron’s ex-girlfriend) to her mother Proper names as forms of address in Kilmingųjų spindesys and Dviveidis Addressor and addressee English source text Lithuanian target text Guido Brunetti to his ‘Why is it you’re - Kodėl susidomėjai jais, father-in-law Count Orazio interested in the, Guido?’ Gvidai? (Leon 2013, 44) Falier (Leon 1997, 44) Guido Brunetti to ‘Signor Maurizio - Sinjoras Mauricijus Maurizio Lorenzoni Lorenzoni?’ Brunetti Lorenconis? - paklausė asked. (Leon 1997, 97) Brunetis. (Leon 2013, 82) Guido Brunetti to his ‘No, no, don’t bother, - Ne ne, nesivargink subordinate Lorenzo Vianello. (Leon 1997, Vianelai. (Leon 2013, 92) Vianello 110) Count Ludovico Lorenzoni ‘It means that the body has - Tai reiškia, kad kūnas to his wife Cornelia deteriorated, Cornelia, suiro, Kornelija, ir jie Lorenzoni and they have to identify it turėjo atpažinti jį tokiu that way.’ (Leon 1997, būdu. (Leon 2013, 102) 122) Francesca’s mother to ‘No, no, Francesca. But - Ne ne, Frančeska. Bet Francesca Salviati it’s time for the feeding.’ laikas maitinti. (Leon 2013 (Leon 1997, 62) 54) Guido Brunetti to his wife ‘If other people wouldn’t - Jei kiti žmonės nedarytų Paola Brunetti do awful things, I wouldn’t baisių dalykų, ir man have to, Paola.’ (Leon nereikėtų jų daryti, Paola. 1997, 114) (Leon 2013, 96) Otto Burke to Myron “Come on, Myron,” he - Nagi, Mironai, Bolitar urged with neoreligious pernelyg entuziastingai fervor. (Coben 1995, 1) įtikinėjo jis. (Coben 2009, 1) Myron Bolitar to Otto Burke (a football team owner) Myron Bolitar to his client Christian Steele Herman Ache (prominent New York mobster) to his brother Frank Ache Myron Bolitar to Jessica Culver Myron to his best friend Windsor Lockwood Myron Bolitar to Jessica Culver “I’d like nothing more, Otto,” he said, returning the pointless volley for the umpteenth time. (Coben 1995, 1) “Don’t understand what, Christian? What’s this all about?” (Coben 1995, 15) “Please, Frank, we don’t need to get hostile.” (Coben 1995, 222) “Jess?” (Coben 1995, 24) “Yes. Promise me, Win. No visits” (Coben 1995, 89) “Hello, Jessica. You’re looking well.” (Coben 1995, 23) “Esperanza’s mood.” (Coben 1995, 45) - Nieko daugiau ir netrokštu, Otai, - jau šimtajį kartą nesėkmingai bandė atlaikyti spaudimą Mironas. (Coben 2009, 1) - Ko nesupranti, Kristianai? Ką visa tai reiškia? (Coben 2009, 18) - Frenkai, prašyčiau, įsiterpė Hermanas, - mes neturėtume būti nusiteikę priešiškai. (Coben 2009, 206) - Džese? (Coben 2009 26) - Taip. Pažadėk man, Vinai. Jokių apsilankymų. (Coben 2009, 84) - Sveika, Džesika. Puikiai atrodai. (Coben 2009, 24) - Kodėl Esperansa tokios nuotaikos. (Coben 2009, 45) Esperanza looked back up. Esperansa atsisuko. “Lucy?” ‘(Coben 1995, - Liuse? (Coben 2009, 169) 159) Affectionate names as forms of address in Kilmingųjų spindesys and Dviveidis Addressor and addressee English source text Lithuanian target text Guido Brunetti to Paola ‘Only because of the - Tiktai dėl to, kad tu taip Brunetti frequency of which you dažnai man apie tai remind me of it, my primeni, brangenybe. treasure,’ (Leon 1997, 54) (Leon 2013, 48) Guido Brunetti to Chiara ‘Yes, angel,’ he lied, - Taip, angelėli, Brunetti hanging up his jacket, sumelavo kabindamas careful to keep his back to švarką ir stengdamasis her. (Leon 1997, 234) neatsisukti į ją (Leon 2013, 191) Paola Brunetti to Guido ‘I get it from you, my - Tai iš tavęs išmokau, Brunetti dear,’ she said with what brangusis, - nuskambėjo sounded like polite kaip mandagus disdain. (Leon 1997, 126) paniekinimas. (Leon 2013, 106) Count Orazio Falier to ‘Fine, thank you, my - Gerai, ačiū, brangioji. Valeria dear.’ (Leon 1997, 73) (Leon 2013, 63) Myron Bolitar to Jessica “I’m right here, - Aš čia, meilute. (Coben Culver sweetcakes.” (Coben 2009, 24) 1995, 22) Carol Culver to her “Hi, honey.” (Coben 1995, - Sveika, mieloji. (Coben daughter Jessica Culver 33) 2009, 34) Paul Duncan (Jessica “Hey, beautiful! How are - Ei, gražuole! Kaip tau father’s best friend) to you?” (Coben 1995, 35) sekasi? (Coben 2009, 36) Myron Bolitar to Jessica Culver (about his secretary Esperanza) Esperanza Diaz to her friend Lucy Jessica Culver Myron’s mother to Myron “Hon, you all right? - Mielasis, ar gerai Bolitar (Coben 1995, 41) jautiesi? (Coben 2009, 41) Playful names and insults as forms of address in Dviveidis Addressor and addressee English source text Lithuanian target text Myron Bolitar to Windsor “Yes, Grasshopper. You - Taip, žioge. (Coben Lockwood want me to snatch the 2009, 58) pebble from your hand now?” (Coben 1995, 60) Myron Bolitar to his “Thanks, Mom” (Coben - Ačiū, mama. (Coben secretary Esperanza Diaz 1995, 229) 2009, 213) Jessica Culver to Myron “Do you like being an - Ar tau patinka būti Bolitar agent, Captain Fun?” agentu, Kapitone (Coben 1995, 68) Pramoga? (Coben 2009, 66) Jessica Culver to Myron “That’s okay. I’m not - Nieko tokio. Aš nedaug Bolitar sleeping much. Just knock miegu. Tiesiog pasibelsk į on my bedroom window. mano miegamojo langą, Zorro.” (Coben 1995, Zoro. (Coben 2009, 150) 159) Esperanza Diaz to Myron “No. And I’ve done all my - Ne. Ir aš jau paruošiau Bolitar homework, Daddy. visus namų darbus, tėveli. Really, i have.” (Coben Tikrai paruošiau. (Coben 1995, 161) 2009, 152) Danny Clarke (a football “Out of here, asshole. - Lauk iš čia, žioply. Tuoj coach) to Myron Bolitar Now.” (Coben 1995, 132) pat. (Coben 2009, 125) Danny Clarke to Myron “Listen up, shithead.” He - Klausyk, šikniau. - Jis Bolitar pointed a coach finger at nukreipė smilių į Mironą. Myron. (Coben 1995, 132) (Coben 2009, 125)