1887
Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

The English system of address constitutes an exception among the European languages, in that it does not have a grammatical distinction between a formal pronoun of address and an informal one. Rather, English speakers exploit lexical strategies (i.e. nominal vocatives). This study aims to shed light on the address strategies used by students and members of the teaching staff in academic interactions, with reference to the University of Reading (UK). Data from semi-structured interviews and video-recordings outline an unmarked pattern of asymmetry between the parties, in which students mainly employ formal vocatives towards lecturers (title+surname, honorifics), while lecturers frequently use first names and other informal expressions. Reciprocal informal vocatives, by contrast, emerges as a marked practice, which is resisted or delayed in time. This asymmetrical distribution of forms questions classical models and previous research on address and calls for the necessity of new components for the understanding of the phenomenon.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19.2.02for
2009-01-01
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Axelson, Elizabeth
    (2007) Vocatives: A double-edged strategy in intercultural discourse among graduate students. Pragmatics17.1: 95-122.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bargiela, Francesca , Corinne Boz , Lily Gokzadze , Abdurrahman Hamza , Sara Mills , and Nino Rukhadze
    (2002) Ethnocentrism, politeness and naming strategies. Working papers on the web 3 . extra.shu.ac.uk/wpw/politeness/bargiela.htm. (Accessed16th February 2008).
  3. Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad , and Edward Finegan
    (1999) The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Braun, Friederike
    (1988) Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110848113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848113 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, Roger , and Albert Gilman
    (1960) The pronoun of power and solidarity. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp.253-276. Reprinted in Pier Paolo Giglioli (ed.) (1972) Language and social context. Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin, pp. 252-82.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Roger , and Marguerite Ford
    (1961) Address in American English. Journal of abnormal and social psychology62: 375-385. Reprinted in Dell Hymes (ed.) (1964) Language in culture and society. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 234-244. doi: 10.1037/h0042862
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0042862 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clyne, Michael , Catrin Norrby , and Jane Warren
    (2009) Language and human relations. Styles of address in contemporary language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511576690
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576690 [Google Scholar]
  8. Clyne, Michael , Heinz L. Kretzenbacher , Catrin Norrby , and Jane Warren
    (2004) Address in some western European languages. In Christo Moskovsky (ed.), Proceedings of the 2003 conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. au.geocities.com/austlingsoc/proceedings/als2003/clyne.pdf (Accessed on16th February 2008).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Clyne, Michael , Heinz-Leo Kretzenbacher , Catrin Norrby , and Doris Schüpbach
    (2006) Perceptions of variation and change in German and Swedish address. Journal of sociolinguistics10.3: 287-319. doi: 10.1111/j.1360‑6441.2006.00329.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2006.00329.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Dickey, Eleanor
    (1997) Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of linguistics33.2: 255-274. doi: 10.1017/S0022226797006488
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226797006488 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dunkling, Leslie
    (1990) A dictionary of epithets and terms of address. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Duranti, Alessandro
    (1997) Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511810190
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810190 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ervin-Tripp, Susan
    (1986) On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrences. In John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. (Reissued with corrections and additions). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell, pp. 213-250.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Formentelli, Maicol
    (2007) The vocative mate in contemporary English: A corpus based study. In Andrea Sansò (ed.), Language resources and linguistic theory. Milano: Franco Angeli, pp. 180-199.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gilman, Albert , and Roger Brown
    (1958) Who says ‘Tu’ to whom?ETC: A review of general semantics15.3: 169-174.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Goldthorpe, John Harry
    (2000) Social class and the differentiation of employment contracts. In John Harry Goldthorpe (ed.), On sociology: Numbers, narratives, and the integration of research and theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 206-229.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gumperz, John J. , and Dell Hymes
    (eds.) (1972) Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Helmbrecht, Johannes
    (2003) Politeness distinctions in second person pronouns. In Friedrich Lenz (ed.), Deictic conceptualization of space, time and person. (Pragmatics and beyond). Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 185-203. doi: 10.1075/pbns.112.10hel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.112.10hel [Google Scholar]
  19. (2005) Politeness distinctions in personal pronouns. In Martin Haspelmath , Bernard Comrie , Matthew S. Dryer and David Gil (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 186-190.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2006) On the development of Standard Average European (SAE) – The case of polite pronouns. Paper presented at the28th annual meeting of the DGfS, University of Bielefeld, Germany. 22-24 February 2006.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hickey, Leo , and Miranda Stewart
    (eds.) (2004) Politeness in Europe. Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hickey, Raymond
    (2002) Rectifying a standard deficiency. Second-person pronominal distinctions in varieties of English. In Irma Taavitsainen and Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 343-374. doi: 10.1075/pbns.107.14hic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.107.14hic [Google Scholar]
  23. Jaworski, Adam , and Dariusz Galasiński
    (2000) Vocative address forms and ideological legitimization in political debates. Discourse studies2.1: 35-53. doi: 10.1177/1461445600002001002
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445600002001002 [Google Scholar]
  24. Leech, Geoffrey
    (1999) The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In Hilde Hasselgård and Signe Oksefjell (eds.), Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 107-118.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. McConnell-Ginet, Sally
    (2003) “What’s in a Name?” Social labelling and gender practices”. In Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.), The handbook of language and gender. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 69-97. doi: 10.1002/9780470756942.ch3
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch3 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mühlhäusler, Peter , and Rom Harré
    (1990) Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Murray, Thomas E
    (2002) A new look at address in American English: The rules have changed. Names 50.1: 43-61. doi: 10.1179/nam.2002.50.1.43
    https://doi.org/10.1179/nam.2002.50.1.43 [Google Scholar]
  28. Philipsen, Gerry , and Michael Huspek
    (1985) A bibliography of sociolinguistic studies of personal address. Anthropological linguistics27: 94-101.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Pieper, Ursula
    (1990) Homologie, Homöologie und Heterologie im Anredeverhalten: Anrede im Deutschen, Dänischen und Polnischen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik18.1: 1-12. doi: 10.1515/zfgl.1990.18.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.1990.18.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  30. Saville-Troike, Muriel
    (2003) The ethnography of communication: An introduction. 3ed. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470758373
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758373 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sutton, Laurel A
    (1995) Bitches and skankly hobags: The place of women in contemporary slang. In Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz (eds.), Gender articulated. Language and the socially constructed self. London: Routledge, pp. 279-96.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Wales, Katie
    (1996) Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Warren, Jane , Michael Clyne , Heinz L. Kretzenbacher , and Catrin Norrby
    (2007) The underlying pragmatics of address usage: Comparing and contrasting English with French, German and Swedish. Paper presented at the10th International Pragmatics Conference, Göteborg, Sweden. 8-13 July 2007.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wierzbicka, Anna
    (1991) Cross-cultural pragmatics. The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Zwicky, Arnold M
    (1974) Hey, Whatsyourname!. In Michael W. La Galy , Robert A. Fox , Anthony Bruck (eds.), Papers from the tenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 787-801.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.19.2.02for
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Academic setting , British English , Classroom interactions and Terms of address
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error