1 / 22

Brother Bell’s Audience Design

This study examines the factors influencing forms of address in Latter-day Saint communities, specifically focusing on the use of first name or title plus last name. The study includes a literature review, methodology, results, and conclusion. The target population consists of 21 young, married couples from the Athens 1st Ward.

jessicad
Télécharger la présentation

Brother Bell’s Audience Design

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Brother Bell’s Audience Design Forms of Address among Latter-day Saints 39th Penn Linguistics Conference University of Pennsylvania March 21, 2015

  2. Introduction • English Forms of Address • First Name (FN) or Title + Last Name (TLN) • Only exists in communities where potentially everyone has a title • Teachers, military, doctors, politicians, police, etc. • Generally on the decline everywhere else in US (Murray 2002) • Goal: Show what factors affect forms of address in Latter-day Saint (LDS) communities • Outline: Literature review, methodology, results, conclusion, future work Introduction

  3. Literature Review • Power, solidarity, intimacy, status, and age determine address forms (Brown & Gilman 1960, Brown & Ford 1961, Slobinet al 1968 ) • Female professors received more FN. Female students used more FN with professors. (Rubin 1981; Takiff, Sanchez & Stewart 2001) • Different talking to or talking about people (Dickey 1997) • Lots of messy things with newlyweds and in-laws (Jorgenson 1994) • Most of the research is on non-reciprocal relationships • One person receives TLN, the other receives FN Introduction

  4. Between Equals?(Brown & Ford 1961) • Reciprocal TLN • People with potentially equal status, but who don’t know each other well • Reciprocal FN • Between friends, colleagues, etc. • Transition Phase • “…as small sometimes as 5 minutes of conversation … [so] it is not easy to make out its exact character.” (1961:377) Introduction

  5. Why Latter-day Saints?* • Cultural norms • Brother or Sister + last name. • Strong and active, but largely below the radar • Congregations • Strict delineated boundaries (like a public school system) • Interaction with anyone from strangers to close friends on a weekly basis • Address forms go from mutual TLN to mutual FN over the course of months or years • Fogg (1990) studied address forms among Mormons • No metadata • Formality was strongest predictor * Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. Mormons) Introduction

  6. Target Population • 21 young, married couples from the Athens 1st Ward • White, heterosexual • Ages 20–36 (mean = 28) • From high school education to Ph.D. • Roughly half are from Georgia • At least 10 years in the church, though most were raised Mormon. • About 1/3 of the congregation • Young people are in a transition phase into adulthood • No singles were included • Not enough for a representative sample • Most attend another congregation for single members Methodology

  7. Survey • 42 names down the side, 4 situations across the top • Asks how well participant knows the person • 31 participants returned the survey • 5147 forms of address, 1270 relationship data points • Excluded lesser common forms (Brother John, John Smith, Brother John Smith, Smith, etc.) 26 O O O O O O * Names have (obviously) been changed. Methodology

  8. Audience DesignBell (1984) Speaker Addressee Auditor Overhearer • 4 situations based on Audience • Speakers design their style based on who they are talking to. • Audience Design proposes that they also vary in who else is listening. • Implicational hierarchy: variation with one Audience Type presupposes variation with Types closer to the speaker. Eavesdropper Adapted from Bell (1984:159) Methodology

  9. The Four Situations (Exact descriptions of each refer to a lot of Mormon culture that would be tangential for the purposes of this presentation.) • The situations put the other person in each of the four Audience Types • Situation 1 (Addressee): Direct address • Situation 2 (Auditor): Small, informal committee meeting • Situation 3 (Overhearer): Talking to spouse about them at church • Situation 4 (Eavesdropper): Talking to spouse about them while driving home • Situations 3 and 4 control for the addressee. Methodology

  10. Independent Variables • Familiarity • Prediction: the closer the two, the more likely FN is used (Brown and Gilman 1960) • 4 Situations • Prediction: significant in some way (contrary to Fogg1990) • Familiarity between spouse and 3rd person • Prediction: accommodation to addressee (Dickey 1997) • Age difference • Prediction: smaller age difference = more FN (Brown and Ford 1961) • Sex • Prediction: women use more FN (Fogg 1990). • Parenthood • Prediction: parenthood is seen as a higher status Methodology

  11. Results(rbrul) Results

  12. Familiarity • Clearly the most significant factor • Extremes are not categorical • Level slope Results

  13. Male/Female • Women use FN with other women more at all levels of familiarity. • Unexpected leveling off at the top Results

  14. Situation • Situations 1, 3, 4 generally the same. • Situation 2 surprisingly showed less FN, even among close relation-ships. Results

  15. Situation • Women use more FN towards addressees. • Men use less FN towards auditors. Results

  16. Spouse-3rd Person Relationship • The better the spouse knows a person, the more likely they will use FN. Results

  17. Parenthood • Parenthood was statistically significant in predicting FN. • Seen a higher “status.” Results

  18. Conclusion • Familiarity is easily the strongest factor • However, it’s not categorical • People use FN more with others of the same sex, especially women. • Camaraderie among LDS women (Fogg 1990) • Men are influenced by the presence of an Auditor. • Possibly because of more leadership meetings • Parenthood is higher in “status” • Age is not a factor, contrary to other studies • Forms of address in reciprocal relationships are determined by different factors than those in non-reciprocal relationships Conclusion

  19. Audience Design • Challenges the implicational hierarchy • If variation occurs with one Audience Type, it is expected to occur with Types closer to the speaker. • Yet, for men, Auditors are different while Addressees are not affected. Conclusion

  20. Future Research • Future Research: • Parenthood > Married > Unmarried • Other auditor situations • More statistics • Acquisition • Social network analysis Future Research

  21. References • Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13(02). 145–204. • Bell, Allan. 2013. The guidebook to sociolinguistics. John Wiley & Sons. • Brown, Roger & Marguerite Ford. 1961. Address in American English. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62(2). 375. • Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language, 253–76. Cambridge: MIT Press. • Dickey, Eleanor. 1997. Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics 33(2). 255–274. • Jorgenson, Jane. 1994. Situated address and the social construction of “in‐law” relationships. Southern Communication Journal 59(3). 196–204. • Murray, Thomas E. 2002. A new look at address in American English: The rules have changed. Names 50(1). 43–61. • Rubin, Rebecca B. 1981. Ideal traits and terms of address for male and female college professors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41(5). • Takiff, Hilary A., Diana T. Sanchez & Tracie L. Stewart. 2001. What’s in a name? The status implications of students’ terms of address for male and female professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly 25(2). 134–144.

More Related