Sex-Related Differences in Address Systems.

Abstract

The rules determining the use of address terms and the social meaning carried by the contextual use of the address terms have been studied by a number of anthropologists and sociolinguists in an attempt to find the variables which determine the address form which will be given and received in a particular situation. This paper explores two linked variables, sex of the speaker and sex of the addressee, which are more influential in determining appropriate address forms in the United States than they have previously been considered to be, and briefly examines these variables in the research work involving address systems in other cultures. Brown and Gilman (1960), Friedrick (1972), and Lambert (1967) have illustrated how the use of tu and vous and their corresponding forms in other languages ( 'pronouns of power and solidarity' as Brown and Gilman call them) can give us a good deal of information about the speaker's political views and social class status, and about the culture' s social structure. Building upon the study by Brown and Gilman, Brown and Ford found that intimacy and status of the individuals in a dyad were the most important factors determining the forms of address. For example, whether members of a dyad exchange first names or title (such as Mr. ) plus last name is determined by such factors as age, occupational status, sex, kinship, and frequency of contact. For data, Brown and Ford used address forms found in modern American plays, address forms reported by a male employee of a Boston business firm, questionnaires concerning address forms completed by thirty-four male business executives, and tapes containing the speeches made to and by children in the course of their daily activities. Few addresses made to or by women were represented in the data gathered (1961). Ervin-Tripp (1971, 1972) builds a flow-chart on the model of Geoghegan (1971) to reorganize and expand the Brown and Ford analysis. Her chart schematizes a series of binary decisions of the type the speaker makes probably unconsciously in deciding on an appropriate address (e. g., younger/older, kin/unrelated). By making a choice at each of the decision points in the chart one comes to the 'correct' address form for the addressee. The possible outcomes are Title + LN (Last Name); Mister + LN; Mrs. + LN; Miss + LN; Kin Title + FN (First Name); FN; 0 (no name). These 'outcomes' have alternate realizations; for example, nicknames may in certain situations alternate with FN. Ervin-Tripp does not claim that the