Page 21 - 6688

21
attuned to specific relationships between interlocutors. For instance, superiors speaking with
subordinates are more likely to take longer turns, to control topics, and to exert power through
interruption than are subordinates when speaking to their superiors.
Terms of address
One of the most sensitive features of language in reflecting speakers’ assessment of co-
participants is the term of address chosen in a speech event. Terms of address include several
linguistic types, all of which name, refer to, or address hearers. They may be personal names,
titles, kinship names, or personal names that can be used separately or concomitantly.
The most frequent forms of address are:
1. FN – first name,
2. TLN – title + last name.
There are three possible exchanges of these forms in two-party interactions:
1. reciprocal FN (each participant calls the other by FN),
2. reciprocal TLN,
3. nonreciprocal FN-TLN (one member uses TLN but receives FN, the other uses FN and
receives TLN).
Speakers evaluate socially meaningful characteristics of individuals and then make judgements
about their own status relative to that of the addressee. Reciprocal forms of address occur
between status equals. Reciprocal FN tends to indicate casualness and lack of social distance.
Reciprocal TLN marks formality or politeness.
Address id additionally complicated by possibilities of multiple usages to the same
person. There are several patterns of FN forms: full FN, shortened FN, diminutive.

TOPICS AND GOALS

People choose topics based on combination of personal interest and sensitivity to
preferences of co-participants, all within boundaries set by cultural norms. Violation of accepted
rules for topic selection could result in mild social disapproval or in feelings of embarrassment,
anger, or distress by addressees. Formal contexts such as ceremonies, lectures, or
governmental proceedings tend to predetermine a specific range of topics. Informal interactions
are less constraining, but cultural values are relevant to choice of topic too.
A speaker's compliance with the wishes of others or the speaker's persistence in
pursuing a topic of her or his own preference reveals issues concerning speaker's goals in
conversation. People have both individual and communal goals. They seek to express
personal interests and engage co-participants in ego-centered topics, but, as social beings,
they want to minimize potential conflict with others, to appear agreeable, cooperative, and
polite. The latter goal is achieved, in part, by acting in accordance with culturally approved
ways of speaking.
Goals of speakers can be expressed by a variety of linguistic forms, sensitive to
contextual evaluation. The linguistic form of an utterance does not have an automatic
correlation with particular goals, but, rather, its interpretation is necessarily contextual.
Alternative ways of phrasing the same goal can also covertly involve different assumptions
about individuals' rights, obligations, and accepted norms of interaction. The same linguistic
form can express diverse intents.
Variation in linguistic form and variation in interpretation of linguistic messages do not
occur randomly. They are ethnographically situated, resulting from speakers' and hearers'
judgement about implications of alternative ways of communicating in given contexts.