Sociolinguistic Analysis of Address Usage in General Educational Institutions in Latvia

ANDA BLŪMANE Liepāja University, Latvia SOCIOLINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF ADDRESS USAGE IN GENERAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN LATVIA The address is of great importance in every person’s communication. It refers to communication between students, teachers and school administration. Their communication would be difficult without various address forms. Their successful choice influences further communication and mutual understanding. The very first words we say to others show our attitude. More often than not these are the words we address them by to attract their attention, to make them listen to us or act in some way. Very often the very first words determine people’s further relations and start off the evaluation of the addresser. The first words a teacher says to his/her students are essential, for they exert influence on further interaction in classes. The address cannot be researched in its linguistic aspect alone. It has to be studied in relation with areas of research like psychology, ethnolinguistics, education, ethics, sociology, and semiotics. Discourse analysis is also of great importance for researching the address. Exploring single phrases or sentences does not offer a holistic perspective on the communication, partners’ relations or on the significance of such social factors as social distance and age in the use of the address. As early as 1958, two publications identified a new stage in studying discourse. One of them was R. Brown and A. Gilman’s article The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity which laid the theoretical basis for the present investigation to a great extent (Brauns, Gilmans 2003: 124–147). The analysis of spontaneous speech is vital for studying speech ethnography. The present article is based on research conducted in numerous schools in Latvia. The author is a teacher herself and can make direct and shared unbiased observations on everyday communication among students, teachers and school administration. 202 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 The aim of the present article is to study the diversity of address forms in school with a focus on the traditional address forms that have been passed from generation to generation as well as those which can be considered innovative for the language. The article also analyses symmetry and asymmetry of address forms between different level language users at school. The research is based on questionnaires completed by 718 students, 125 teachers representing 11 schools and 48 school principals from 48 other schools. Students and teachers from all regions of Latvia have been questioned. The majority of the students live in towns and cities (562), only 153 live in the countryside. The students’ questionnaires were grouped according to the age of the respondents. One group included the 10–14 age span and the other 15–19 (see Figure 1). FIGURE 1. The number of surveyed students according to their age REVIEW OF ADDRESS MODELS USED IN LATVIA IN THE PAST The mode of addressing people and address forms reflect the time we live in, our national traditions and culture, the characteristic features of our ethnos. World languages show different strategies for establishing polite and A. BLŪMANE. Sociolinguistic analysis of address usage in general educational institutions in Latvia 203 respectful relations. Scholars exploring languages have concluded that nations have both similarities and differences in the usage of address forms (Braun 1988; Brauns, Gilmans 2003; Ervina-Tripa 2003). Every nation has its own particular address models of historical origin, although in the course of time they can be modified. One of the features of any address system is the possibility to inherit it by every new generation. The American linguist E. Sapir closely focused on the links between language, on the one hand, and social factors and culture, on the other. The essence of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that language determines norms of thinking and behaviour. Every language moulds its own specific understanding of reality for its speakers (Sepīrs 1999: 87). Also R. Brown and A. Gilman have examined the use of the personal pronouns thou and you in different countries and have come to a conclusion that the semantics of the pronouns and their stylistic usage are determined by the language they are used in (Brauns, Gilmans 2003). It is highly plausible that the use of diminutives (Peļuks, Lāčuks, Saldumiņš, Miļums, Smieklņš, Pekucītis, Gundiņ, Jānīt, Pauliņ) in communication between students and teachers as well as using names of animals, birds, plants, and trees (Briedis, Lapsa, Gliemezis, Žubīte, Cielava, Gulbis) as nicknames in students’ communication are related to old traditions of the Latvian nation in language usage. The students’ nicknames were analyzed in more detail in the article A Nickname to Every Student? (Blūmane 2008). As numerous other nations have always lived on the territory of Latvia, their cultures have left traces in the usage of the Latvian language and address forms, too. This is why it is difficult to isolate the features of address usage characteristic of the Latvian ethnos from the borrowings from other ethnoses. The point of reference could be folklore. Nowadays Latvian folklore materials are the source for reconstructing ethnical traditions in the usage of address forms and their traditions. Changes in the historical and political situation in Latvia have also influenced the usage of address forms. There is a great difference, for instance, in the choice of address forms at the end of the 19th century when the use of titles was widespread between social classes and those used in the 20s and 30s of the 20th century when Latvia was an independent country. Here are a few examples of addresses in letters written in 1899: Viņa Augstībai kņazam / firstam / hercogam N. N. (‘to His Highness Grand Duke / Prince / Count N. N.’); Viņas Augstībai kņazienei / firstienei / hercogienei (‘to Her Highness 204 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 Grand Duchess / Princess / Countess’); Grafiem, baroniem un fon kungiem (muižniekiem) (‘to Counts, Barons and von Gentlemen (country noblemen)’); Viņa Godībai grāfam (‘to Honourable Count’); Augstdzimušam un dižciltīgam baronam N. N. kungam (‘to Highly Born and Noble Baron Mr N. N.’); Augstigodājamai dižciltīgai baronietei fon N. N. kundzei (‘to Highly Honourable Noble Baroness von N. N.’); Augstigodāmajam barona fon N. N. lielkungam / lielmātei (‘to Highly Honourable Baron von N. N. Lord of the Manor / Baroness von N. N. Lady of the Manor’). The most characteristic address forms in the 20s and 30s of the 20th century were kungs / kundze (‘sir/madam’). People were also addressed by the name of their farm because very often both the farm and its owner had the same name. The address forms used in the 40s to the end of the 80s of the 20th century (biedrs (‘comrade’), biedri (‘comrades’), pilsonis (‘citizen’), pilsoņi (‘citizens’)) differ greatly from those used at the beginning of the 21st century when the influence of English is particularly marked in the way young people use address forms. In Soviet times in Latvia there was one address form the authorities had decreed: biedri, biedre (‘comrade’ – both masculine and feminine) which was used alone or together with the person’s first name, surname, professional or honorary title (Blinkena 1968: 4). The word kungs (‘sir’), the same as the Lithuanian word ponas were forced out of official communication. They were replaced by the word comrade–draugas in Lithuanian and biedrs in Latvian. Recent research has shown that the word kungs in Latvian is used much more often than ponas in Lithuanian (Kvašīte, Čepaitiene, Župerka 2003: 11). When analyzing the questionnaires completed by teachers and school principals, we can maintain that such forms of address, like biedri, biedre, pilsonis, pilsone, are not used any more. Address forms used in Latvia in the 20s and 30s like surname + kungs, surname + kundze are gaining in popularity. So the political system leaves its traces in the usage of address forms. However, there are no strict borderlines between the two above-mentioned periods, though the main tendencies in address usage in those periods can still be traced. Taking into consideration the above conditions, we can predict the address forms and their models used in school nowadays. School is an interesting environment for research because this is a place where ancient language traditions merge with innovations. Older traditions in the Latvian language include the diverse use of diminutives both in terms of their lexical meaning and their form by all age groups, also by students, A. BLŪMANE. Sociolinguistic analysis of address usage in general educational institutions in Latvia 205 as well as the use of the professional title skolotāj (teacher) and director (principal) which historically were used as the address forms skolmeistara kungs / kundze (‘Mr Schoolmaster/Mrs Schoolmistress’). The use of the pronoun Jūs (‘you’) has also long-lasting language traditions in Latvian. Professor Andrejs Veisbergs of the University of Latvia considers that tu (‘thou’) and jūs (‘you’) are valuable in our language because they allow us to express shades of meaning. We can show our emotions by using tu or jūs, we can humiliate or honour the person we communicate with. Language is very subtle. If these forms did not have any meaning, language would drop them (Puķe 2000: 15). USE OF THE PRONOUNS TU AND JŪS IN THE LATVIAN LANGUAGE As an innovation in the Latvian language, we could mention the expansion of the use of the pronoun tu in situations where the respectful and reverential address form Jūs was used a few decades ago. Younger language users choose to address their teachers or class teachers by the pronoun tu. Fluctuations between the usage of tu and jūs exist among adults, too, and not only at school. Sometimes in a magazine or newspaper, television and radio interviews there are deviations from the accepted address form Jūs (Lauze 2003: 344; Ernstsone 2005: 27). So there are situations when people who know each other very little or do not know at all choose to use the form tu reciprocally. They do not observe the age and social status hierarchy which have been strictly observed up to now. Similar observations can be made in reference to the communication in school environment between teachers and the principal, sometimes also between students and teachers. What could the reasons be for this phenomenon in Latvia? One of the reasons is the influence of other cultures, because there are nations that have dropped one of the pronouns as, for instance, in English the singular pronoun thou was lost long ago and is used only in archaic style. Another reason could be the wave of democratization in society which started around 1990 in Latvia. All language users in Latvia from time to time feel unsure about the choice between tu and jūs, especially when communication takes place in an informal setting and both the addresser and the addressee are not as close 206 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 as to use the address form Tu. Politeness, good friendly relations, power, solidarity—these are the criteria determining the choice of the pronouns tu or jūs. We can agree with the linguist A. Veisbergs’ opinion that in case of doubt it is safer to use the address form Jūs. In Latvian the pronoun Jūs has old usage traditions dating back to several centuries ago. The pronoun Jūs is of great value in the language as this form of address enables us to express respect, to distance ourselves from the other person, to pass over to using tu which in Latvian has a note of mutual intimacy and friendship. The last aspect is impossible in the languages lacking this form. The usage of the pronoun tu can be considered a means of communication having restricted possibilities to express social nuances and differences. ADDRESS MODELS Among young people various nicknames and phonetic modifications of first names or surnames are very popular, like Siņča, Sindžs, Eļuka, Antrucīte, Lindočka, Santočka, Arčiks, Ārčijs, Zaņuks, Megucis, Ilžuks, Renčs, Ginčs, Janka, Jaņķels, Valčs, Kalvels, Dančiks, as well as contracted forms of personal names, for example, Rēne (from the name Renāte), Sola (from Solveiga), Mona (from Monika), Rūža (from Rudīte). As the questionnaire was to be completed in writing, it confirmed an extremely great influence of English on the spelling and pronunciation of those names, for instance, Pingy, Snoopy, W-man, Henrix, Džonis, Džastons. The forms most often used in schools in Latvia are nominal and pronominal address forms: a name, a nickname, an associative nickname (a phonetic modification of a name or a surname), a contracted form of a name or a surname, the use of a surname alone (which is very popular as an address form among 15–19 year olds), the use of a name and a patronymic, a diminutive form of a name or a surname, an address inversion (meit (‘daughter’), dēls (‘son’), combined address forms: an interjection + an address, kolēģīt (‘colleague’) + Tu, kolēģīt + Jūs, draugs (‘friend’) + Tu, Jūs + the name, skolotāj (‘teacher’) + the name, skolotāj + the surname, direktor (‘principal’) + the surname, director + the name and other similar forms. Sometimes the verb form indicates the address chosen, for example, lūdzu, pasakiet! (‘could you tell me, please?’). A. BLŪMANE. Sociolinguistic analysis of address usage in general educational institutions in Latvia 207 Third person forms are used, too. If a person is not sure about the closeness of mutual relations, the listener is addressed using the third person singular form (Lauze 2004: 28). The author of the present article has observed such address forms in the communication among teachers during the breaks or when the lecturer greets the audience. Correlation rules in school are realized both on a vertical and horizontal level. The vertical relativity becomes apparent in the operation of the principles of power, the horizontal—in cooperative ties. The vertical dimension is realized between a student and a teacher, a student and the principal, a teacher and the principal, the horizontal dimension—between students or teachers. The vertical address model is mainly used in formal communication, and the horizontal in informal communication. Variations in the forms of address are mostly identified on the horizontal level. The address forms existing between a teacher and the principal for the greatest part are asymmetric. Teachers address the principal by such forms as you, director (principal), you + surname. But principals address teachers by using their first names, saying thou to them which points to hierarchy and social distance (see Figures 2, 3, and 4). FIGURE 2. Forms of address used by the school principal with young teachers 208 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 FIGURE 3. Forms of address used by the school principal with older teachers FIGURE 4. Forms of address used by teachers with the school principal 10–14 year old students address their classmates mainly by their first name, nickname and by the second person singular pronoun tu. 85% of the youngsters in this age group use the first name. The address forms used during school years survive in mutual communication forever. When classmates and friends meet after long years, in informal communication they use the old address forms. Among 15–19 year old teenagers, the dominating address forms are the first name, nickname (66% of cases) and the second person singular pronoun tu. Quite often students use diminutive forms derived from their personal names. A. BLŪMANE. Sociolinguistic analysis of address usage in general educational institutions in Latvia 209 For the communication between a student and a teacher in most cases the asymmetric address model is used. The dominant word among 10–14 year old students to address their teachers is skolotāj (‘teacher’) (37%), the address you is used not so often (25%) (see Figure 5). With students becoming older (15–19), the use of reciprocally symmetric forms between a teacher and a student tends to increase. 19% of the surveyed students address their teacher by using the address form skolotāj (‘teacher’) + the first name. The linguist L. Lauze (Lauze 2002: 31–32) has come to similar conclusions. However, the asymmetric address model is observed more often. You – you relations exist in only 19% of the cases. In the relations between teachers, symmetric addresses are the most often used forms, though in relations between an older and a younger colleague asymmetry is observed. Asymmetry is especially pronounced in relations between teachers who some time before were both involved in a relation between a student and a teacher. Former students feel respect towards their former teachers. Address forms at school have changed considerably. It is especially noticeable in the usage of tu and jūs, as well as in the diversity and usage of phonetic modifications of nicknames, first names and surnames. Young people’s choice of address forms is free and open to the influence of other cultures. In the communication between students and teachers, asymmetric address forms are used expressing distance and respect towards the teacher. The use of symmetric forms between a student, a teacher and the principal points to the teachers being open to new tendencies in language and education. The address system at school consists of numerous diverse address forms. The choice of an address variant depends on language traditions, social etiquette and other social factors. Age is the decisive factor in determining the address behaviour at school. Gender is insignificant in this respect, especially among students. The most important factor in the choice of linguistic means in the communication among students, teachers and school principals is the level of acquaintance. The better the speaker knows the addressee, the more careless and free their attitude towards the choice of linguistic means is. None of the above-mentioned social groups has a faultless address competence, for each person is an individual. This refers to both participants in communication: the speaker and the addressee. A. BLŪMANE. Sociolinguistic analysis of address usage in general educational institutions in Latvia 211 REFERENCES Blinkena A. 1968: Dažas domas par uzrunas veidu mūsu sabiedrībā. – Padomju Jaunatne 27. apr., 4 lpp. Blūmane A. 2006: Uzrunas formu izvēle skolēnu un skolotāju saziņā. – Vārds un tā pētīšanas aspekti: rakstu krājums 10, Liepāja: LiePA, 141–149. Blūmane A. 2006: Uzrunas formu izvēle izglītības iestādē: pedagogu viedoklis. – Artura Ozola dienas konference 17. – 18. martā, R.: LU Filoloģijas fakultāte Baltu valodu katedra, 7 lpp. Blūmane A. 2008: Vai katram skolēnam pa iesaukai? – Letonikas otrais kongress. Kurzemes novada kultūrvēsturiskais mantojums, tā izpēte un saglabāšana, Liepāja: Liepājas Universitāte, 18–29. Braun F. 1988: Terms of address: Problems of patterns address usage in various languages and cultures, Berlin: de Gruyter. Brauns R., Gilmans A. 2003: Solidar itātes un varas vietniekvārdi. – Kentaurs 30, R.: Minerva, 124–147. Burkovska I. 2001: Tu vai jūs? – Diena 18. febr., 14 lpp. Ernstone V. 2005: Solidar itāte un demokrātija: uzrunas lietojums elektroniskajos plašsaziņas līdzekļos. – Valodas prakse: vērojumi un ieteikumi. Nr. 1. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds, 24–30. Erviņa-Tripa S. 2003: Sociolingvistiskie likumi uzrunas formu izvēlē. – Kentaurs 30, R.: Minerva, 106–123. Kvašīte R., Čepatiene G., Župerka K. 2003: Valodas un rakstniecības stilistiskā savdabība kā tautas vēstures sekas (lietuviešu un latviešu paralēles). – Linguistica Lettica 12, R.: Latviešu valodas institūts, 105–115. Lasila S. 1994: Jaunā zelta uzvedības grāmata, Rīgā: Sprīdītis. Lauze L. 2002: Vietniekvārdu tu un jūs lietojums jauniešu vērtējumā. Valoda – 2002. Valoda dažādu kultūru kontekstā: Humanitārā fakultāte zinātniskie lasījumi: 1. daļa. – Valodas lingvistiskie aspekti, Daugavpils: Saule, 29–34. Lauze L. 2003: Uzrunas lietojums radio. – Vārds un tā pētīšanas aspekti: rakstu krājums 7, Liepāja: LiePA, 341–349. Lauze L. 2004: Ikdienas saziņā: vienkāršs teikums latviešu sarunvalodā, Liepāja: Liepājas Pedagoģijas akadēmija. Puķe I. 2000: Es šaubos – tātad lietošu jūs? – Diena 19. febr., 15 lpp. Sepīrs E. 1999: Valodniecība kā zinātne. – Kentaurs 18, R.: Minerva, 87 lpp. Universal (vispārīgs) vēstulnieks jeb priekšzīmju grāmata, kā jāraksta, 1899: Rīga: Jakobsona. Gauta 2009 11 02 212 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 SOCIOLINGVISTINĖ LATVIJOS BENDROJO LAVINIMO ĮSTAIGOSE VARTOJAMŲ KREIPIMOSI FORMŲ ANALIZĖ Santrauka Mokyklose ir bendrojo lavinimo įstaigose vartojamos kreipimosi formos daugiausia lemia komunikacijos ir tarpusavio supratimo sėkmę. Kreipimosi formos sociolingvistikoje neapsiriboja šauksmininko linksniu vartojamais daiktavardžiais, bet apima įvardžius ir asmens pareigas, vardą bei pavardę nusakančias žodžių grupes. Juos tiriant svarbu atsižvelgti į visuomenėje vyraujančias etiketo normas, komunikacijos simetriją ir asimetriją, vertikalųjį ir horizontalųjį komunikacijos lygmenį bei oficialųjį ir neoficialųjį kalbos stilių. Šiame tyrime remiamasi 718 mokinių, 125 mokytojų bei 48 mokyklų direktorių apklausų duomenimis. Dauguma mokinių (562) gyvena miestuose ir miesteliuose. Mokinių anketos suskirstytos pagal amžiaus grupes: 10–14 ir 15–19 metų. Tyrimo rezultatai atskleidė, kad daugumoje mokyklų bendravimas tarp mokinių ir mokytojų yra formalus, tai atspindi kreipimosi formų vartoseną. Kreipiantis į mokytoją, vyrauja forma skolotāj (mokytojas) + pavardė ir panašios formos. Tarp mokinių vyrauja vardažodinės kreipimosi formos, tokios kaip vardas, pravardė, asociatyvi pravardė (fonetiškai modifikuotas vardo ir pavardės garsų junginys), tik pavardė. Pastaroji būdinga 15–19 metų jaunuoliams. Mokyklų bendruomenėse pasitaiko ir tokių kreipimosi formų, kaip vardas ir tėvavardis, mažybinė vardo ir pavardės forma, jaustukas + kreipinys, kolēģīt (kolega) + tu, kolēģīt (kolega) + Jūs, draugs (draugas) + tu, Jūs + vardas, skolotāj (mokytojas) + vardas, direktor (direktorius) + pavardė, direktor (direktorius) + vardas ir t. t. Jaunimo vartojamos kreipimosi formos laisvesnės, dažnai veikiamos kitų kultūrų. Asimetriška komunikacija tarp mokinių ir mokytojų dažniausiai rodo didesnę distanciją bei pagarbą mokytojui. Simetriškų formų vartojimas tarp skirtingų lygmenų rodo mokytojo atvirumą naujiems kalbos ir švietimo polinkiams. Pastebėtas vyresniųjų klasių mokinių (19 proc.) polinkis bendraujant su mokytoju vartoti tokią kreipimosi formą: skolotāj (mokytojas) + vardas. Asimetriškos kreipimosi formos būdingos jaunesniųjų ir vyresniųjų mokytojų bendravimo situacijoms bei pokalbiams tarp mokyklos direktoriaus ir mokytojo. ANDA BLŪMANE Liepājas Universitāte Lielā iela 14 Liepāja LV-3401 Latvia [email protected] A. BLŪMANE. Sociolinguistic analysis of address usage in general educational institutions in Latvia 213