Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje (sociolingvistinis aspektas)

214 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 JURGITA GIRČIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas PLURIPLE AND SINGLE COMPETITION OF APPLICATION FORMS IN PUBLIC COMMUNICATION (sociolinguistic aspect) INTRODUCTION The plural form of addressing an individual addressee – the so-called polite plural, expressed by the pronoun you and the corresponding personal form of the verb – is usually associated with public usage and allows the addressee and the addressee, who are usually strangers, to maintain a distance and to convey respectful, official relations (see Župerka 1997: 45; Čepaitienė 2007: 27, 83, 85ff.). Such relationships are associated with a distanced strategy of courtesy (for more details see. Brown, Levinson 1987; Kарасик 2002)1. The old style of communication of the Lithuanian nobility has not survived and is almost not recorded. It is believed that the present public usage is characterized by a distanced expression of politeness – addressing in the plural of politeness, by name and surname, by words denoting duties and social positions with the suffix sir, -ia or respected, -a, regardless of the age and gender of the interlocutors, returns 1 The creators of the politeness strategy Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson argue that manda-Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson argue that the expression of politeness is determined by two ways of communication: positive (politeness), when showing friendliness, closeness, and negative (politeness), when showing respect, maintaining distance (Brown, Levinson 1978, 1987). The Lithuanian language etiquette researcher Giedrė Čepaitienė argue that the positive expression of politeness should be called a contact and the negative one a distance strategy of politeness (see Čepaitienė 2007: 25). The aforementioned terms vary in Lithuanian works, cf. (distance, contact) politeness strategy or shorter (distance, contact) politeness (Čepaitienė 2007; Gudavičienė 2007; Hilbig 2007, 2008 (as a metalinguistic commentary); The aim of this article is to discuss the sociolinguistic aspect of the competition between plural and singular forms of addressing the addressee in public speech, based on data from quantitative and qualitative analysis of TV talk shows2. Relations between participants in the communication act can be non-hierarchical – identical, horizontal, i.e. symmetrical, denoting solidarity, and hierarchical – non-identical, vertical, i.e. asymmetrical, embodying power (see Marcinkevičienė 2004; Čepaitienė 2007: 33). 2009). J. GIRČIENĖ. Competition of plural and singular forms of addressing in public sentence usage 215 traditions of independence times (Čepaitienė 2007: 79, 85). Sociolinguistic data on the tradition of addressing forms in public usage is also provided by the study of pronouns, highlighting the decisive differences between the domestic and business environment. In general, the status factor is the most important for business situations – familiarly (you) can be addressed only to persons of lower social status (Rosinas 1996: 43–44). However, studies of current public usage show a greater shift towards a contactive politeness strategy, which also considers the familiar singular as a marker. Singular forms of addressing the addressee have been recorded in both written and verbal public usage: in commissioned advertising articles (Marcinkevičienė 2004), magazine advertisements (Girčienė, Kupčinskaitė-Ryklienė 2005) and editorial articles (Girčienė 2009), in TV talk shows (Čepaitienė 2007: 79–80, 88–89, 110; Girčienė, Skvorčiūtė 2009: 41, 43, 46). According to Giedrė Čepaitienė, “the boundaries between the public and the domestic act of speech are gradually blurred, the familiar forms suitable only for the domestic language are used in public” (Čepaitienė 2007: 80). Similar tendencies toward the singular form have been identified by scholars of other languages that have preserved the opposition between singular and polite plural. It is even assumed that the singular form of the addressee’s designation may displace the competing plural form, since since the end of the 20th century the factor of proximity has become more important than respect. A connection was established between views and the choice of one or another variant: more conservative language users more often choose the plural, and more liberal – the singular (Marcinkevičienė 1994: 50– 51). The choice of the form of addressing depends on other factors: the addressee and the addressee’s age, gender, education, degree of acquaintance, hierarchy of social relations2, social roles; speaking circumstances – the nature of public or private communication, (a)symmetry of the communication situation, dia logo or polylogo, etc. (for more details see. Boissevain 1987: 167tt. ; 1994: 57th. ; Grumadienė 1994; Marcinkevičienė 1994: 48–51, 2004; Karaliūnas 1997: 105–106. ; Vilkienė 1998; Romaine 2000; Čepaitienė 2007: 72, 78–83, 109–110tt. ). 216 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 in the current usage. The chosen material representing public verbal usage3 for the study is TV talk shows of a public and personal, entertainment nature for a diverse audience. The general set examined – the weekly talk shows of all Lithuanian broadcasters, broadcast from 26 January 2009 to 11 March 2009 (two copies of each)4. These are: 1) debates, discussions and talk shows dealing with social issues; 2) talk shows dealing with personal matters and entertainment (for children). In total, 19 different titles were analyzed, the total number of them – 38, duration ~ 32 hours. Of which: 24 recordings (12 different programmes5 with 2 recordings each) of public service programmes with a total duration of 18 hours (18 recordings ~ 50 min. each; 6 recordings ~ 30 min. each); 14 recordings (7 different programmes of 2 recordings each) of entertainment programmes with a total duration of 14 hours (4 recordings ~ 120 min. each; 4 recordings ~ 50 min. each; 6 recordings ~ 30 min. each). The transcriptions are made using the CHILDES (Child Language Data Exchange Systems) methodology for the collection and analysis of spoken language data. Interview participants are coded (personalities are not named) according to factors important for sociolinguistic research – gender, social role (often indirectly referred to as (assumed) education), age group, etc., e.g. : VYR. VED*III, i.e. a male host (usually a journalist with higher education) belonging to the socio-linguistically defined age group III (25-34) (see Table 3); MOT. PSICHOL*V, i.e. a woman, a participant of the show, performing the role of an expert, in this case in the field of psychology (experts are usually also specialists with higher education in a certain field), belonging to V (45–59 years old). age group. 218 people of different educational backgrounds participated in the programmes – almost equally men and women from 10 to 75 years of age. A total of 290 times different addressees were addressed together in plural and singular forms6. In interpreting this basic empirical material, the Lithuanian-Latvian project “Baltic sociolinguistics (BalSoc): linguistic self-awareness of society 3 For the concepts of oral language and public usage see. 2009: 34–35, 38–39. 4 The author of this article sincerely thanks Kristina Skvorčiūtė for allowing the valuable empirical material (see Skvorčiūtė 2009: 51–171, appendix 2. TV talk show excerpts) to be used for further research on verbal usage. 5 The programme Koistata su Lietuva, which is hosted every second time by different hosts, was evaluated as two different programmes (2 programmes with 2 recordings). 6 There are more different recipients than participants in the programmes, because the same person, when addressed by several different recipients, is considered to be several different recipients. J. GIRČIENĖ. Competition of plural and singular forms of addressing in public verbal usage 217 in Lithuania and Latvia“7: analysis of qualitative interviews of 24 Lithuanian television and radio journalists and male programme presenters (32–42 years old) on journalists’ linguistic competence and others. Almost all respondents in the sample have experience of spontaneous speaking on the air (hereinafter – BalSoc). SOCIOLINGUISTICAL DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMMES AND THEIR PARTICIPANTS According to the criteria of publicity or privacy of the conversation, all TV talk shows, accessible to all members of the linguistic community, are formally classified as public space. But according to the content and the nature of the language expression that depends on it, it is still appropriate to divide them into the two main groups mentioned above: 1) debate, discussion and talk shows (hereinafter referred to as VPL) that deal with social issues: Akiračiai, Konistata su Lietuva, Ant svarstyklių, Be pykčio, Forumas, Redakcija, Teisė žinoti, Toks gyvenimas su Zita Kelmickaite, Tarp Rytų ir Vakarų, TV forumas, Versijos; 2) talk shows dealing with personal matters and entertainment, intended not only for adults but also for children (hereinafter referred to as talk shows): Trouble Market, National Search Service, With Palmira; Golden flash of the week, Saturday morning (for adults, hereinafter – SPPL), Mint Bear, Tele bim-bam (for children, hereinafter – VPPL). 1) TV talk shows can be classified as TV talk shows – debates: they are characterized by the expression of opinions, the search for truth, the search for appropriate solutions, the supremacy of intellect and arguments (see Pečiulis 2007: 202). According to the nature of linguistic expression, VPL was associated with public official usage, when a greater or lesser distance is maintained between the addressee and the addressee, and the means of expression are chosen more consciously and carefully (see Miliūnaitė 2009: 40–44). The connections between VPL and official usage are also confirmed by studies of the language etiquette of TV talk shows (2003–2005): In the opinion of Giedrė Čepaitienė, public political programmes are most closely linked by a distanced strategy of politeness that conveys respectful, official relations (Čepaitienė 2007: 85–87). 2) PPL would correspond to the other two categories of TV programmes of a dialogic nature – talk shows and reality shows, associated with the performance of words, arguments, the stimulation of emotions, the reconstruction of people’s destinies, the tragedy or heroism of everyday life (see Pečiulis 2007: 202, 204). According to the linguistic expression, PPLs were associated with public free7 The project was carried out in 2009 at the Lithuanian Language Institute. Supported by the State Fund for Science and Studies. 218 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 its use, which is characterized by informal language expression unrestricted by formal rules (see Miliūnaitė 2009: 40–44). The insight about the connections between PPL and free use is also confirmed by the research on language etiquette: G. Čepaitienė, although she states that in TV talk shows, where not only public communication takes place, but which are also viewed by large public audiences, the distanced strategy of politeness is more appropriate, nevertheless domestic social programs (especially those aimed at children) tend to be associated with a cozy, natural environment and a contacting strategy of politeness that conveys warm relationships (Čepaitienė 2007: 85, 87–90). Thus, when examining the forms of PPL appeals, it is necessary to rely not only on public business, but also on household usage studies. According to the pronoun study mentioned in the introduction, in domestic situations, the factors of acquaintance, age and gender are important. In Lithuania, familiar young people of both sexes are most likely to communicate with each other in the familiar (tu) form, and the singular can also be used by the older generation of both sexes to address younger, usually also familiar people. Unknowing each other, the singular is used only by men of different ages to refer to their own sex. Unfamiliar, i.e. respectful (you), in domestic situations address each other strangers young people of different sex, as well as known and unknown representatives of the older generation; older men address both familiar and unknown women in this way (Rosinas 1996: 43–44). Summarizing the dichotomy between VPL and PPL, it is said that its basis – the dimension of formality-informality (freedom) is considered one of the most important criteria in sociolinguistic studies (for more on this see. Miliūnaitė 2009: 41st. ). The total duration of VPL recordings representing public official use is slightly longer (18 hours) than that of PPL recordings attributable to public free use (14 hours, of which 4 recordings – 2 different programmes with 2 recordings each – children’s programmes), but the relatively small difference and the same number of guests (58) and very similar number of hosts (13 / 8) allows them to be statistically compared (see Table 1). 1 LENTELĖ. Laidų dalyvių pasiskirstymas pagal dalyvavimo pobūdį Laidų nature Hosts Dalyviai Participants Iš viso in the studio by phone participants VPL 13 58 76 147 PPL 8 58 5 71 Total 21 116 81 218 J. GIRČIENĖ. Competition of plural and singular forms of addressing in the public sentence usage 219 Conversation shows of polylogical criteria are Abiejose grupėse vyrauja laidos, kuriose, be vedėjo (-ų), dalyvauja daugiau nei vienas laidos svečias (38 / 5). Vis dėlto pagal dialogiškumo ar usually considered not as a polylogue, but as a dialogue of the active member of the conversation – the host and each individual guest. It is true that fragments of the polylogue, although rarely, occur among the guests participating in the studio, but the telephone callers never participate in it. Taking into account the nature of the conversation, which is characteristic of TV shows, and especially the importance of the role of the host, the participants are further divided into subgroups that influence the research question: hosts (most active conversation creators and users of addressing forms)8, those who participated in the study (active conversation participants and users of addressing forms) and those who made a phone call (e.g. authors of one or more replies, almost not using addressing forms). (see Table 2). Among the 218 people who participated in the programmes, there were slightly more men (120) than women (98). As shown in Table 2, the majority of VPLs and study participants were men, while the majority of PPLs were women. TABLE 2. Distribution of programme participants by gender (m – women, v – men) Show character Hosts Participants Participants Total male in the studio by phone and female VPL 11 v / 2 m 46 v / 12 m 38 v / 38 m 95 v / 52 m PPL 1 v / 7 m 23 v / 35 m 1 v / 4 m 25 v / 46 m Total 12 v / 9 m 69 v / 47 m 39 v / 42 m 120 v / 98 m Most of the participants in the programme are the most civic active people of working age People aged 25-59 (see Table 3). 8 The importance of the role of the host as the director of the conversation and often the main addressee of the conversation, and thus the most active user of various forms of addressing the addressees, is emphasized by both communication and language etiquette specialists (see Čepaitienė 2007: 79–90; Pečiulis 2007: 205). 220 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 TABLE 3. Distribution of programme participants by age group (excluding telephone calls) Age Age group of of the participants (years) Total Percenta- (number) number of ge of (number) broadcasts broadcasts Percentage of broadcasts Percentage of broadcasts Percentage of broadcasts Percentage of broadcasts Percentage of broadcasts Percentage of broadcasts (number) I ≤14 0 (0) 3.1 (2) 1.5 (2) II 15-24 2.8 (2) 12.1 (8) 7.3 (10) III 25-34 9.8 (7) 25.8 (17) 17.5 (24) IV 35-44 26.8 (19) 21.2 (14) 24.1 (33) V 45-59 46.5 (33) 25.8 (17) 36.5 (50) VI 60 ≥ 14,1 (10) 12 (8) 13,1 (18) PPL participants, whose representatives in the most active age group are distributed approximately evenly by groups (see grades III–V) and among whom there are children and young people (grades I–II), are relatively younger than VPL participants, among whom predominate grades V (almost half) and IV (see figure 1). 1 PAV. Distribution of programme participants by age group (excluding telephone calls) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 % up to 14 (I) 15–24 (II) (III) 25–34 35–44 (IV) (V) 45–59 (VI) 60 + Age groups Participants in VPL Participants in PPL J. GIRČIENĖ. Competition of plural and singular forms of addressing in public sentence usage 221 VPL leaders are also older – among them predominate representatives of IV and V age groups: 2 (III), 5 (IV), 6 (V). PPL hosts, like their guests, are younger – among them predominate representatives of age groups II and III: 3 (II), 3 (III), 2 (IV). In addition to sociolinguistic factors – age, gender, etc. – that may influence the use of the investigated linguistic phenomenon, the education (field of activity) of the participants, the roles played in the program, etc., also need to be discussed. Among the hosts of the VPL predominate journalists with higher education (10), individual cases – cultural scientist, lawyer, philosopher. Among the guests of these shows are also predominantly people with higher education: more than half of the guests who participated in the studio are politicians, state officials, according to Ž. Pečiulis, decision-makers, representatives of the engaged word (Pečiulis 2007: 201). Of other professions, popular political scientists, economists, journalists, commentators, psychologists, cultural scientists, entrepreneurs, there were scientists (historians, philosophers), lecturers, teachers, students, schoolchildren, representatives of public organizations, actors, etc. Most of them play the so-called expert role, i.e. citizens who pressure politicians to take certain decisions, others simply testify, express an opinion, play the role of vox populi (see Pečiulis 2007: 201). PPL leaders are people with higher education and various specialties: half of them are journalists (4), the others – psychologists, actors, singers, astrologers. Among the guests of PPL, who perform the role of experts, predominate doctors with higher education, publishers, entrepreneurs. Among other PPL guests are predominantly representatives of the entertainment and arts professions, most of them also have higher education. It is difficult to judge about the representatives of the short replies (e.g. grandparents, grandmothers, mothers, etc.) named in entertainment programs as relatives – it is assumed that at least the majority of persons dealing with personal matters in TV shows do not have higher education. Such participants, like many of the telephone callers, play the role of vox populi. The summary statistics of all TV talk shows would show a large prevalence of the plural form of addressing the addressee: different addressees addressed 248 different addressees in the polite plural (you and the corresponding verb form), and 43 different addressees in the familiaria singular (you and the corresponding verb form). In this regard, a pronounced social 222 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 and personal (entertainment) channels are: VPL consistently uses plural forms of addressing, while PPL plural and singular forms are almost equally popular. 1.All participants of the VPL interviews – both the hosts (144 different addressees were named in 9 cases) and the guests (46 different addressees were named in 46 cases) – addressed all addressees in the polite plural (a total of 190 different addressees were named in 190 cases), with the exception of the single addressee in the singular form. Addressing the addressee in the polite plural, without the pronoun you (very rarely you, -i, almost without exception in the combination with you), the participants of the VPL used various nominative designations of the addressee: a) the hosts most often addressed the guests of the studio with the pronoun Mr., -ia + (first name) + surname, emphasizing the distance strategy; b) relatively rarely the participants in the study were addressed in the plural, but (somewhat) more familiarly: (Mr., -ia / dear(s)) + first name; such a construction, often with the third member (+ where), the presenters consistently named only those who called the phone; c) VPL, compared to PPL, are characterized by addressing by status, e.g.: (dear / Mr., -a) Prime Minister, Minister, Professor10. Different nominative addressee names, although used in the plural form, often indicate varying degrees of formality of communication, sometimes even different strategies of politeness. The preliminary review of the research material suggests that a thorough analysis of nominative addressee designations could reveal not only cases of individual communication and linguistic (non)competence, development of conversation strategy relevant to discourse studies, but also sociolinguistically interesting facts. As already mentioned, the singular form of addressing the addressee VPL was used only by the only participant: the guest of the show – a senior signatory, 9 The addressee’s name is the name of the person to whom the information is addressed, i.e. the addressee, expressed by a word or a combination of words. In Lithuanian, the individual addressee can be named: 1) by the personal pronouns tu, jūs, less often pats (-i), tamsta; 2) nouns (including adjectives and participles) or their constructions, describing the addressee by name and (or) surname, social position, profession, etc., i.e. so-called nominative designations, e.g.: ponas (-ia), ponas (-ia) + first name / surname / position; (Ambrazas 1990: 9–11; Valeckienė 1998: 211; Čepaitienė 2007: 78–110; Girčienė, Skvorčiūtė 2009: 37–46). Thus, in cases where the addressee is named by the personal pronouns you or you, the scope of the notion of addressee is essentially the same as the scope of the notion of address form. For the purposes of this Article, the term ‘addressing’ is used as the name of a related concept which includes nominative addressing. 10 For all structural types of nominative designations used in TV talk shows, see 2009. pp. 42–45. J. GIRČIENĖ. 229 mama, sese), they are sometimes used as a component of the designation – together with the name (e.g., mama Milda). MOT. VED*IV: mother [MOT.MAM1*IV], do you have a sister, brother? MOT. VED*IV: well, and now – the polar bear [MOT.MAM2*III]. So you already know what you're going to write about? Identify yourself. MOT. VED*IV: well, listen, maybe it's not your [BERN.BROL*I] age to play with cars, do you think? The same host belonging to the IV group addresses in the singular only peers or younger guests of the show and audiences whose social role is mothers, sisters, brothers, friends and girlfriends. The only sociolinguistically important factor in this issue, where there are also plural forms of addressing, is age. Thus, differences can be seen even in comparison with the tradition of domestic usage: unfamiliar women of the same age are addressed not in the polite plural but in the familiaria singular (see Rosinas 1996: 43–44). 3. Summarizing all PPLs, i.e. talk shows that discuss personal matters and/or entertainment programs, aimed at children (VPPL) and especially adults (SPPL), it can be observed that they best reveal the changing relationship between public and private characteristic of today’s television, the rapprochement of the civic space with the private space that was not previously shown publicly, becomes a kind of extension of the home, according to Ž. Pečiulis (see Pečiulis 2007: 198–202). Public discourse is becoming more and more private, moving towards home or street conversations, and social differences expressed in language have been greatly reduced (Marcinkevičienė 2009). It should probably not be too surprising that the boundaries between public and domestic speaking are gradually erased, that Šio proceso įtaka matyti net ir visuomeninius klausimus nagrinėjančiose laidose (VPL) – sėkmingos politinės karjeros komponentais tapo kalbos pathe familiar singular forms of addressing that were hitherto characteristic of domestic language are used in public (cf. Čepaitienė 2007: 79–80). poorness, comprehensibility, sincerity (see Pečiulis 2007: 200), one of the means of linguistic expression of which could be regarded as addressing by name. The convergence of public and private spaces has been observed and discussed in various ways around the world (see Webster 2006: 168–208). There is also a debate about the influence of popular culture and mass communications on language – whether they enliven or impoverish it? An interesting insight into the spread of the expression of the everyday spoken language in the public space 230 CULTURE OF LANGUAGE | 82 the needs of the bourgeoisie, and as something different, satisfying the needs of other social strata. In the researcher’s nomo pasaulyje komunikacijos teoretiko Johno Fiske‘o, mėginančio pristatyti populiariąją kultūrą ne kaip blogesnę už aukštąją, iš esmės tenkinančią opinion, moving away from the official regular language, one enjoys the elements of various spoken language cultures that allow one to recognize the own (Fiske 2008: 94–100). One of the means of expression previously characteristic of almost exclusively domestic language use – the familiar singular form of addressing, spreading in public usage through the media and TV, is often viewed from the point of view of language etiquette as a negative phenomenon that does not comply with the rules of etiquette (cf. Čepaitienė 2007: 85). Pragmatics, sociolinguists, communication specialists understand politeness somewhat differently, looking at it from a functional point of view. In linguistic pragmatics, politeness is not limited to the rules and norms of language etiquette. The communication intention of the addressee is put in the first place. It is said that the first place is given to the communicative intention of the addressee. It is stated that the communicational intention of the addressee is placed in the first place. It is said that the communication intention of the addressee is placed first. It is said that the communicative intention of the addressee is raised. It is said that the communicative intention of the addressee is revealed. It is said that ar-raises the communicative intention of the addressee. It is said that ar-raises the communicative intention of the addressee. It is argued that for the contacting mannerism, which shows intimacy, community, and good relations, language etiquette is often irrelevant at all (Hilbig 2007, see more in 2008). From the perspective of social status, the contradiction of contact and distance strategies of politeness is matched by the contradiction of personal and social distance: contact strategy is associated with communication among own, and distance – between strangers (Карасик 2002: 80). According to communication specialist Žydrūnas Pečiulis, who reflects not only on Lithuanian but also on world experience, “TV aims to compensate for gaps in social dialogue, develops society’s desire to communicate on the most intimate issues, thus capturing radical changes in citizens’ values and norms <…>. The stylistics of the new reality TV, associated with the 1980s, show a changing attitude towards the ordinary citizen – the ordinary person becomes the hero of the programmes, witnesses their problems, images of everyday life become part of the programme” (Pečiulis 2007: 198–204). Therefore, it is natural that the everyday and personal life of not only ordinary people, but also people known to the public are presented in TV programs dealing with such issues in everyday, household language, and thus in familiar forms of addressing. The need for the expression of familiarity and intimacy is evidenced not only by the material of TV talk shows, but also by the positions of the journalists who host such shows – the difference between means of communication and language expression is clearly declared in programs dealing with public and personal matters: “If I, for example, invite <…> say, the minister <…> talk not only about politics, but, say, about a hobby, <…> naturally, in order to break some ice, <…> so that he feels comfortable, <…> I want to become his greatest friend, <…> for me it is J. GIRČIENĖ. The competition of plural and singular forms of addressing in public sentence usage 231 is much more important than his leisure, so that the television viewer would be more interesting. That means I can behave, perhaps, more familiarly, I can perhaps call him you, if age allows, and all the rest. So the cables are not equal, and I don’t think it is possible to put them all on one shoe” (BalSoc). Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that the private space with its characteristic familiar forms of linguistic expression is broadcast to the public. CONCLUSIONS A quantitative study of TV talk shows representing the public usage revealed a large prevalence of the polite plural form of addressing usual in this field of usage: different addressees addressed 248 different addressees in the polite plural (you) and only 43 different addressees in the familiaria singular (you). The qualitative analysis highlighted the distinction between public (VPL) and personal and recreational (PPL) broadcasts. In VPLs associated with public official usage and its characteristic distanced courtesy strategy that means social distancing and respect, plural forms of addressing that help maintain social distance are consistently used. In PPL, associated with the public free consumption and its characteristic approach of politeness, the singular forms of addressing, which help to maintain friendly personal relationships, compete strongly with the plural forms of addressing – both are almost equally common (you – 57 / you – 42). Thus, the dichotomy between VPL and PPL is considered the main factor determining the choice of forms of address. The different nature of the programmes also determines the differences of their participants, which, in addition to the aforementioned aspects of formality and freedom, may also influence the choice of forms of addressing: PPL participants are relatively younger than VPL, some of them have lower education and social status; VPL hosts and guests are dominated by men, PPL by women, VPL guests are dominated by politicians, and PPL by representatives of the entertainment world; PPL, compared to VPL, has fewer participants in the role of decision-makers, experts and, accordingly, more so-called vox populi representatives. The main sociolinguistic factors determining the choice of addressing forms in PPL are the age ratio of the addressee and the addressee, the degree of acquaintance, social roles that can be influenced by education, social status (program host / guest; solver, expert (by affiliation 232 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 PROFESSIONS) / vox populi and others). The plural form PPL is usually used to refer to senior, honourable, judge or expert program participants. The single form of addressing is more typical for hosts, and is usually used to address peers or younger people, as well as acquaintances, who act as co-hosts or vox populi. The hosts of these programmes, which try to combine the public and the private (a kind of extension of the home broadcast publicly on TV), have to solve difficult tasks – how to create a cozy environment of programmes dealing with personal matters by means of language expression, including different forms of addressing, and at the same time show respect not only to the guests of the programme, but also to the viewers. LITERATŪRA Ambr azas V. 1990: Kaip kreiptis? Kaip vadinti? – Gimtoji kalba 4, 9–11. Boissevain J. 1987: Social Network. – Sociolinguistics 1 (HSK 3.1), Berlin– New York, 164–169. Brow n P., Levinson S. 1978: Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. – Questions and politeness (ed. E. Goody), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–289. Brow n P., L ev inson S. 1987 (papildytas 1978 m. leidimas): Politeness. Some universals in language usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fragmentai per internetą: http://books.google.lt/books Čepa itienė G. 2007: Lietuvių kalbos etiketas: semantika ir pragmatika, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. Džež ulskienė J. 1994: Kalba ir giminė. – Sociolingvistika ir kalbos kultūra, Vilnius: Gimtoji kalba, 55–61. Fisk e J. 2008: Populiariosios kultūros supratimas, Vilnius: Žara. Girčienė J., Kupčinskaitė -Ryklienė A. 2005: Kreipimosi į adresatą būdai reklamoje. – Kalbos kultūra 78, 220–230. Girčienė J. 2009: Adresato įvardijimas periodikoje. – Kalba ir kontekstai, Vilnius. Girčienė J., Sk vorč iūtė K. 2009: Adresato įvardijimo polinkiai viešajame sakytiniame diskurse. – Working paper 3, 35–47. Gr umadienė L. 1994: Sociolingvistika ir kalbos kultūra. – Sociolingvistika ir kalbos kultūra, Vilnius: Gimtoji kalba, 5–13. Gudavičienė E. 2007: Lietuvių kalbos direktyvai. [Daktaro disertacija.] Hilbig I. 2007: Kalbinis mandagumas ir kalbos etiketas – viena ir tas pat? – Lietuvos socialinių mokslų forumo pranešimų tezės. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.socforumas.lt/files/events/tezes1.doc J. GIRČIENĖ. Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje 233 Hilbig I. 2008: Mandagumas kaip reliatyvus kalbinis, socialinis ir kultūrinis reiškinys. – Acta Linguistica Lithuanica 58, 1–15. Hilbig I. 2009: Lietuvių ir anglų prašymų strategijos ir mandagumas. – Lietuvių kalba 3. Prieiga per internetą: http://www.lietuviukalba.lt/index.php?id=130 Kara liūnas S. 1997: Kalba ir visuomenė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Marcinkevičie nė R. 1994: Gyvosios kalbos etnografija. – Sociolingvistika ir kalbos kultūra, Vilnius: Gimtoji kalba, 47–54. Marcinkevičie nė R. 2004: Užsakomųjų reklaminių straipsnių tarpasmeninės funkcijos raiška. – Respectus philologicus 6 (11). Prieiga per internetą: http://filologija.vukhf.lt Marcinkevičie nė R. 2009: Nuo Habermaso iki Valinsko. Viešosios erdvės privatėjimas. – Akiračiai 2–3 (409), 1, 4. Prieiga per internetą: http://www. akiraciai.lt/Akiraciai/Tema/Nuo-Habermaso-iki-Valinsko.-Viesosios-erdvesprivatejimas Miliūnaitė R. 2009: Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos vartosenos variantai, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Pečiulis Ž. 2007: Iki ir po televizijos. Žvilgsnis į XX amžiaus audiovizualinės masinės komunikacijos fenomeną, Vilnius: Versus aureus. Roma ine S. 2000: Language in society, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rosi nas A. 1996: Lietuvių bendrinės kalbos įvardžiai, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Skvorčiūtė K. 2009: Adresato įvardijimas sakytinėje kalboje (TV pokalbių laidų pagrindu). [Bakalauro darbas, VPU.] Valeckie nė A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Vilkienė L. 1998: Dialogo adresantas ir adresatas. – Kalbotyra 47, 153–164. We bster F. 2006: Informacinės visuomenės teorijos, Kaunas: Poligrafija ir informatika. Kara Sik V. 2002: The Language of Social Status, Moscow: Gnosis. Received 11/11/2009 234 LANGUAGE CULTURE | 82 COMPETITION BETWEEN PLURAL AND SINGULAR FORMS OF ADDRESS IN PUBLIC SPOKEN USAGE Summary A quantitative analysis of television talk shows representing public usage and broadcast between 26 January 2009 and 11 March 2009 has identified a marked preference for the polite form of address, which is usual in this area of usage: different addressors referred to 248 different addressees by the polite plural form jūs and only to 43 different addressees by the less polite singular form tu. A qualitative analysis has identified differences between programmes dealing with public issues (PPI) and programmes focusing on entertainment and/or personal issues (PEI). PPIs are related to public official usage and therefore consistently use plural forms of address which help maintain social distance. PEI, in their turn, are mostly related to freer public usage, hence singular forms of address which help maintain friendly relationships compete with plural forms of address. Both of them are equally popular (jūs found in 57 instances; tu—in 42 instances). A different character of PPIs and PEIs determines differences in the choice of their participants and in addition to the previously discussed aspects of official and free usage might also influence the choice of the forms of address. The main socio-linguistic factors determining the choice of the forms of address in PPIs include the age of the addressor and the addressee, closeness between them, social roles which might be influenced by education and social status. The plural form in PPIs is mostly used when addressing older, more respectable participants, often performing the roles of decision takers or experts. The singular form is preferred by moderators, used in reference to peers, younger interlocutors or acquaintances. It should be noted that PPI moderators attempting to combine public and private sometimes have to cope with rather tough situations, for example, by linguistic means, including polite forms of address, they have to create a friendly environment and show respect to their guests and the audience. JURGITA GIRČIENĖ Lietuvių kalbos institutas P. Vileišio g. 5, LT-10308 Vilnius, Lithuania [email protected]