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

JURGITA GIRČIENĖ Institute of the Lithuanian Language COMPETITION BETWEEN PLURAL AND SINGULAR FORMS OF ADDRESS IN PUBLIC SPOKEN USAGE (a sociolinguistic aspect) INTRODUCTION Public usage is generally associated with the plural form of address to an individual addressee—the so-called polite plural, expressed by the pronoun you and the corresponding verb form, which usually enables an unfamiliar speaker and addressee to maintain distance and convey a respectful, formal relationship (see Župerka 1997: 45; Čepaitienė 2007: 27, 83, 85ff.). Such relationships are associated with the distancing politeness strategy (for more, see Brown, Levinson 1987; Карасик 2002)1. The old style of communication among the Lithuanian upper classes has not survived and is scarcely documented. It is thought that the distancing expression of politeness characteristic of contemporary public usage—addressing someone with the polite plural, by first and last name, and with words denoting their position and social standing, prefixed by Mr., Mrs. or respected, regardless of the interlocutors’ age and gender, restores 1 The creators of politeness theory, Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, argue that the expression of politeness is determined by two modes of communication: positive (positive politeness), which conveys friendliness and closeness, and negative (negative politeness), which conveys respect and maintains distance (Brown, Levinson 1978, 1987). Giedrė Čepaitienė, a researcher of Lithuanian language etiquette, makes a well-founded proposal to call positive politeness expression the contact strategy and negative politeness expression the distancing strategy (see Čepaitienė 2007: 25). The terms mentioned so far vary in Lithuanian-language works; cf. the (distancing, contact) politeness strategy, or, more briefly, (distancing, contact) politeness (Čepaitienė 2007; Gudavičienė 2007; Hilbig 2007, 2008 (as metalinguistic commentary); Girčienė, Skvorčiūtė 2009), and (negative, positive) politeness (Džežulskienė 1994; Girčienė, Kupčinskaitė-Ryklienė 2005; Hilbig 2008, 2009). 214 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 nepriklausomybės laikų tradicijas (Čepaitienė 2007: 79, 85). Sociolingvistinių duomenų apie kreipimosi formų funkcionavimo viešojoje vartosenoje tradiciją teikia ir įvardžių tyrimas, išryškinantis buitines ir dalykines aplinkos lemiamus skirtumus. Apibendrintai pasakytina, kad dalykinėms situacijoms svarbiausias yra statuso veiksnys – familiariai (tu) gali būti kreipiamasi tik į žemesnę socialinę padėtį užimančius asmenis (Rosinas 1996: 43–44). Bet dabartinės viešosios vartosenos tyrimai rodo didesnę slinktį kontaktinės mandagumo strategijos, kurios žymikliu laikoma ir familiari vienaskaita, link. Vienaskaitinių kreipimosi į adresatą formų užfiksuota tiek rašytinėje, tiek sakytinėje viešojoje vartosenoje: užsakomuosiuose reklaminiuose straipsniuose (Marcinkevičienė 2004), žurnalų reklamose (Girčienė, Kupčinskaitė–Ryklienė 2005) ir redakciniuose straipsniuose (Girčienė 2009), TV pokalbių laidose (Čepaitienė 2007: 79–80, 88–89, 110; Girčienė, Skvorčiūtė 2009: 41, 43, 46). Anot Giedrės Čepaitienės, „pamažu nutrinamos ribos tarp viešojo ir buitinio šnekos akto, kalbant viešai vartojamos familiarijos, tik buitinei kalbai tinkamos formos“ (Čepaitienė 2007: 80). Researchers of other languages that have preserved the opposition between singular and polite plural forms report similar tendencies toward the singular. It is even hypothesized that the singular form of address may displace the competing plural form, since from the end of the twentieth century, closeness has become a more important factor than respect. A relationship has been identified between attitudes and the choice of one variant or another: more conservative language users tend to choose the plural, while more liberal users choose the singular (Marcinkevičienė 1994: 50–51). The choice of form of address also depends on other factors: the age, sex, and education of the speaker and addressee, their degree of acquaintance, the hierarchy of their social relations2, and their social roles; as well as the circumstances of speaking—the public or private nature of the interaction, the (a)symmetry of the communicative situation, whether it is a dialogue or polylogue, etc. (for a more detailed discussion, see Boissevain 1987: 167ff.; Džežulskienė 1994: 57ff.; Grumadienė 1994; Marcinkevičienė 1994: 48–51, 2004; Karaliūnas 1997: 105–106ff.; Vilkienė 1998; Romaine 2000; Čepaitienė 2007: 72, 78–83, 109–110ff.). The aim of this article is to discuss, from a sociolinguistic perspective and on the basis of data from a quantitative and qualitative analysis of TV talk shows, the competition between plural and singular forms of address to the addressee in public spoken 2Relationships between participants in a communicative act may be non-hierarchical—equal, horizontal, i.e., symmetrical, expressing solidarity—or hierarchical—unequal, vertical, i.e., asymmetrical, embodying power (for a more detailed discussion, see Marcinkevičienė 2004; Čepaitienė 2007: 33). J. GIRČIENĖ. Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje 215 usage. The material selected for the study represents public spoken usage3 and consists of TV talk shows of a social, personal, or entertainment-oriented nature, intended for diverse audiences. The population studied comprised all weekly talk shows broadcast by all Lithuanian broadcasters from 26 January 2009 to 11 March 2009 (two episodes of each)4. These were: 1) debate, discussion, and talk shows addressing social issues; 2) talk shows dealing with personal matters and entertainment (for children). A total of 19 shows with different titles were studied, comprising 38 episodes overall, with a total duration of approximately 32 hours. Of these, 24 recordings (12 different shows5, two recordings each) were of social-affairs shows, with a combined duration of 18 hours (18 recordings of approximately 50 minutes each; 6 recordings of approximately 30 minutes each); 14 recordings (7 different shows, two recordings each) were of entertainment shows, with a combined duration of 14 hours (4 recordings of approximately 120 minutes each; 4 recordings of approximately 50 minutes each; 6 recordings of approximately 30 minutes each). The shows were transcribed according to the CHILDES (Child Language Data Exchange Systems) methodology, designed for collecting and analyzing spoken-language data. Participants in the conversations were coded (individuals are not named) according to factors relevant to sociolinguistic research—sex, social role (often also indirectly indicating their (presumed) level of education), age group, etc. For example: VYR.VED*III, i.e., a man in the role of show host (usually a journalist with higher education), belonging to sociolinguistically defined age group III (25–34 years old) (see Table 3); MOT. PSICHOL*V, i.e., a woman participating in the show in the role of an expert—in this case, in psychology (experts are also usually specialists in a particular field with higher education)—belonging to age group V (45–59 years old). The shows featured 218 people with varying levels of education—almost equal numbers of men and women, aged from 10 to 75. In total, the plural and singular forms of address were used 290 times when addressing different addressees6. In interpreting this primary empirical material, the study drew on the Lithuanian-Latvian project “Baltic Sociolinguistics (BalSoc): Linguistic Self-Awareness of Society 3 Dėl sąvokų sakytinė kalba ir viešoji vartosena žr. Miliūnaitė 2009: 34–35, 38–39. 4 The author of this article sincerely thanks Kristina Skvorčiūtė for allowing the valuable empirical material she had collected (see Skvorčiūtė 2009: 51–171, Appendix 2. Transcripts of excerpts from TV talk shows) to be used in further studies of spoken usage. 5 The show Akistata su Lietuva, hosted by different presenters every other episode, was treated as two different shows (two shows with two recordings each). 6 There are more distinct addressees than show participants, because the same person is counted as several different addressees when addressed by several different speakers. 216 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 According to the data from “Lithuania and Latvia”7: an analysis of qualitative interviews with 24 male Lithuanian television and radio journalists and programme hosts (aged 32–42) about journalists’ linguistic competence and related topics. Almost all respondents in the sample have experience of speaking spontaneously on air (hereafter BalSoc). SOCIOLINGUISTIC DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMMES AND THEIR PARTICIPANTS According to the criterion of whether a conversation is public or private, all TV talk shows accessible to every member of the speech community are formally classifiable as part of the public sphere. However, in terms of content and the linguistic expression shaped by it, it is also useful to divide them into the two main groups mentioned above: 1) debate, discussion, and talk programmes addressing public issues (hereafter VPL): Akiračiai, Akistata su Lietuva, Ant svarstyklių, Be pykčio, Forumas, Redakcija, Teisė žinoti, Toks gyvenimas su Zita Kelmickaite, Tarp Rytų ir Vakarų, TV forumas, Versijos; 2) talk programmes dealing with personal matters and entertainment, intended not only for adult but also for child audiences (hereafter PPL): Bėdų turgus, Nacionalinė paieškų tarnyba, Su Palmira; Auksinė savaitės blykstė, Šeštadienio rytas (for adults, hereafter SPPL), Meta Meškinija, Tele bim-bam (for children, hereafter VPPL). 1) VPL belong to the category of TV debate programmes: debates are characterized by the expression of opinions, the search for truth and appropriate solutions, and the primacy of intellect and argument (cf. Pečiulis 2007: 202). In terms of linguistic expression, VPL are associated with public formal usage, in which a greater or lesser distance is maintained between speaker and addressee, and expressive resources are chosen more consciously and carefully (cf. Miliūnaitė 2009: 40–44). The association of VPL with formal usage is also confirmed by studies of language etiquette in TV talk shows (2003–2005): in Giedrė Čepaitienė’s view, public affairs and political programmes are most strongly associated with a distancing politeness strategy that conveys respectful, formal relations (Čepaitienė 2007: 85–87). 2) PPL would correspond to the other two categories of dialogic TV programmes—talk shows and reality shows—associated with the spectacle of speech and conflict, the stimulation of emotions, the reenactment of people’s fates, and the tragedy or heroism of everyday life (cf. Pečiulis 2007: 202, 204). In terms of linguistic expression, PPL are associated with public informal usage 7 The project was carried out in 2009 at the Institute of the Lithuanian Language. It was supported by the State Science and Studies Foundation. J. GIRČIENĖ. Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje 217 —usage characterized by linguistic expression unrestricted by formal rules and by informality (see Miliūnaitė 2009: 40–44). The insight regarding the association of PPL with informal usage is also confirmed by studies of language etiquette: although G. Čepaitienė argues that a distancing politeness strategy is more appropriate in TV talk shows, where communication takes place publicly and the programmes are also watched by large audiences, she nevertheless tends to associate domestic social programmes (especially those intended for children) with a cosy, natural setting and a contact politeness strategy that conveys warm relations (Čepaitienė 2007: 85, 87–90). Thus, an examination of forms of address in PPL must draw not only on studies of public, professional usage, but also on studies of everyday usage. According to the pronoun study mentioned in the introduction, familiarity, age, and gender are important factors in everyday situations. Familiar address (tu) is most commonly used in Lithuania among young people of both sexes who know one another; singular address may also be used by older-generation people of both sexes when addressing younger people, usually those they know. When people do not know one another, singular address is used only by men of various ages when addressing other men. Non-familiar, that is, respectful address (jūs), is used in everyday situations between young people of different sexes who do not know one another, and also when addressing both familiar and unfamiliar members of the older generation; older men use it when addressing both familiar and unfamiliar women (Rosinas 1996: 43–44). To sum up the VPL–PPL dichotomy, its basis—the formality–informality (freedom) dimension—is considered one of the most important criteria in sociolinguistic studies (for further discussion, see Miliūnaitė 2009: 41ff.). The total duration of recordings of VPL, representing public formal usage, is somewhat greater (18 hours) than that of PPL, classified as public informal usage (14 hours, of which 4 recordings—2 different programmes with 2 recordings each—are children’s programmes). However, the relatively small difference, together with the same number of programme guests present in the studio (58) and a very similar number of hosts (13 / 8), allows the two groups to be compared statistically (see Table 1). TABLE 1. Distribution of programme participants by type of participation Type of programme Hosts Participants in the studio Participants by telephone Total participants VPL 13 58 76 147 PPL 8 58 5 71 Total 21 116 81 218 218 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 In both groups, broadcasts featuring more than one guest in addition to the host(s) predominate (38 / 5). Nevertheless, according to the criterion of dialogical or polylogical interaction, talk shows should generally be regarded not as polylogues but as dialogues between the active conversational participant—the host—and each individual guest. Fragments of polylogue do occur among guests participating in the studio, albeit rarely, but callers never take part in them. Given this type of conversation characteristic of TV programs, and especially the importance of the host’s role, participants are further divided into subgroups relevant to the research question: hosts (the most active creators of conversation and users of forms of address to the addressee)8, studio participants (active conversation participants and users of forms of address to the addressee), and callers (usually the authors of one or several turns, who hardly ever use forms of address to the addressee) (see Table 2). Among the 218 people who participated in the broadcasts overall, men (120) outnumbered women (98) slightly. As Table 2 shows, men predominated among VPL hosts and studio participants, while women predominated among PPL participants. TABLE 2. Distribution of broadcast participants by sex (m – women, v – men) Type of broadcast Hosts Studio participants Participants by phone Total men and women VPL 11 v / 2 m 46 v / 12 m 38 v / 38 m 95 v / 52 m PPL 1 male / 7 female 23 male / 35 female 1 male / 4 female 25 male / 46 female Total 12 male / 9 female 69 male / 47 female 39 male / 42 female 120 male / 98 female The majority of programme participants are people aged 25–59, the most civically active working-age citizens (see Table 3). 8 The importance of the host’s role as the director of the conversation and often its primary addresser—and therefore as the most active user of forms of address to various addressees—is emphasized by specialists in both communication and speech etiquette (see Čepaitienė 2007: 79–90; Pečiulis 2007: 205). J. GIRČIENĖ. Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje 219 TABLE 3. Distribution of programme participants by age group (excluding telephone callers) Age groups Participants’ age (years) Percentage of VPL participants (number) Percentage of PPL participants (number) Total percentage of programme participants (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 range are distributed approximately evenly across the groups (see groups III–V) and among whom there are children and young people (groups I–II), are relatively younger than VPL participants, among whom group V (almost half) and group IV representatives predominate (see Fig. 1). FIG. 1. Distribution of programme participants by age group (excluding telephone callers) 220 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 VPL hosts are also older—among them, representatives of age groups IV and V predominate: 2 (III), 5 (IV), 6 (V). PPL hosts, like their program guests, are younger—among them, representatives of age groups II and III predominate: 3 (II), 3 (III), 2 (IV). In addition to the sociolinguistic factors that may affect the use of the linguistic phenomenon under study—age, gender, etc.—the participants’ education (field of activity), the roles they perform on the program, and other factors should also be discussed. Among VPL hosts, journalists with higher education predominate (10); isolated cases include a cultural studies scholar, a lawyer, and a philosopher. People with higher education also predominate among the guests on these programs: more than half of the studio guests are politicians, government officials, in Ž. Pečiulis’s words, decision-makers, and representatives of committed speech (Pečiulis 2007: 201). Among representatives of other professions, political scientists, economists, journalist commentators, psychologists, cultural studies scholars, and businesspeople are popular; there were also researchers (historians, philosophers), lecturers, teachers, students, school pupils, representatives of public organizations, actors, and others. Most perform what is called the expert role; these are citizens who pressure politicians to make certain decisions, while others simply testify, express an opinion, and perform the vox populi role (cf. Pečiulis 2007: 201). PPL hosts are people with higher education and a range of specialties: half are journalists (4), while the others include a psychologist, an actor, a singer, and an astrologer. Among PPL guests who perform the expert role, doctors, publishers, and businesspeople with higher education predominate. Among the other PPL guests, representatives of entertainment and arts professions predominate, most of whom also have higher education. It is difficult to determine the backgrounds of the people represented by brief remarks identified by kinship terms on entertainment programs (e.g., grandfathers, grandmothers, mothers, and so on); it may be assumed that at least most of those who discuss personal matters on TV programs do not have higher education. Such participants, like many of those who call in, perform the role of opinion-givers, vox populi. TRENDS IN THE USE OF FORMS OF ADDRESS A summary of statistics for all TV talk shows would indicate a substantial predominance of plural forms of address to the addressee: different addressers addressed 248 different addressees using the polite plural (jūs and the corresponding verb form), and 43 different addressees using the familiar singular (tu and the corresponding verb form). In this respect, a clear divide can be seen between the public J. GIRČIENĖ. Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje 221 and personal (entertainment) types of programs: VPL consistently uses plural forms of address, whereas plural and singular forms are almost equally popular in PPL. 1. All participants in VPL conversations—both hosts (144 instances of naming different addressees) and guests (46 instances of naming different addressees)—addressed all addressees using the polite plural (190 instances of naming different addressees in total), with the sole exception of one instance of addressing an addressee in the singular.9 When using the polite plural, in addition to the pronoun jūs (very rarely pats, –i, almost without exception in combination with jūs), VPL participants used various nominative designations for addressees: a) hosts most often addressed studio guests using the designation ponas, –ia + (first name) + surname, which emphasizes a distancing strategy; b) participants in the studio were addressed relatively rarely in the plural but (somewhat) more familiarly: (ponas, –ia / gerbiama(s)) + first name; hosts consistently used this construction, often with a third element (+ iš kur), only for people calling in by phone; c) compared with PPL, VPL is characterized by forms of address based on status, e.g.: (gerbiama(s) / ponas, –ia) premjere, ministre, profesoriau10. Although they are used when addressing someone in the plural, varying nominative designations for addressees often signal different degrees of formality and sometimes even different politeness strategies. An initial review of the research material suggests that a thorough analysis of nominative designations for addressees could reveal not only cases of individual communicative and linguistic (in)competence and conversational strategy development that are relevant to discourse studies, but also sociolinguistically interesting facts. As noted above, the singular form of address to an addressee was used in VPL by only one participant: a program guest, a signatory of advanced age, 9 An addressee designation is the naming of a person to whom information is addressed, that is, the addressee, expressed by a word or phrase. In Lithuanian, an individual addressee may be designated: 1) by personal pronouns tu, jūs, less often pats (–i), tamsta; 2) by nouns (including adjectives and participles used as nouns) or their constructions, which describe the addressee by first name and/or surname, social position, profession, and so on—that is, by so-called nominative designations, e.g., ponas (–ia), ponas (–ia) + first name / surname / position; gerbiamas(is), gerbiama(–oji) + first name, and so forth (Ambrazas 1990: 9–11; Valeckienė 1998: 211; Čepaitienė 2007: 78–110; Girčienė, Skvorčiūtė 2009: 37–46). Thus, in cases where the addressee is designated by the personal pronouns tu or jūs, the scope of the term addressee designation essentially coincides with that of the term form of address. In this article, the term addressee designation is used as the name for a related concept that also encompasses nominative forms of address. 10 For all structural types of nominative designations used in TV talk shows, see Gir-čienė, Skvorčiūtė (2009: 42–45). 222 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 a well-known philosopher, professor [VYR.SIGNAT.FILOS.PROF*V] repeatedly addressed the female program guest, a signatory, well-known actress and public figure [MOT.SIGNAT.VISUOM.AKT*V], who was (presumably) acquainted with him and twenty years younger, using the singular and her first name, e.g.: VYR. SIGNAT.FILOS.PROF*VI: no, [MOT.SIGNAT.VISUOM.AKT*V name], you are wrong here. Three people in all participated in this program: the two guests mentioned and the host, a cultural studies scholar and professor [VYR.VED.KULT.PROF*V]. Both the actress and the host addressed one another, as well as the philosopher, using the plural: the guest addressed the host by first name, the host addressed the guest using only “you,” while both addressed the philosopher with a nominative designation based on status: MOT. SIGNAT.VISUOM.AKT*V: if they had not <...> bought the nomenklatura, they would not govern anything, Professor [VYR. SIGNAT.FILOS.PROF*VI], you understand that perfectly well. The context does not reveal how the program guest addressed the host—the only marker of address is the pronoun pats, which, as the data from this and other studies show, can be used to express either the polite plural or the familiar singular, and can therefore be regarded as intermediate between you (plural/formal) and you (singular/familiar)11. VYR. SIGNAT.FILOS.PROF*VI: twenty years is a lot relative to my age, himself [VYR.VED.KULT.PROF*V] is not all that young either, but it is not such a long period in the history of things. The only singular form of the VPL form of address, chosen by the oldest program guest on the basis of age, may be associated with the speaker’s status and age. As studies show, in professional situations one may address a person of lower status familiarly; older people may likewise address younger people in this way, usually acquaintances, in informal communication (cf. Rosinas 1996: 43–44). Nevertheless, given that men of the older generation traditionally use the plural form even when addressing a woman they know (cf. Rosinas 1996: 43–44), this case might perhaps be associated not with a hierarchical or non- 11 Addressing someone with the pronoun pats, -i seems to avoid the direct you (singular/familiar), which may seem too brusque, especially when speaking with someone one barely knows; you (plural/formal), in turn, is overly formal, emphasizing the distance between interlocutors. Apparently, this pronoun occupies an intermediate position: on the one hand, it is not familiar; on the other, it is not formal either (Čepaitienė 2007: 81). J. GIRČIENĖ. Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje 223 polite conduct, but with a certain shared professional interest among all three programme participants (who could be classified as public figures and people of culture), developing a generally rather rare polylogue on the programme (cf. Čepaitienė 2007: 80ff.). 2. In comparison with the VPL discussed above, familiar singular forms compete strongly with PPL using the polite plural (57 instances of referring to different addressees; 42 instances with the familiar singular). The plural forms of address in PPL are expressed by the pronoun jūs (very rarely pats, –i, usually together with jūs), while the singular is expressed, predominantly, by the pronoun tu, and very rarely by the pronoun pats, –i. Among nominative references to the addressee, address by (first) name predominates in both cases. To determine more precisely the tendencies in the use of plural and singular forms of address to the addressee, which occur with almost equal frequency in PPL, entertainment programmes were further divided into adult programmes (hereafter SPPL; 10 recordings of five different programmes) and children’s programmes (hereafter VPPL; 4 recordings of two different programmes). 2.1. In SPPL, plural forms were used twice as often (48 instances of referring to different addressees) as singular forms (22 instances of referring to different addressees). Interestingly, singular forms of address are used most often by programme hosts. This is due to their role as conversation strategists and listeners, which requires them to refer to the addressee, and to the role of programme guests as respondents and storytellers, who need to address the host much less often, rather than to isolated cases in which guests respond to being addressed with familiar singular forms by using the plural. Daugiskaitinės formos. Iš šešių SPPL vedėjų dvi V gr. moterys į visus adresatus, tiek dalyvaujančius studijoje (jie priklauso tai pačiai amžiaus grupei kaip ir vedėjos), tiek ir skambinusius telefonu, tarp kurių vyrauja moterys, nuosekliai kreipėsi tik daugiskaita, tokioms laidoms būdingą artumą rodydamos nominatyviniu įvardijimu (vardu). Palyginus su įvairuojančiomis jaunesnių vedėjų kreipimosi formomis (žr. toliau), čia būtų galima įžvelgti amžiaus ir net lyties poveikį: vyresni žmonės tradiciškai laikosi įprastos daugiskaitinės kreipimosi formos, nepažįstamos moterys tradiciškai viena į kitą kreipiasi daugiskaita (plg. Rosinas 1996: 43–44). Formos pasirinktį greičiausia veikia ir abiejų laidų vedėjų atliekamas savotiškų eksperčių, padedančių laidos dalyviams spręsti asmeninius klausimus, vaidmuo, lemiantis vertikalius santykius. Tai rodytų ir keleto nominatyvinių įvardijimų, skirtų laidų vedėjoms, pobūdis: prie- 224 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 respected». All guests addressed the hosts, and the hosts likewise addressed them, only in the plural. The other four SPPL hosts, one man (group III) and three women (one representative of group III and two of group IV), chose plural or singular forms of address according to the situation. Traditionally, they used the plural to address older and/or more distinguished guests who took on the role of expert (e.g. a doctor, a book reviewer), most often using nominative references by name (both to people in the studio and to those on the telephone); with more distinguished guests—by age and status—they sometimes (though infrequently and not necessarily consistently with the same person) added forms of address such as ponas, -ia / mielas, -a + first name, while so-called experts were often addressed by profession, e.g.: a) VYR.VED*III: [MOT.POET.POLIT*VI vardas], flowers from us for your creative contribution. VYR.VED*III: miela [MOT.POET.POLIT*VI vardas], good evening, it’s nice to see you. Please join us. MOT.VED.ŽURN1*III: ponia [MOT.POET.POLIT*VI vardas], you are still a poet, you create texts, of course you are very lyrical, sensitive. And as for today’s topic, have you ever experienced pain because of it? VYR.VED*III: ponia [MOT.POET.POLIT*VI vardas], today’s topic is faithfulness and infidelity, so that feeling can be the same between a man and a woman as it can between friends generally, right? b) MOT.VED.ŽURN1*IV: gydytoja [MOT.GYD.EKSP*V], tai visiškai visi gali naudoti? <...> ačiū jums. Būkite sveika. Gero savaitgalio. As already noted, SPPL guests, when addressing the hosts, use only the plural and, as in VPL, usually add to the name forms of address expressing (warm) respect: gerbiamas, mielas + first name. Singular forms. SPPL hosts most often use the singular when addressing fellow hosts and guests of a similar (or younger) age or (and/or) status, who may be acquaintances (as already noted, entertainment programmes hosted by entertainment-industry figures often feature guests from the same field). Such tendencies to use familiar forms in SPPL that imitate everyday situations broadly correspond to everyday usage traditions (cf. Rosinas 1996: 43–44). When SPPL hosts address someone using the singular, alongside the pronoun tu (rarely pats, -i), only nominative references by name are used: J. GIRČIENĖ. Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje 225 a) VYR.VED*III: palauk, [MOT.VED.ŽURN1*III vardas], negalima išėdinėti tų merginų. VYR.VED*III: [VYR.LAID.PRODIUS*III name], so let’s return to this evening’s overall leitmotif of the show—fidelity and infidelity. Youseem to be choosing very safe answers for us today. MOT.VED.ŽURN1*III: but listen, [VYR.LAID.PRODIUS*III name], well, people often talk about it, <...>, but those discussions are useful to you, on the one hand. b) MOT.VED.ŽURN1*IV: and what is it, [MOT.KITOS LAIDOS VED*III name], I heard you explaining during the commercial what blanching is? c) MOT.VED.ŽURN2*IV: [MERG.DUKT*I name], what are youyourself? A dancer? <....>So I understood correctly: you’re determined to become a doctor. <...>I won’t be at all surprised if youbecome one in about ten years—probably a little longer. MOT.VED.ŽURN2*IV: Madam [MOT.MOTINA*IV name], now you’re a working woman, right? <...>Is it true that when [MERG.DUKT*I name] became a clever and self-aware little girl, she used to comfort you before operations, rather than the other way around? Alongside the general tendencies in the use of plural and singular forms described above, there are also exceptional cases. For example, the same presenter in program (a) addressed a much older guest singer familiarly (using the singular) for part of the show—the presenter was, in a way, revisiting the singer’s life as an expert—e.g.: a) VYR.VED*III: [VYR.SVEČ.DAIN*V name], what kind of ideal relationship does that make? <...>So, as I understand it, infidelity is a two-way affair. So you can be unfaithful, but she can’t? The guest, like all the other SPPL guests, addressed both the presenter who used the familiar singular form with him and the female presenter who addressed him in the plural, using the plural, most often with an endearment (dear) or, in the male presenter’s case, perhaps with the more distancing form of address respected sir: a) VYR.SVEČ.DAIN*V: respected sir[VYR.VED*III name], may I break this program? MOT.VED.ŽURN1*III: [VYR.SVEČ.DAIN*V name], is it true, then, that you’re a Don Juan? Do you never pass up a woman? VYR.SVEČ.DAIN*V: dear[MOT.VED.ŽURN1*III name], that’s your taste, that’s your unique taste. 226 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 The case under discussion is interesting because later the host, addressing the same singer, switched to the plural, cf.: a) VYR.VED*III: there was a test on the theme of fidelity and infidelity, because we know that this show will definitely be watched by your wife. And you passed the test. <...> Bravo, [VYR.SVEČ.DAIN*V name]. Such a shift to the more respectful plural can be linked to a change in the guest’s status, as perceived by the show’s host (see the illustrative examples). Nevertheless, both this latter (hardly deliberately planned) shift from the familiar singular to the more respectful plural form of referring to the same addressee, and the same host’s varying use of nominative forms of address for the same addressee (first name / Ms. (dear) + first name, etc.; see the earlier examples), also characteristic of other hosts, the use of plural and singular forms to refer to different addressees, not to mention the varying forms of address used by hosts of the same show of similar age (a) toward the same addressee, and so on, would point to the difficult questions faced by SPPL hosts about how to create a warm atmosphere for shows that explore personal problems while also showing respect for the guests, that is, taking account of the public nature of a TV show. This is also confirmed by the aforementioned host’s [VYR.VED*III] comment: “Now the French also want to give up tu and keep only vous. The Germans are also trying to drop Sie and those forms of politeness. I don’t know; I like it when a distinction is made, but, for example, sometimes it’s very difficult for me as a show host: when I know an older person well, I can even address them as tu, and that’s no problem for me. <...> So that, I mean, the relationship between tu and vous is very fluid” [emphasis mine. – J. G.] (BalSoc). 2.2. In VPPL, plural forms of address are half as frequent as singular forms (9 instances of referring to different addressees, compared with 20 instances). This was partly due to the polylogical nature of two recordings of one of the two different children’s shows, in which the singular is consistently used despite differences in age, gender, etc.: the participants engage actively with one another, and therefore addressees are often referred to not only by the host but also by other characters and a guest—in these recordings, there were as many as 16 instances of referring to different addressees in the singular. It should be emphasized that in the show, apart from J. GIRČIENĖ. Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje 227 the regular guest (a female guest in the other recording), who most likely belongs to age group III, all the other participants are characters played by people from various age groups (II–IV gr.). Thus, the consistent use of singular forms of address in this show is primarily associated with its addressees—children, who traditionally address one another, as well as being addressed by older people, in the singular. It is therefore natural that the show’s friendly characters interact with one another by following the contact-politeness strategy customary with children (a traditional feature of children’s shows; cf. Čepaitienė 2007: 90). However, in one recording of another show intended for children and the whole family, the participants interact actively with an atypical addressee for such a show—the children’s grandparents. The host, who belongs to age group IV, consistently addressed them in the plural eight times (this accounts for practically all the distinct plural-address instances attributable to SPPL). This may be explained by the fact that the addressees were older than those typical for this show (cf. the typical addressees in another recording—mothers and children who were almost the same age as the host—addressed in the singular). This may have resulted in a higher-than-usual number of plural forms of address for this show. The relatively rare plural form in VPPL is used only with the pronoun jūs, while among nominative references, addressing people by their (character’s) names predominates. Shows for children and families are also characterized by address using kinship terms (e.g., grandpa (granddad), grandma), sometimes used as part of a combined form of reference together with the character’s name (e.g., granddad, pink teddy bear), for example: MOT.VED*IV: please, granddad, pink teddy bear [VYR.SENEL*V–VI], speak. MOT.VED*IV: there, grandma is sitting. Grandma [MOT.MOČIUT*V–VI], praise your grandfather. The aforementioned host, who belongs to age group IV, addresses in the plural only older guests, both male and female, whose social roles are those of grandparents. Referring to addressees by their (characters’) names or by kinship terms, often in diminutive form, clearly indicates an effort to follow a contact-politeness strategy even when addressing them in the plural—a strategy that allows speakers to express closeness and fellowship with addressees and to create a warm, homelike atmosphere (cf. Kapasick 2002: 77). With singular forms of address, VPPL’s contact-politeness strategy is made even more pronounced. This involves the consistent use of the familiar pronoun tu (with only one occurrence of pati) and the same nominative references to addressees as those used with plural forms of address: people are addressed by (character) name, while shows for children and families are also characterized by address using kinship terms (e.g.: 228 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 mama, sesė), they are sometimes used as part of a composite form of address – together with a name (e.g., mama Milda). MOT.VED*IV: Mom [MOT.MAM1*IV], or do you have a sister or a brother? MOT.VED*IV: well, and now—the polar bear [MOT.MAM2*II]. You already know what you’re going to write about, right? Present it. MOT.VED*IV: Okay, listen, maybe you’re too old to play with little cars now? your [BERN.BROL*I] What do you think? The same host, belonging to group IV, uses singular forms of address only when speaking to peers or younger guests, women and men, whose social roles are mothers, sisters, brothers, friends (male and female). The sociolinguistically significant factor in the only programs where plural forms of address also occur is age. Thus, differences can be discerned even in comparison with everyday usage traditions: unfamiliar women peers are addressed not with the polite plural, but with the familiar singular (cf. Rosinas 1996: 43–44). 3. To sum up all PPL, i.e., talk shows discussing personal matters or (and) entertainment programs for children (VPPL) and especially adults (SPPL), it is worth noting that they best reveal the changing relationship between public and private characteristic of television today: the civic sphere is drawing closer to the private sphere, previously not shown in public, and becomes a kind of, in Ž. Pečiulis’s words, living room (cf. Pečiulis 2007: 198–202). Public discourse is becoming increasingly private, shifting towards the kind of conversation heard at home or on the street; the social distinction expressed through language has diminished considerably (Marcinkevičienė 2009). Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the boundaries between public and everyday speech are gradually fading, and that familiar singular forms of address, hitherto characteristic only of everyday speech, are used publicly (cf. Čepaitienė 2007: 79–80). The influence of this process can be seen even in programs dealing with public affairs (VPL): simplicity, comprehensibility, and sincerity of speech have become components of a successful political career (see Pečiulis 2007: 200), and addressing someone by name could be considered one of the linguistic means of expressing these qualities. The convergence of public and private spheres is observed and discussed from various perspectives around the world (for more, see Webster 2006: 168–208). The influence of popular culture and mass media on language is also debated: do they enliven language or impoverish it? An interesting insight into the spread of everyday spoken-language expression in the public sphere comes from the well-kno- J. GIRČIENĖ. Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje 229 wn communication theorist John Fiske, who seeks to present popular culture not as inferior to high culture, which essentially serves the needs of the bourgeoisie, but as different, serving the needs of other social strata. In the researcher’s view, moving away from official correct language allows people to enjoy elements of various spoken-language cultures that enable them to recognize their own (Fiske 2008: 94–100). One expressive device formerly characteristic almost exclusively of everyday speech—the familiar singular form of address—is spreading through the media and TV into public usage, and from the perspective of language etiquette is often regarded as a negative phenomenon that does not conform to etiquette rules (cf. Čepaitienė 2007: 85). Pragmatists, sociolinguists, and communication specialists understand politeness somewhat differently, viewing it from a functional perspective. From the standpoint of linguistic pragmatics, politeness is not limited to the rules and norms of language etiquette. Communicative intention toward the addressee is given priority. It is argued that language etiquette is often entirely irrelevant to rapport-oriented politeness, which expresses warmth, solidarity, and good relations (Hilbig 2007, see also 2008). From the perspective of social status, the opposition between rapport and distance politeness strategies corresponds to the opposition between personal and social distance: the rapport strategy is associated with communication among one’s own, while the distance strategy is associated with communication among strangers (Карасик 2002: 80). According to communication specialist Ž. Pečiulis, reflecting on the experience of Lithuania and the wider world, “TV seeks to compensate for the gaps in social dialogue, fosters society’s desire to communicate about the most intimate matters, thereby registering radical changes in citizens’ values and norms <...>. The style of the new-reality TV associated with the 1990s reflects a changing attitude toward the ordinary citizen: an ordinary person becomes the protagonist of programs, bears witness to their problems, and images of everyday life become part of the program” (Pečiulis 2007: 198–204tt.). It is therefore natural that everyday life and the personal lives of both ordinary people and public figures are conveyed in TV programs addressing such issues in everyday, colloquial language, and thus through familiar forms of address. The need to express familiarity and closeness is evidenced not only by material from TV talk shows, but also by the attitudes of journalists who host such programs—the clear distinction they declare between communicative and linguistic means in programs dealing with public affairs and personal matters: “If, for example, I invite <...>let’s say, a minister <...>to talk not only about politics but, say, about a hobby, <...>naturally, wanting to break the ice, <...>so that he feels comfortable, <...>I want to become as much his friend as possible, <...>for me it is 230 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 his leisure time is much more important, so that <...> it would be more interesting for the television viewer. That means, then, that I can behave, probably, more familiarly; perhaps I can call him tu, if our ages allow it, and so on. So one program is not the same as another, and I do not think they can all be forced into the same mold” (BalSoc). What probably causes the greatest difficulty is that the private sphere, with its characteristic familiar forms of linguistic expression, is broadcast publicly. CONCLUSIONS A quantitative study of TV talk shows representing public usage revealed a strong predominance of the polite plural form of address customary in this sphere of usage: different addressers addressed 248 different addressees using the polite plural (jūs), and only 43 different addressees using the familiar singular (tu). The qualitative analysis brought to light a divide between public-interest (VPL) and personal and entertainment (PPL) programs. In VPL, which are associated with public, formal usage and its characteristic distanced politeness strategy expressing social distance and respect, plural forms of address that help maintain social distance are used consistently. In PPL, associated with public, informal usage and its characteristic involvement politeness strategy expressing closeness, singular forms of address, which help sustain friendly personal relationships, compete strongly with plural forms of address—they are almost equally frequent (jūs – 57 / tu – 42). Thus, the VPL/PPL dichotomy should be considered the main factor determining the choice of forms of address. The different nature of the programs also accounts for differences among their participants, which, in addition to the aforementioned aspects of formality and informality, may also affect the choice of forms of address: PPL participants are relatively younger than those in VPL; some have lower levels of education and social status; men predominate among VPL hosts and guests, whereas women predominate in PPL; politicians are prevalent among VPL guests, while entertainment-industry figures predominate in PPL; compared with VPL, PPL have fewer participants who serve as decision-makers, experts, and correspondingly more so-called vox populi representatives. The main sociolinguistic factors determining the choice of forms of address in PPL are the age relationship between addresser and addressee, degree of familiarity, and social roles, which may also be influenced by education and social status (program host / guest; decision-maker, expert (according to membership J. GIRČIENĖ. Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje 231 in a particular profession) / vox populi, etc.). In PPL, the plural form is most often used to address older, more respected participants who serve as decision-makers or experts. The singular form of address is more characteristic of program hosts; it is generally used to address peers or younger people, as well as acquaintances serving as fellow program hosts or in the vox populi role. The hosts of these programs, which attempt to combine the public and private (a kind of extension of the home⟧ is broadcast publicly on TV), have to tackle difficult challenges: how to use linguistic resources, including different forms of address, to create a cozy environment for programs exploring personal matters while also showing respect not only to their guests but also to viewers. LITERATŪRA Ambrazas 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. Brown P., Levinson S. 1978: Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena. – Questions and politeness (ed. E. Goody), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 56–289. Brown P., Levinson S. 1987 (papildytas 1978 m. leidimas): Politeness. Some universals in language usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fragmentai per internetą: http://books.google.lt/books Čepaitienė G. 2007: Lietuvių kalbos etiketas: semantika ir pragmatika, Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla. Džežulskienė J. 1994: Kalba ir giminė. – Sociolingvistika ir kalbos kultūra, Vilnius: Gimtoji kalba, 55–61. Fiske 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., Skvorčiūtė K. 2009: Adresato įvardijimo polinkiai viešajame sakytiniame diskurse. – Working paper 3, 35–47. Grumadienė 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 232 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82 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 Karaliūnas S. 1997: Kalba ir visuomenė, Vilnius: Lietuvių kalbos institutas. Marcinkevičienė R. 1994: Gyvosios kalbos etnografija. – Sociolingvistika ir kalbos kultūra, Vilnius: Gimtoji kalba, 47–54. Marcinkevičienė R. 2004: Užsakomųjų reklaminių straipsnių tarpasmeninės funkcijos raiška. – Respectus philologicus 6 (11). Prieiga per internetą: http://filologija.vukhf.lt Marcinkevičienė 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-erdves-privatėjimas 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. Romaine S. 2000: Language in society, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rosinas 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.] Valeckienė A. 1998: Funkcinė lietuvių kalbos gramatika, Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla. Vilkienė L. 1998: Dialogo adresantas ir adresatas. – Kalbotyra 47, 153–164. Webster F. 2006: Informacinės visuomenės teorijos, Kaunas: Poligrafija ir informatika. Карасик В. 2002: Язык социального статуса, Москва: Гнозис. Gauta 2009 11 11 J. GIRČIENĖ. Daugiskaitinių ir vienaskaitinių kreipimosi formų konkurencija viešojoje sakytinėje vartosenoje 233 COMPETITION BETWEEN PLURAL AND SINGULAR FORMS OF ADDRESS IN PUBLIC SPOKEN USAGE Summary A quantitative analysis of television talk shows representing public usage and broadcasted 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 jüs and only to 43 different addressees by the less polite singular 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 (jüs 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 [email protected] 234 KALBOS KULTŪRA | 82