“There’s not a lot of negotiation”
-
Susan M. Burt
Abstract
One way that communities with status or power hierarchy can mark hierarchical relationships is by means of address. Community members may differ in attitude towards the hierarchy and prefer address reflecting imagined or preferred social distance, or social meanings other than the classic power-solidarity semantic of Brown and Gilman (1960). This paper reports on research within an academic unit, in which members of different “ranks,” undergraduate student, graduate student, and faculty, participated in group interviews on the topic of address terms. Different relational and interactional goals emerge for each group. While faculty are sometimes willing to make their varied address preferences clear, students find faculty preferences less than transparent. Graduate students face difficult choices, needing to negotiate address preferences with their undergraduate students as well as with faculty.
Abstract
One way that communities with status or power hierarchy can mark hierarchical relationships is by means of address. Community members may differ in attitude towards the hierarchy and prefer address reflecting imagined or preferred social distance, or social meanings other than the classic power-solidarity semantic of Brown and Gilman (1960). This paper reports on research within an academic unit, in which members of different “ranks,” undergraduate student, graduate student, and faculty, participated in group interviews on the topic of address terms. Different relational and interactional goals emerge for each group. While faculty are sometimes willing to make their varied address preferences clear, students find faculty preferences less than transparent. Graduate students face difficult choices, needing to negotiate address preferences with their undergraduate students as well as with faculty.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
-
Introduction
- Introduction vii
-
Self-reporting Studies
- Introduction to Part I 3
- Social deixis in motion 7
- The M-word 41
- “There’s not a lot of negotiation” 71
-
Observational Studies
- Introduction to Part II 93
- Korean honorifics beyond politeness markers 97
- Goading as a social action 121
- Shaming, group face, and identity construction in a Russian virtual community for women 149
-
Experimental Studies
- Introduction to Part III 183
- Interactional competence and politeness 187
- Using eye-tracking to examine the reading of texts containing taboo words 213
- Impoliteness electrified 239
-
Epilogue
- Epilogue 267
- Index 277
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
-
Introduction
- Introduction vii
-
Self-reporting Studies
- Introduction to Part I 3
- Social deixis in motion 7
- The M-word 41
- “There’s not a lot of negotiation” 71
-
Observational Studies
- Introduction to Part II 93
- Korean honorifics beyond politeness markers 97
- Goading as a social action 121
- Shaming, group face, and identity construction in a Russian virtual community for women 149
-
Experimental Studies
- Introduction to Part III 183
- Interactional competence and politeness 187
- Using eye-tracking to examine the reading of texts containing taboo words 213
- Impoliteness electrified 239
-
Epilogue
- Epilogue 267
- Index 277
