Part of
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Im/politenessEdited by Marina Terkourafi
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 14] 2015
► pp. 71–90
Edited by Marina Terkourafi
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 14] 2015
► pp. 71–90
“There’s not a lot of negotiation”
Address terms in an academic department
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.
References (21)
Adams, M. 2009. Power, politeness and the pragmatics of nicknames. Names 57(2): 81–91. 
Atkinson, D.L. 1987. Names and titles: Maiden name retention and the use of Ms. Journal of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistics Association 9: 56–83.
Benton, T. (pseudo.) 2006. Don’t call me Thomas. Chronicle of Higher Education, January 16, Careers Section.
Bogoch, B. 1999. Courtroom discourse and the gendered construction of professional identity. Law and Social Inquiry 24(2): 329–373.
Brown, R. & Gilman, A. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Style in Language, Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.). Cambridge MA: Technology Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universal in Language Usage Cambridge: CUP.
Clyne, M., Kretzenbacher, H.L. Norrby, C. & Schüpbach, D. 2006. Perceptions of variation and change in German and Swedish address. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(3): 287–319.
Crawford, M., Stark, A.C. & Hackett Renner, C. 1998. The meaning of Ms.: Social assimilation of a gender concept. Psychology of Women Quarterly 22: 197–208.
Dickey, E. 1997. Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics 33: 255–274.
Formentelli, M. 2009. Address strategies in a British academic setting. Pragmatics 19(2): 179–196.
Fuller, J.M. 2005. The uses and meanings of the female title Ms. American Speech 80(2): 180–206.
Lillian, D.L. 1993. She’s still a bitch, only now she’s older! Papers of the Annual Meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association 19: 149–61.
Luchkina, T. 2007. Culture of Address in Oral Forms of Academic Interaction. MA thesis, Illinois State University.
Murray, T.E. 1997. Perception of Ms.-titled women: Evidence from the American Midwest. Onomastica Canadiana 79: 73–96.
Rendle-Short, J. 2007. “Catherine, you’re wasting your time”: Address terms within the Australian political interview. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1503–1525.
Rubin, R. 1981. Ideal traits and terms of address for male and female college professors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41(5): 966–974.
Spencer-Oatey, H. 1996. Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics 26: 1–24.
Svennevig, J. 1999. Getting Acquainted in Conversation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 64]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Takiff, H.A., Sanchez, D.T. & Stewart, T.L. 2001. What’s in a name? The status implications of students’ terms of address for male and female professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly 25: 134–144.
Winchatz, M. 2001. Social Meanings in German Interactions: An Ethnographic Analysis of the Second-Person Pronoun Sie
. Research on Language and Social Interaction 34(3): 337–369.
Wright, S. 2009. Forms of address in the college classroom. In Names in Multilingual, Multicultural and Multiethnic Contact: Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Onomastic Sciences, W. Ahrens, S.M. Embleton & A. Lapierre (eds). Toronto: York University.
Cited by (8)
Cited by eight other publications
Uyar, Ahmet Can & İsmail Yaman
2024. How Do WE Address the Instructors in the Expanding Circle? Perspectives from Turkish EFL Speakers. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 35:1 ► pp. 115 ff. 
Dendenne, Boudjemaa
2023. “Shut up! Don’t say that! You’ve got to say ḤASHĀKEM!” The pragmatics of Ḥashāk and its variants in colloquial Algerian Arabic. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 19:1 ► pp. 145 ff.
Murphy, Sean, Jonathan Culpeper, Mathew Gillings & Michael Pace-Sigge
2020. What do students find difficult when they read Shakespeare? Problems and solutions. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 29:3 ► pp. 302 ff.
Burt, Susan Meredith
2019. Person-referring expressions, reference nominals, and address nominals. In It’s not all aboutyou [Topics in Address Research, 1], ► pp. 398 ff.
Norrby, Catrin, Doris Schüpbach, John Hajek & Heinz L. Kretzenbacher
2019. Introductions at international academic conferences. In It’s not all about you
[Topics in Address Research, 1], ► pp. 376 ff.
Ton, Thoai Nu-Linh
2019. A literature review of address studies from pragmatic and sociolinguistic perspectives. In It’s not all aboutyou [Topics in Address Research, 1], ► pp. 24 ff.
Formentelli, Maicol & John Hajek
2015. Address in Italian Academic Interactions: The Power of Distance and (Non)-Reciprocity. In Address Practice As Social Action: European Perspectives, ► pp. 119 ff.
Formentelli, Maicol & John Hajek
2022. Address practices in academic interactions in a pluricentric language. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 631 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.