Cover not available
Part of
It's different with you: Contrastive perspectives on address research
Edited by Nicole Baumgarten and Roel Vismans
[Topics in Address Research 5] 2023
► pp. 13–34

Chapter 1
Comparing address practices in the Finnish and Hungarian “Got Talent” TV programmes

| University of Eastern Finland | University of Helsinki
| University of Helsinki
This chapter compares address practices in “Got Talent” TV programmes, in which contestants present their talents in front of a jury. We aim to show how the judges address contestants and how these practices differ in episodes of Finnish and Hungarian “Got Talent”. Our study shows that T forms are favoured in both languages. Overall, the repertoire of addressing is wider in the Hungarian dataset, in which both T/V opposition and nominal forms are used to express increasing familiarity between participants. On Finnish “Got Talent”, variation only emerges in the frequency of personal pronouns and first names, used to make successful contestants visible. Although television is a special context, address practices on the “Got Talent” shows can reflect ongoing changes more generally in address practices vis-à-vis informality.
Keywords: address terms, nominal address, pronominal address, Finnish, Hungarian, media, reality television (RTV), Got Talent, sociopragmatics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Address practices in Finland and Hungary
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Analysis of address practices in the Finnish and Hungarian “Talent” shows
    • 4.1T or V
    • 4.2Nominal forms
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 6 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tar.5.01lap
References (43)
References
Ainiala, Terhi, Minna Saarelma & Paula Sjöblom. 2012. Names in focus: An introduction to Finnish onomastics. Translated by Leonard Pearl. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Andersson, Helen. 2002. TV:s nyhetsprogram som interaktion [TV news programme as interaction]. Uppsala: Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Jeff. 2014. Beware the frankenbite. ThePowerEdit. [URL] (5.3.2020).Google Scholar
Bencze, Lóránt. 2005. Politeness in Hungary: Uncertainty in a changing society. In Leo Hickey & Miranda Stewart (eds.), Politeness in Europe, 234–246. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresin, Agnese, John Hajek & Heinz L. Kretzenbacher. 2019. Transition from V to T address among restaurant customers and waiters in Italy. In Bettina Kluge & María Irene Moyna (eds.), It’s not all about ‘you’: New research perspectives on address research, 221–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, Michael, Catrin Norrby & Jane Warren. 2009. Language and human relations: Address in contemporary language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deme, László, László Grétsy & Imre Wacha (eds.). 1999. Nyelvi illemtan. [Guidebook of language etiquette]. Budapest: Szemimpex Kiadó.Google Scholar
Domonkosi, Ágnes. 2002. Megszólítások és beszédpartnerre utaló elemek nyelvhasználatunkban [Address forms and elements referring to the interlocutor in Hungarian language use]. Debrecen: A Debreceni Egyetem Magyar Nyelvtudományi Intézete.Google Scholar
. 2010. Variability in Hungarian address forms. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 57. 29–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. The socio-cultural values of Hungarian V forms of address. ERUDITIO – EDUCATIO 13(3). 61–72.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja, Markku Haakana & Mia Halonen. 2013. Keskustelukumppanin kehuminen suomalaisessa keskustelussa [Compliments in everyday Finnish conversation]. Virittäjä 117. 460–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fremer, Maria. 2015. At the cinema: The Swedish ’du-reform’ in advertising films. In Catrin Norrby & Camilla Wide (eds.), Address practice as social action, 54–74. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar & Nuria Lorenzo-Dus. 2013. Reality Television: A discourse-analytical perspective. In Nuria Lorenzo-Dus & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (eds.), Real talk. Reality television and discourse analysis in action, 9–22. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gunter, Barrie. 2014. I want to change my life: Can reality TV competition shows trigger lasting career success? Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Havu, Eva, Johanna Isosävi & Hanna Lappalainen. 2014. Les stratégies d’adresse en finnois: Comparaison entre deux types de corpus oraux institutionnels [Address strategies in Finnish: comparison between two types of spoken institutional corpora]. In Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni (ed.), S’adresser à autrui: les formes nominales d’adresse dans une perspective comparative interculturelle, 303–336. Chambéry: Publication Chambéry.Google Scholar
Hearn, Alison. 2014. Producing “reality”: Branded content, branded selves, precarious futures. In Laurie Ouellette (ed.), A companion to reality television, 437–455. Oxford: Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hill, Annette. 2014. Reality TV experiences: Audiences, fact, and fiction. In Laurie Ouellette (ed.), A companion to reality television, 116–133. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isosävi, Johanna & Hanna Lappalainen. 2015a. First names in Starbucks: A clash of cultures? In Catrin Norrby & Camilla Wide (eds.), Address practice as social action, 97–118. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds.). 2015b. Saako sinutella vai täytyykö teititellä? Tutkimuksia eurooppalaisten kielten puhuttelukäytännöistä [Addressing people with T or V? Studies on Address Practices in European Languages]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Kluge, Bettina & María Irene Moyna (eds.). 2019. It’s not all about ‘you’: New perspectives on address research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kovács, Magdolna & Outi Tánczos. 2015. Hapuilua pimeässä? Unkarin muuttuvat puhuttelukäytännöt [Fumbling in the dark? Changing addressing practices in Hungarian]. In Johanna Isosävi & Hanna Lappalainen (eds.), Saako sinutella vai täytyykö teititellä? Tutkimuksia eurooppalaisten kielten puhuttelukäytännöistä, 241–261. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Lea. 2006. Zero person in Finnish: A grammatical resource for construing human reference. In Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Lyle Campbell (eds.), Grammar from the human perspective: Case, space and person in Finnish, 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lappalainen, Hanna. 2015. Sinä vai te vai sekä että? Puhuttelukäytännöt suomen kielessä [T or V or both? Addressing practices in Finnish]. In Johanna Isosävi & Hanna Lappalainen (eds.), Saako sinutella vai täytyykö teititellä? Tutkimuksia eurooppalaisten kielten puhuttelukäytännöistä, 72–104. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
. 2020. Millaista kohteliaisuutta suomalaiset arvostavat asiakaspalvelussa? [What kind of politeness do Finns appreciate in customer service?]. In Kaarina Hippi, Hanna Lappalainen & Pirkko Nuolijärvi (eds.), Suomalaisten kielellistä elämää: Sata suomalaista kielellistä elämäkertaa -hankkeen satoa, 253–287. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Lin, Chih-Ying. 2020. Exploring judges’ compliments and criticisms on American, British, and Taiwanese talent shows. Journal of Pragmatics 160. 44–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (eds.). 2013. Real talk: Reality television and discourse analysis in action. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Patricia Bou-Franch & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich. 2013. Impoliteness in US/UK talent shows: A diachronic study of the evolution of a genre. In Nuria Lorenzo-Dus & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich (eds.). Real talk. Reality television and discourse analysis in action. 199–215. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrby, Catrin & Jane Warren. 2012. Address practices and social relationships in Europe. Language and Linguistic Compass 6(4). 225–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrby, Catrin & Camilla Wide (eds.). 2015. Address practice as social action. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nuolijärvi, Pirkko & Liisa Tiittula. 2001. ”Rakas Tarja” ja ”hyvä ystävä”: Puhuttelu minän ja sosiaalisten suhteiden esittämisen keinoina televisiokeskustelussa [Terms of address as a means of self and social relations in television debates]. Virittäjä. 105. 580–601.Google Scholar
Ouellette, Laurie. (ed.) 2014. A companion to reality television. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Penzhorn, Heidi & Magriert Pitout. 2007. A critical-historical genre analysis of reality television. Communicatio 33(1). 62–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Elizabeth. 2010. Perspective and politeness in Finnish requests. Pragmatics 20. 401–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sayers, Dave. 2014. The mediated innovation model: A framework for researching media influence in language change. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18. 185–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, Eeva-Leena. 1989. Henkilöön viittaaminen puhetilanteessa [Person references during conversations]. In Auli Hakulinen (ed.), Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja 1, 195–222 (Kieli 4). Helsinki: Helsingin yliopiston suomen kielen laitos.Google Scholar
. 1998. Läsnäolon pronominit: Tämä, tuo, se ja hän viittaamassa keskustelun osallistujaan [Pronouns of participation: The Finnish pronouns tämä, tuo, se and hän as devices for referring to co-participants in conversation]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2013. Basic conversation analytic methods. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 77–99. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Szita, Szilvia & Tamás Görbe. 2010. Gyakorló magyar nyelvtan. A practical Hungarian grammar. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Vásquez, María Eugenia. 2019. Pragmatic and grammatical categories for the analysis of forms of address in presidential election debates. In Bettina Kluge & María Irene Moyna (eds.), It’s not all about ‘you’: New research perspectives on address research, 221–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vecsernyés, Ildikó. 2021. Kuinka pääministeriä puhutellaan? Puhuttelu Suomen ja Unkarin pääministereiden Facebook-päivitysten kommenteissa [How to address a Prime Minister? Forms of address in comments to posts from the Prime Ministers of Finland and Hungary]. Virittäjä 125. 92–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vismans, Roel. 2015. Negotiating address in a pluricentric language: Dutch/Flemish. In Catrin Norrby & Camilla Wide (eds.), Address practice as social action, 13–32. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wide, Camilla, Hanna Lappalainen, Anu Rouhikoski, Catrin Norrby, Camilla Lindholm, Jan Lindström & Jenny Nilsson. 2019. Variation in address practices across languages and nations: A comparative study of doctors’ use of address forms in medical consultations in Sweden and Finland. Pragmatics 29. 595–621. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yli-Vakkuri, Valma. 2005. Politeness in Finland. Evasion at all cost. In Leo Hickey & Miranda Stewart (eds.), Politeness in Europe, 189–202 (Multilingual Matters 127). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar