Adresato įvardijimo raida

Direct Link:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Adresato įvardijimo raida
Alternative Title:
Change of the forms of address
In the Journal:
Žmogus kalbos erdvėje. 2013, 7, p. 613-621
Daugiskaitinė / vienaskaitinė; Daugiskaitinė kreipimosi forma; Kreipimosi forma; Mandagumo strategija; Nominatyvinis adresato įvardijimas; Vienaskaitinė kreipimosi forma; Viešasis sakytinis diskursas.
Forms of address; Naming of the addressee; Plural / singular forms of address; Plural forms of address; Politeness strategy; Public spoken discourse; Singular forms of address; Singular/plural naming forms of address; Spoken discourse.
Summary / Abstract:

LTStraipsnyje aptariama adresato įvardijimo raida 1967–2011 metų viešajame sakytiniame diskurse. Remiantis tais metais transliuotų spontanišką kalbą reprezentuojančių įvairios tematikos bei (ne)formalumo TV laidų imtimi, nagrinėjama tarybinio (1967–1987), pereinamojo (1988–1992) ir dabartinio (1993–2011) laikotarpių adresato įvardijimo kaita – skirtingas mandagumo strategijas signalizuojančių daugiskaitinių bei vienaskaitinių kreipimosi į adresatą formų ir nevienodo formalumo nominatyvinių adresato įvardijimų, pvz., (draugas / gerbiamas / ponas) + pavardė / pareigos; (ponas / gerbiamas / mielas) + vardas vartosenos polinkiai. [Iš leidinio]

ENThe article discusses the change of the forms of address in the public spoken use of Lithuanian in 1967–2011. The article is based on a qualitative analysis of speech of 185 speakers, varied in age and representing both genders, that took part in 15 television programs of various topics with dominating spontaneous speech and varying degree of formality. The sample was constructed from the material available in the retrospective spoken media corpus 1961–2011, build within the project “Lithuanian Language: Ideals, Ideologies and Shift of Identity”, carried out by the Lithuanian Language Institute and funded by a grant from the Research Council of Lithuania. The characteristic feature of the Soviet period (1961-1987) is exceptionally formal ways of naming of the addressee, based on so-called polite plural Jūs (You), representing the distance-maintaining politeness strategy. They can be summarised under the standardised formula representing formal communication, which during that period was the only allowed way of address in the public discourse: (first name / comrade / communist / formal position) + last name. The most common formula for the indirect address was first name + last name, for the direct address: comrade + last name. The transitional period (1988–1992) saw a confrontation between the relict very formal ways of address (comrade + last name) and new to the public discourse informal address by the first name, thus a mix of two different ways of speaking. Although the public discourse was still dominated by polite plural forms of address (Jūs), formal ways of naming based on the last name, which was the only possible choice during the Soviet period, met competition from informal ways of naming based on the first name.It all signals the turn towards informality in the naming of the addressee. During this period new forms of address are becoming more common, like gerbiamasis (the honorable); there are also single uses of ponas (Sir). Dialogue and direct ways of addressing are becoming more common: they are used not only by host shows and experts like in the Soviet times, but also by other program guests, “ordinary” people. A new feature of this period is the choice of the naming according to the sociodemographic characteristics and situational role differences of interlocutors. Therefore, the two most common formulas of address of different formality in this period are: (first name / comrade / honourable / Sir / position) + last name and (honourable / Sir) + first name. The characteristic of the public spoken discourse of the present period (1993–2011) is even more dramatic shift towards informality; informal singular forms of address (tu), signalling contact strategy of politeness, are becoming widespread. Another distinctive feature is numerous usage of the traditional Lithuanian address ponas (Sir). This period could be summarized in three formulas of different formality: (first name / Sir / honourable / formal position) + last name [plural f. Jūs], (Sir / honourable / dear) + first name [plural f. Jūs], (dear) + first name [singular f. tu]. The period is marked by more diverse, more familiar expressions of informality: address by bare first name and the element dear become common. Polylogue and exceptional variety mark this period; the choice of naming is determined by the type of the program, sociodemographic characteristics and situational roles of interlocutors. [From the publication]

Related Publications:
2021-01-12 21:31:34
Views: 85    Downloads: 6