Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T15:32:10.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rules of address in Italy: a sociological survey1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Elizabeth Bates  and
Laura Benigni
Elizabeth Bates
Affiliation:
University of Colorado
Laura Benigni
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology CNR – Rome
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies of address forms have almost always concentrated on a single set of rules, as they would be used by one idealized speaker. We proposed instead to examine the use of address pronouns in Italy as a function of the classical sociological parameters of age, sex and social class. A modified version of the Brown and Gilman questionnaire was administered in interviews with 117 Italian adults. Results indicate a powerful age—class interaction in overall degree of formality. Young upper class Ss are by far the least formal of the social groups — a particularly interesting finding, since Brown and Gilman's original study was drawn entirely from this population. Lower class youth are the most formal, with older Ss falling in between. Most Italians are likely to expect to receive the same address form that they give; the only clearly functional non-reciprocal relationships involve differences in age rather than status. The relationship of the results to political measures are also discussed. Several issues are examined from the point of view of sociolinguistic ‘ideals’ tapped by the questionnaire, vs. actual behavior in social settings. (Address forms (T/V pronouns); social class, age, and sex differences; Italy (Rome).)

Type
Articles: Conversational devices and structures
Information
Language in Society , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , December 1975 , pp. 271 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bates, E. (1974). Language and context: studies in the acquisition of pragmatics. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.)Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1965). Social Psychology. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. & Ford, M. (1961) Address in American English (1962). Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62. 375–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1972). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Giglioli, P. (ed.), Language and social context. Baltimore: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Originally published in Sebeok, T. (ed.) (1960) Style in Language. Cambridge: Technology Press. 253–76.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of a theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1972). On sociolinguistic rules: alternation and cooccurence. In Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (eds), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 213–50.Google Scholar
Freidrich, P. (1966). Structural implications of Russian pronominal usage. In Bright, W. (ed), Sociolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hollingshead, A. & Redlich, F. (1958). Social class and mental illness. New York: Wiley and Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1970). The logic of non-standard English. In Williams, F. (ed.), Language and poverty. Chicago: Markham. 153–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntire, M. (1972) Terms of address in an academic setting. Anthropological Linguistics 14 (7), 286–95.Google Scholar
Munger, M. (1971). Sex differentiation in pre-school children: sex typical toy preferences and knowledge of peers' typical toy preferences. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska.)Google Scholar