Exploring Forms of Address Among Latter-day Saint Young Adults

BROTHER BELLS AUDIENCE TYPES FORMS OF ADDRESS AMONG LATTER-DAY SAINT YOUNG ADULTS Joseph Stanley University of Georgia joeystan@uga.edu 82ndAnnual Meeting of The Southeastern Conference on Linguistics North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC April 9 11, 2015

INTRODUCTION English Forms of Address First Name (FN) or Title + Last Name (TLN) Only exists in communities where potentially everyone has a title Teachers, military, doctors, politicians, police, etc. Generally on the decline everywhere else in US (Murray 2002) Goals Show that there are Southern communities with a robust form of address system Show what factors affect forms of address in Latter-day Saint (LDS) communities Outline: Literature review, methodology, results, conclusion, future work Introduction 2

LITERATURE REVIEW 3

PREVIOUS RESEARCH Power, solidarity, intimacy, status, and age determine address forms (Brown & Gilman 1960, Brown & Ford 1961, Slobin et al 1968 ) Female professors received more FN. Female students used more FN with professors. (Rubin 1981; Takiff, Sanchez & Stewart 2001) Different talking to or talking about people (Dickey 1997) Lots of messy things with newlyweds and in-laws (Jorgenson 1994) Most of the research is on non-reciprocal relationships One person receives TLN, the other receives FN Introduction 4

BETWEEN EQUALS? (BROWN & FORD 1961) Reciprocal TLN People with potentially equal status, but who don t know each other well Reciprocal FN Between friends, colleagues, etc. Transition Phase as small sometimes as 5 minutes of conversation [so] it is not easy to make out its exact character. (1961:377) Introduction 5

WHY LATTER-DAY SAINTS?* Cultural norms Brother or Sister + last name. Strong and active, but largely below the radar Congregations Strict delineated boundaries (like a public school system) Interaction with anyone from strangers to close friends on a weekly basis Address forms go from mutual TLN to mutual FN over the course of months or years Fogg (1990) studied address forms among Mormons No metadata Formality was strongest predictor * Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. Mormons) Introduction 6

METHODOLOGY 7

TARGET POPULATION 21 young, married couples from the Athens 1st Ward White, heterosexual Ages 20 36 (mean = 28) From high school education to Ph.D. Roughly half are from Georgia At least 10 years in the church, though most were raised Mormon. About 1/3 of the congregation Young people are in a transition phase into adulthood No singles were included Most attend another congregation for single members Not enough for a representative sample Methodology 8

SURVEY How well do you know this person? O 26 Situation 1 Situation 2 Situation 3 Situation 4 ____________ Your Age (optional) Mitt Romney Ken Jennings Gladys Knight David Archuleta Glenn Beck Orson Scott Card First Bro/Sis Other First Bro/Sis Other First Bro/Sis Other First Bro/Sis Other / / / / / / / / / / / / 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 O / / / / O O FULL FULL O / / O / / / / * Names have (obviously) been changed. 42 names down the side, 4 situations across the top Asks how well participant knows the person 31 participants returned the survey 5147 forms of address, 1270 relationship data points Excluded lesser common forms (Brother John, John Smith, Brother John Smith, Smith, etc.) Methodology 9

AUDIENCE DESIGN BELL (1984) 4 situations based on Audience Speakers design their style based on who they are talking to. Audience Design proposes that they also vary in who else is listening. Implicational hierarchy: variation with one Audience Type presupposes variation with Types closer to the speaker. Speaker Addressee Auditor Overhearer Eavesdropper Adapted from Bell (1984:159) Methodology 10

THE FOUR SITUATIONS (Exact descriptions of each refer to a lot of Mormon culture that would be tangential for the purposes of this presentation.) The situations put the other person in each of the four Audience Types Situation 1 (Addressee): Direct address Situation 2 (Auditor): Small, informal committee meeting Situation 3 (Overhearer): Talking to spouse about them at church Situation 4 (Eavesdropper): Talking to spouse about them while driving home Situations 3 and 4 control for the addressee. Methodology 11

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Relationship Prediction: the closer the two, the more likely FN is used (Brown and Gilman 1960) Overall relationship, if they re married, siblings, in-laws, or otherwise related 4 Situations Prediction: significant in some way (contrary to Fogg 1990) Familiarity between spouse and 3rd person Prediction: accommodation to addressee (Dickey 1997) Age difference Prediction: smaller age difference = more FN (Brown and Ford 1961) Sex Prediction: women use more FN (Fogg 1990). Parenthood Prediction: parenthood is seen as a higher status Southern vs. Non-Southern Prediction: southerners use more TLN. Methodology 12

RESULTS 13

Random effects: Groups Name Variance Std.Dev. Alter (Intercept) 0.06526 0.2555 Alter.1 (Intercept) 0.16193 0.4024 Ego (Intercept) 2.84905 1.6879 Ego.1 (Intercept) 0.24702 0.4970 Number of obs: 4830, groups: Alter, 42; Ego, 34 Fixed effects: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) -4.035e+00 9.864e-01 -4.090 4.31e-05 *** Situation2 1.831e+00 4.607e-01 3.975 7.05e-05 *** Situation3 -2.586e+00 5.775e-01 -4.478 7.53e-06 *** Situation4 -2.765e+00 5.982e-01 -4.622 3.80e-06 *** Relationship 1.742e+00 2.209e-01 7.890 3.03e-15 *** SpouseRelationship 2.887e-03 1.872e-01 0.015 0.987696 Relatedrelated 2.094e+01 1.039e+01 2.015 0.043882 * AlterSexM -8.440e-01 4.560e-01 -1.851 0.064169 . SameSexY 8.546e-01 3.924e-01 2.178 0.029418 * alterChildrenY -9.410e-01 4.982e-01 -1.889 0.058924 . Situation2:Relationship -9.016e-01 1.402e-01 -6.432 1.26e-10 *** Situation3:SpouseRelationship 3.952e-01 1.318e-01 2.997 0.002725 ** Situation4:SpouseRelationship 4.921e-01 1.358e-01 3.624 0.000290 *** Situation3:EgoSexM 2.008e+00 3.018e-01 6.653 2.87e-11 *** Situation4:EgoSexM 2.030e+00 3.098e-01 6.553 5.64e-11 *** Situation3:SameSexY -8.577e-01 3.300e-01 -2.599 0.009361 ** Situation4:SameSexY -8.953e-01 3.448e-01 -2.597 0.009411 ** SpouseRelationship:egoChildrenY 3.539e-01 1.203e-01 2.941 0.003273 ** Relatedrelated:egoChildrenY -4.490e+00 1.470e+00 -3.053 0.002263 ** EgoSexM:alterChildrenY 6.901e-01 2.442e-01 2.826 0.004713 ** AlterSexM:egoChildrenY 8.000e-01 2.318e-01 3.451 0.000558 *** egoChildrenY:alterChildrenY 1.310e+00 2.579e-01 5.077 3.83e-07 *** Results 14

100% Familiarity 90% 80% Clearly the most significant factor Level slope Extremes are not categorical 70% 60% %FN 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Familiarity Hypothesized FN FN Results 15

100% Male/Female 90% 80% Women use FN with other women more at all levels of familiarity. Unexpected leveling off at the top 70% 60% % FN 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Familiarity Male Male Male Female Female Male Female Female Results 16

100% Situation 90% 80% Situations 1, 3, 4 generally the same. Situation 2 surprisingly showed less FN, even among close relation- ships. 70% 60% % FN 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Familiarity Addressee Auditor Overhearer Eavesdropper Results 17

100% Situation 90% 80% Women use more FN towards addressees. Men use less FN towards auditors. 70% 60% % FN 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Addressee Auditor Overhearer Eavesdropper Men Women Results 18

100% Region 90% 80% No statistical significance Southerners perhaps slightly more titles than non-Southerners 70% 60% % FN 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Familiarity Non-Southern Southern Results 20

100% Region 90% 80% No statistical significance Southerners perhaps slightly more titles than non-Southerners Absolutely no difference in Situation. 70% 60% % FN 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 Situation Non-Southern Southern Results 21

DISCUSSIONAND CONCLUSION 22

SUMMARY Familiarity is easily the strongest factor However, it s not categorical People use FN more with others of the same sex, especially women. Camaraderie among LDS women (Fogg 1990) Men are influenced by the presence of an Auditor. Possibly because of more leadership meetings No regional difference. Forms of address in reciprocal relationships are determined by different factors than those in non-reciprocal relationships Conclusion 23

100% 90% Audience Design 80% Challenges the implicational hierarchy If variation occurs with one Audience Type, it is expected to occur with Types closer to the speaker. Auditors are different while Addressees are not affected. 70% 60% % FN 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Addressee Auditor Overhearer Eavesdropper Men Women Conclusion 24

FUTURE RESEARCH Future Research: Other auditor situations More regional data Other languages with T V distinction. Parenthood > Married > Single Do new members acquire this system perfectly? Do Mormons use more titles in other communities? Social network analysis AS TS EB DC GA BH EC ML CW KC SL EM KW RW BW SJ RM LS CJ DJ LT SB SS BC DY SC TA AY LN DT JB AS AJ DA TS IY RN AP MJ JS JP BS RR EB DC GA BH LR EC ML CW KC SL EM KW RW BW SJ Future Research LT TA AY 25 RM LS CJ DJ SB SS BC DY SC LN DT JB AJ DA IY RN AP MJ JS JP BS RR LR

REFERENCES Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13(02). 145 204. Bell, Allan. 2013. The guidebook to sociolinguistics. John Wiley & Sons. Brown, Roger & Marguerite Ford. 1961. Address in American English. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62(2). 375. Brown, Roger & Albert Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language, 253 76. Cambridge: MIT Press. Dickey, Eleanor. 1997. Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics 33(2). 255 274. Jorgenson, Jane. 1994. Situated address and the social construction of in law relationships. Southern Communication Journal 59(3). 196 204. Murray, Thomas E. 2002. A new look at address in American English: The rules have changed. Names 50(1). 43 61. Rubin, Rebecca B. 1981. Ideal traits and terms of address for male and female college professors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41(5). Takiff, Hilary A., Diana T. Sanchez & Tracie L. Stewart. 2001. What s in a name? The status implications of students terms of address for male and female professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly 25(2). 134 144. 26

Thank You! Special thanks to Chad Howe and Margaret Renwick. Joseph Stanley University of Georgia joeystan@uga.edu