Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T06:13:54.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Talk to Elders: Social Structure, Attitudes and Forms of Address

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2008

Linda A. Wood  and
Ellen Bouchard Ryan
Linda A. Wood
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1
Ellen Bouchard Ryan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8N 3Z9
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the present paper we analyse some of the problems in talk to elders by examining evaluative dimensions of talk in general and of address forms in particular. We first introduce status and solidarity as primary dimensions underlying talk. We briefly review research on attitudes and talk to elders, and develop a framework in terms of status and solidarity for understanding the evaluation of talk to elders. The framework, speech accommodation theory, and politeness theory are then employed in a specific analysis of various aspects of problematic address usage: title and last name v. first name; third person; first person plural; and no-naming. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the analysis for future research, for practical applications, and for the extension and integration of theory

Type
Research Article
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 167 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

NOTES

1 Lonner, W. J., The search for psychological universals. In Triandis, H. C. and Lambert, W. W. (eds) Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology; Vol. 1. Perspectives, pp. 143–204. Allyn & Bacon, Rockleigh, NJ., 1980.Google Scholar

2 Brown, R., Social Psychology. Free Press, New York, 1965.Google Scholar

3 Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C., Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 For example, Brown, P. and Levinson, 1987, op cit.;Google ScholarDowd, J. J., Conversation and social exchange: managing identities in old age. Human Relations, 34 (1981), 541–53;CrossRefGoogle ScholarRyan, E. B. and Giles, H. (eds) Attitudes Towards Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts. Edward Arnold, London, 1982.Google Scholar

5 Ryan, and Giles, , 1982, op. cit.Google Scholar

6 Brown, R., 1965, op. cit.Google Scholar

7 Kogan, N., Beliefs, attitudes and stereotypes about old people. Research on Aging, 1 (1979), 11–36;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMcTavish, D. G., Perceptions of old people. In Mangen, D.J. and Peterson, W. A. (eds) Research Instruments in Social Gerontology: Vol. 1. Clinical and Social Gerontology (pp. 533–622). University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1982.Google Scholar

8 Kite, M. E. and Johnson, B. T., Attitudes toward older and younger adults: a meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging. 3 (1988), 233–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9 See also Crockett, W. H. and Hummert, M. L., Perceptions of aging and the elderly. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 7 (1987), 217–41.Google ScholarPubMed

10 See Harris, L. and Associates. The Myth and Reality of Aging in America. The National Council on Aging, Washington, D.C., 1975.Google Scholar

11 Ryan, E. B. and Heaven, R. K. B., The impact of situational context on agebased attitudes. Social Behaviour, 3 (1988), 105–17.Google Scholar

12 Ashburn, G. and Gordon, A., Features of a simplified register in speech to elderly conversationalists. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 8 (1981), 7–31;Google ScholarCaporael, L., The paralanguage of caregiving: baby talk to the institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40 (1981), 876–84;CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedCoupland, N., Coupland, J., Giles, H. and Henwood, K., Accommodating the elderly: invoking and extending a theory. Language in Society, 17 (1988), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Coupland, et al. , 1988, op. cit.;Google ScholarRyan, E. B., Giles, H., Bartolucci, G. and Henwood, K., Psycholinguistic and social psychological components of communication by and with the elderly. Language and Communication, 6 (1986), 1–24;CrossRefGoogle ScholarShadden, B. B., Interpersonal communication patterns and strategies in the elderly. In Shadden, B. (ed) Communication Behavior and Aging. A Sourcebook for Clinicians, pp. 182–96. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, 1988.Google Scholar

14 Rodin, J. and Langer, E. J., Aging labels: the decline of control and the fall of selfesteem. Journal of Social Issues, 36 (1980), 12–29;CrossRefGoogle ScholarRyan, et al. , 1986, op. cit.Google Scholar

15 Caporael, 1981, op. cit.;Google ScholarCaporael, L. R. and Culbertson, G. H., Verbal response modes of baby talk and other speech at institutions for the aged. Language and Communication, 6, 1/2 (1986), 99–112;CrossRefGoogle ScholarCaporael, L., Lukaszewski, M. and Culbertson, C., Secondary baby talk: judgments by institutionalized elderly and their caregivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (1983), 746–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16 Caporael, , 1981, op. cit.Google Scholar

17 1983, op. cit.

18 Ryan, E. B. and Cole, R., Evaluative perceptions of interpersonal communication with elders. In Giles, H., Coupland, N. and Wiemann, J. (eds) Communication, Health, and the Elderly, pp. 172–90. University of Manchester Press, Manchester, 1990.Google Scholar

19 Ryan, et al. , 1986, op. cit.Google Scholar

20 Ryan, E. B., Bourhis, R. Y. and Knops, U., Evaluative perceptions of patronizing speech addressed to elders. Psychology and Aging (in press).Google Scholar

21 1983, op. cit.

22 Coupland, N., Grainger, K. and Coupland, J., Politeness in context: intergenerational issues (Review article). Language in Society, 17 (1988), 253–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 In order to simplify the Table, we have omitted speech that is inappropriate to the solidarity dimension or to both dimensions of the relationships. Speech that is inappropriate on solidarity alone would be evaluated as too personal or too impersonal. Speech that is inappropriate on both dimensions would call for slightly different evaluative terms than speech that is inappropriate only on the status dimension. For example, while secondary baby talk in an equal solidarity relationship might be viewed as paternalistic, it would be seen as presumptuous in an equal nonsolidary relationship. We note further that the terms we have suggested are preliminary and should be taken only as illustrative. They are based primarily on etymological considerations and might be used rarely or differently in everyday talk.

24 Lanceley, A., Use of controlling language in the rehabilitation of the elderly. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 10 (1985), 125–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

25 1983, op. cit.

26 See Ryan, Bourhis and Knops, in press, op. cit.

27 Brown, P. and Levinson, , 1987, op. cit.Google Scholar

28 Kroger, R. O., Explorations in ethogeny: with special reference to the rules of address. American Psychologist, 37 (1982), 810–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Brown, R. Theory of politeness: an exemplary case. Invited address to Society of Experimental Social Psychologists, 10, 1987.Google Scholar

30 Variations of first name, e.g. multiple names (MN) and nicknames (NN), indicate variations in intimacy or solidarity. Solidary superiors who are not kin may be addressed by KT+ (e.g. ‘Aunt’ Joan to a family friend) or by forms such as TFN (e.g. Miss Sally).

31 Brown, R. and Ford, M., Address in American English. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 (1961), 375–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Brown, R., 1965, op. cit.Google Scholar

33 Kroger, R. O., Wood, L. A. and Kim, U., Are the rules of address universal? III. Comparison of Chinese, Greek, and Korean usage. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15 (1984), 273–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 For example, Lanceley, , 1985, op. cit.Google Scholar

35 Roman, O., Negotiation between nurses and elderly patients in hospital and community settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, 1987.Google Scholar

36 Brown, P. and Levinson, 1987, op. cit.Google Scholar

37 As Brown, P. and Levinson, (1987, op. cit.) note, most forms of address are also forms of reference; the important distinction is usage.Google Scholar

38 Elliot, E., My name is MrsSimon, . Ladies Home Journal (1984, 08), pp. 18–21, 150.Google Scholar

39 Brown, R., 1965, op. cit.;Google ScholarBrown, P. and Levinson, , 1987, op. cit.Google Scholar

40 Brown, R., 1965, op. cit.Google Scholar

41 Ervin-Tripp, S., Sociolinguistics. In Berkowitz, L. (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 91–165. Academic Press, New York, 1969.Google Scholar

42 Brown, R. and Gilman, A., The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed) Style in Language, pp. 253–76. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1960.Google Scholar

43 Brown, P. and Levinson, , 1987, op. cit.Google Scholar

44 Ibid.

45 See Ryan, and Cole, , 1990, op. cit.Google Scholar

46 Brown, R., 1965, op. cit.;Google ScholarKroger, , 1982, op. cit.Google Scholar

47 Brown, R., 1965, op. cit.;Google ScholarErvin-Tripp, , 1969, op. cit.Google Scholar

48 1987, op. cit.

49 Goe, R. M., Communication and medical care outcomes: analysis of conversations between doctors and elderly patients. In Ward, R. A. and Tobin, S. S. (eds) Health in Aging: Sociological Issues and Policy Directions, pp. 180–93. Springer, New York, 1987.Google Scholar

50 Brown, P. and Levinson, , 1987, op. cit.Google Scholar

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

53 Banks, S. P., Power pronouns and the language of intercultural understanding. In Ting-Toomey, S. and Korzenny, F. (eds) Language, Communication, and Culture: Current Directions, pp. 180–98. Sage, Newbury Park, Ca., 1989.Google Scholar

54 1985, op. cit.

55 In some languages, the plural form to one person can convey distance or respect, as in the use of the second person plural pronoun (Brown, P. and Levinson, , 1987, op. cit.). But in English, pluralisation may signal that the person is viewed as a member of a devalued category, i.e. as lower in status than the speaker.Google Scholar

56 Brown, R., 1965, op. cit.;Google ScholarLittle, C. B. and Gelles, R. J., The social psychological implications of form of address. Sociometry, 38 (1975), 573–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 1965, op. cit.

58 Ryan, et al. , 1986, op. cit.Google Scholar

58 1987, op. cit.

60 Dowd, , 1981, op. cit.Google Scholar

61 Wood, L. A., Kroger, R. O. and Leong, I., Social competence and the rules of address. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5 (1986), 161–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62 For example, Brown, R., 1965, op. cit.;Google ScholarKemper, T. D., A Social Interactional Theory of Emotions. Wiley, New York, 1978;Google ScholarWood, L. A., Loneliness and social identity. In Sarbin, T. R. and Scheibe, K. E. (eds) Studies in Social Identity, 51–70. Praeger, New York, 1983.Google Scholar

63 Cf., Caporael, 1981, op. cit.;Google ScholarRyan, et al. , 1986, op. cit.Google Scholar