Page 447 - The ISA Handbook in Contemporary Sociology

9781412934633-Chap-28 1/10/09 8:58 AM Page 418

418 THE ISA HANDBOOK IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIOLOGY

probably due to the idea that complex social respect and use of a T-form, informality or
relationships are reducible to either the verti- intimacy) and thus seem unaware that speak-
cal or horizontal dimension; that is, people ers substitute new interpretations of forms
are either similar or different and, if different, for the conventional ones when they negoti-
that there must be a way to rank those differ- ate a pattern of address which is unconven-
ences. Since so many features are included in tional relative to societal norms, and
each dimension, researchers have the possi- the hierarchical decision-making structure
bility to choose the specific aspects of power appears to negate the flexibility of the
or solidarity which their data appear to repre- individualization of the strategies.
sent. Further, as the design of the model The paradigm shift from essentialist to
derived from a study of languages with a constructivist notions of identity started in
binary or tertiary pronoun system, the inade- the 1980s, with the earliest studies examin-
quacies of their model are not immediately ing the negotiation of identity through
apparent (duality of dimensions, duality of address being Myers-Scotton (1983) and
address). However, not only is the model de Oliveira Medeiros (1985). Despite the
ill-suited to languages with a more complex blossoming of constructivist thinking in soci-
address form system, no recognition is given olinguistic research generally, with an ever-
either to the ability of speakers with little increasing awareness that speakers can use
personal power to make use of situational discourse processes to underscore or disguise
power or to the fact that individual pairs of aspects of their social or personal identity, or
speakers can negotiate address form patterns even construct new ones, both the Brown and
which do not conform to societal expecta- Gilman and the Brown and Levinson models
tions. Additional methodological problems continue to serve as the reference points for
are not referenced here but are addressed in studies regarding address, probably because
de Oliveira (1995a). so many researchers do not theorize address
Brown and Levinson (1978) use this or consider aspects not taken into account in
model as the foundation for a system of these models.
politeness strategies they present as ‘univer-
sal’, combining considerations of Power,
Solidarity and Social Distance with notions
of face and speech acts. Since they view A STRATEGIC, COGNITIVE MODEL OF
address forms as part of a limited number of NEGOTIATION
strategies, as opposed to an integral feature
of communicative process in general, theirs A comprehensive model of address must be
is not a model of address. Still, their work able to incorporate and account for the vari-
merits mention here, as a large number of ety of forces that motivate address form
studies on address have examined address selection. The model outlined here is based
from this viewpoint. In recognizing that on the analysis of observational, question-
speakers have goals which they attempt to naire, and interview data personally collected
attain through the use of conversational during two decades of fieldwork in Portugal
strategies, they have developed a model examining both actual usage and informants’
which is more sophisticated than that of judgments regarding address. As a resident
Brown and Gilman (1960). However, they do of the community of study for nine of the
not provide any new theorization of Power 20 years of the study, both participant and
and Solidarity, using instead the definitions non-participant observation was undertaken
developed nearly two decades earlier. They in a wide variety of social environments.
continue to assume that specific forms can be Questionnaire and interview data were col-
mapped onto specific functions (for example, lected at regular intervals during the period
that use of a V-form implies formality or (1982–83, 1993, 1998 and 2003) from a total