Use of addressing forms to express informality in english and vietnamese

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure1: Vietnamese respondents’ information Figure 2: English respondents’ division Figure 3: English respondents’ information Table 6: The level

TRỊNH THỊ VIỆT HƯƠNG TÓM TẮT LUẬN VĂN

USE OF ADDRESSING FORMS TO EXPRESS INFORMALITY IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE (SỬ DỤNG CÁC TỪ XƯNG HÔ ĐỂ THỂ HIỆN TÍNH KHÔNG NGHI

THỨC TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Linguistics Code: 602215

HANOI, 2011

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRỊNH THỊ VIỆT HƯƠNG

USE OF ADDRESSING FORMS TO EXPRESS INFORMALITY IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE (SỬ DỤNG CÁC TỪ XƯNG HÔ ĐỂ THỂ HIỆN TÍNH KHÔNG NGHI

THỨC TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Linguistics Code: 602215

Supervisor: Ths Nguyễn Thúy Hương

HANOI, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CHAPTER: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Statement of problem and rationale 1

1.2 Aims and objectives: 1

1.3 Research questions: 1

1.4 Research methodology: 2

1.5 Significance of the study: 2

1.6 Structure of the thesis : 2

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 4

2.1 Culture, language and communication 4

2.2 Addressing forms 7

2.2.1 Addressing forms and their definitions 7

2.2.2 Features of addressing forms 8

2.2.3 Factors affecting the choice of addressing forms 9

2.3 The use of addressing terms to express informality in English and Vietnamese 10

2.3.1 The concept of informality 10

2.3.2 The use of addressing forms to express informality in English 11

2.3.3 The use of addressing forms to express informality in Vietnamese 12

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 14

3.1 Research questions revisited 14

3.2 Selection of participants 14

3.3 Data collection instruments 15

3.4 Data collection procedures 16

3.5 Data analysis 17

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSTIONS 18

4.1 Results of the study 18

4.1.1 Vietnamese responses 18

4.1.2 English responses 24

4.2 Discussion of the findings 31

4.3 Major similarities and differences between Vietnamese and English languages and culture in using AFs to express informality32 4.4 Implications for English language teaching ……… .… 35

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 37

5.1 Findings of the study revisited 37

5.2 Limitations of the study 38

REFERENCES………39

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

Figure1: Vietnamese respondents’ information

Figure 2: English respondents’ division

Figure 3: English respondents’ information

Table 6: The level influence of the factors on the choice of AFs in Vietnamese

Table 7: Different addressing forms that may be used to express informality in English Table 8: Different relations in which addressing forms can be used to express informality

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of problem and rationale

In communication using a appropriate addressing forms is the first step to a successful conversation How people address each other is not only a matter of creating intimate atmosphere but also the aspect of social and culture expression One important issue in studying communication is to learn how individuals manage to open conversations

or how people may address one another in a given language English users (not native speaker) are faced with different factors that make them feel unconfident when learning and using English especially when using addressing forms

In an attempt to decrease learners‟ errors especially students‟ errors in using addressing forms, the researcher aims to find out the similarities and differences in the use

of addressing forms in informal way as well as the factors that affect the choice of addressing forms in Vietnamese and English speaking cultures

1.2 Aims and objectives:

The aims of the study are:

- To investigate major similarities and differences in using addressing forms in English and Vietnamese and the factors that affects the choice of addressing forms in the two cultures

- To suggest some implications for ELT about AFs between English and Vietnamese in order to help learners of English avoid misunderstandings and miscommunication in cross-culture communication

1.3 Research questions

In short the paper is going to answer two research questions as follow:

1 What are the major similarities and differences in using addressing forms to express informality in English and Vietnamese?

2 What are the factors that affect the choice of AFs in two cultures?

1.4 Research methodology

The study begins by providing the theoretical background with viewpoints of various authors concerning the issue These different viewpoints are dealt with in two ways:

- Bringing the viewpoints and then giving discussion

- Briefly analyzing these viewpoints

In order to achieve the aims of the study, the main method is quantitative which is mainly relies on:

 Review of relevant literature

 Survey questionnaire

 Statistics, description and analysis of the collected data

 Personal observation

 Consultation with the supervisor

1.5 Significance of the study

The study is hoped to be a useful source for both pedagogical and research purpose Specifically, equipped by the outcomes of the study, language teachers and learners may find the subject matter no longer complicated but motivating uses of AFs to express informality in English so that English learners can understand deeply addressing forms and can be confident in using addressing forms successfully

1.6 Structure of the thesis

The thesis consists of five chapters, organized as follows:

Chapter one is written to introduce the background to the study and statement of the

problems It also presents the aims, the research questions, research methodology,

significance of the study and the design of the thesis

Chapter two presents a review of theoretical background that is relevant to the study It

presents the definitions and discusses the relation of culture, language and communication All key terms of addressing forms and informality as well as some common features and factors affecting the choice of addressing forms are also mentioned

Chapter Three states the methodology used in the study Therefore, research questions are

revisited, the information about subjects, the data collection instruments, the data collection procedures and the data analysis

Chapter Four discusses the outcome of the data analysis

Chapter Five is the conclusion to the thesis

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Culture, language and communication

Culture, language and communication are the three concepts that are closely related Before being examined in the relationships with the others, each is expected to be perceived in a thorough way

In the first place should be the concept of culture Social scientists have been interested in culture and how it influences people for years Over the years there have been many different definitions of culture, with similarities as well as differences Culture influences all aspects of our lives We use culture to explain similarities within and differences between groups of people (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992) Culture is not a static entity, but is ever-evolving; what we commonly know as “the generation gap” is a cultural difference as it refers to different ways of life and being for people who are raised in different periods of time (Pipher, 1998) Richard et al, (1992, 138) give clear definition of culture and point out some problems in culture between people of different background:

“culture is the total sets of beliefs, attitudes, customs, behavior, social habits of the members of a particular society”

Referring to culture, Harrison and Huntington (2000) comment sophisticatedly:

“The term „culture‟, of course, has had multiple meaning in different disciplines and different context” (p.15)

Culture is also defined in a broader sense by Triandis (1994) as follows:

“… a set of human – made objective and subjective elements that in the past have increased the probability of survival and resulted in satisfaction for the participants in an ecological niche, and thus become shared among those who could communicate with each other because they had a common language and they live in the same time and place”

Obviously, there are many ways to define culture Culture, in short, can be comprehended as a shared learned behavior that is transmitted from one generation to

another independently of biological genes, for the purpose of promoting individual and social survival, adaptation and growth and development However, one point noticeable from the definition by the above mentioned scholars is that the majority of them see the concept of “culture” from perspective of another concept, which is “communication”

“Communication” as defined by Richard (et al.1992:64) is the exchange of ideas, information, etc between two or more persons The sender(s) [speaker(s)][transmit(s)] message to the receiver(s) [listener(s)]” Communication is an effective tool for people to cooperate with each other in the process of development Samovar (2007), in his study, shows that “human communication is the process through which individuals-in relationships, group, organization, and societies-respond to and create messages and adapt

to the environment and one another” (p.23) Both scholars see communication as an exchanging process which creates a common ground (as the outcomes of the process) understood by all concerned

Like the flawless transition, culture and communication intertwine with each other and it is easy to conceive that culture is communication and communication is culture In a sense, cultures are the “residue” of social communication Without communication and communication media, it would be impossible to preserve and pass along cultural characteristics from one place and time to another One can say, therefore, that culture is created, shaped, transmitted, and learned through communication The reverse is also the case; that is, communication practices are largely created, shaped, and transmitted by culture Considering the opinion of Smith (1966), he states that:

“In modern society, different people communicate in different way, as do people in different societies in the world; and the way people communicate is the way they live It is their culture Who talks with whom, How, And about what? These are questions of communication and culture… When the elements of culture differ or change Communication and culture are inseparable.” (p1)

Undoubtedly, the exact nature of relationship between communication and culture

is a very complex and intimate one However everything a person experiences is perceived

within the conceptual and grammatical perspective of that person's language People can never understand the impact this has on their thinking until they learn a completely different language

It is undeniable that the relationship between communication and culture is intertwined and the relationship between language and culture, according to Samovar and

many previous scholars is interwoven relationship

Commenting on the relationship between language and culture Nida (1998:29) holds the view that language and culture are two language items symbolic systems Everything we say in language has meanings, designative or sociative, denotative or connotative Every language form we use has meanings, carries meanings that are not in the same sense because it is associated with culture and culture is more extensive than language.‟ People of different cultures can refer to different things while using the same language forms

It is commonly accepted that language is a part of culture, and that culture plays a very important role in it Some social scientists consider that language without culture would not be possible Language simultaneously reflects culture, and is influenced and shaped by it In the broadest sense, language is also the symbolic representation of a people, since it comprises their historical and cultural backgrounds, as well as their approach to life and their ways of living and thinking Brown (1994: 165) describes the two as follows: „A language is a part of a culture and a culture is a part of a language; the two are intricately interwoven so that one cannot separate the two without losing the significance of either language or culture.‟ In a word, culture and language are inseparable, language is a key component of culture It is the primary medium for transmitting much of culture Without language, culture would not be possible

Language, culture and communication are different things that cannot be separated Language is surely the most important tool of communication that individual have at their disposal This is because it is language that permits people to communicate The purpose of acquisition of language as proved by Chomsky is for communicative purpose That is why

human communicate perfectly using Language means Other means of Communication have several weaknesses, therefore human language is the best means of reflecting culture through communication

2.2 Addressing forms

2.2.1 Addressing forms and their definitions

According to Jack C Richards, J Platt and H Platt (1999:6), addressing systems (address forms, address terms) are understood as: The word or words used to address somebody in speech or writing The way in which people address one another usually depends on their age, sex, social group, and personal relationship

Addressing forms are words and phrases used for addressing They refer to the collocutor and thus contain a strong element of deixis (Braun, 1988) They are words or linguistic expressions that speakers use to appeal directly to their addressees (Taavitsainen and Jucker, 2003) It is true that people use addressing term to address each other in almost all occasions However, it is also true that sometimes it is not necessary to use them when people involved in the face-to-face communication know each other well

English addressing system is much simpler than Vietnamese one It is because of this that in English system, there exists a neutral dyad “I-You” which is used in communication as “prefabricated units” “Prefabricated units,” means that these units can

be used in any context and with anyone It can do so because “I” and “you” do not include

in themselves any information of age, gender or family relationship, etc In comparison with English terms, the use of Vietnamese terms of address in actual communication is more intricate As Luong (1990:5) points out: “Both the use and the meanings of Vietnamese person-referring forms are saliently and inextricably linked to the power, solidarity, and formality dimensions in the relations among the addressor, addressee, as well as the referred parties.” The appropriate choice of Vietnamese addressing forms to utilize involve and consideration a wide range of sociolinguistic factors, such as age, sex, social status, relationship( blood, intimate or distant), attitudes ( respectful or arrogant),

feelings of the speakers and addressee as well as the formality of the communication context English addressing forms do not include in themselves any information of sociolinguistic factors or the formality of the communication

2.2.2 Features of addressing forms

Addressing forms is one of the most obvious linguistic mean that mark and establishes the type of relationship between interactants Addressing forms are likely to be different in communities because different languages have different linguistic resources to express what is culturally permissible and meaningful Moreover, speakers use address terms to negotiate or transform a cultural system (Fitch 1991, Morford 1997) and issues such as sexuality, age, ethnicity and religion can also be inferred and realized from address terms (Afful 2006a)

Though many investigations have been conducted to study addressing terms in different languages, the result of these studies verify the main points that addressing terms

is a markers of social relations, attitude, feeling or the implifiers of attitude toward genders, age, relationship, etc

2.2.3 Factors affecting the choice of addressing forms

Addressing terms have been studied since the1960s with a focus on the effects of the interpersonal relationship and the social structure or ideology on the use of address forms; the addressing variations between different languages and cultures, and the cross-cultural features of politeness that appear in address forms in both spoken language and written discourse (e.g Bates &Benigni, 1975; Braun, 1988; Brown, 1965; Brown & Gilman, 1989; Brown & Ford, 1961; Ervin-Tripp, 1972; Friedrich, 1966; Kess & Juricic, 1978; Kroger & Wood, 1992; Lambert & Tucker, 1976; Martiny, 1960 Brown and Gilman 1960) postulated that power and solidarity are two key factors determining the non-reciprocal and reciprocal use of the addressing forms (T/V usage) respectively and suggested that there is a correlation between the social structure or ideology and address forms Brown and Yule (1989:54) argued that “in different social contexts different terms

of address will be used.”As Lyons (1977) pointed out, the use of address forms by a

social inferior to a social superior differs from the forms used between peers These studies have provided a good beginning for understanding how social factors affect the use of addressing forms in diverse languages and how the addressing behaviours differ between

languages and cultures

Wardhaugh (2006) also notes that a variety of social factors usually governs our

choices of terms Among these social factors are the particular occasion, the social status or rank of the other, sex, age, family relationships, occupational hierarchy, transactional

status, such as a doctor-patient relationship or priest-penitent, race, and the degree of

intimacy

Brown and Ford (1964:238) explained: sometimes we use TLN; sometimes we use FN,

LN or Diminutives, or other variables of phonetics

Wardhaugh (1986:262) concluded that:

Using first name of someone […] does not only express the solidarity, FN can be used

among the close colleagues (even they do not like each other) and FN even uses for the officials, or when expressing the disdain or admiration

Sharing the same concern about AFs, Brown and Ford (1964) stressed on the time the interlocutors know each other and the solidarity Holmes and Meyerhoff (2002, p.78) pointed out many different ways of addressing people in English depending on the level of politeness and closeness Dewi (2008) held the view that people use address terms not only to determine addressees but also to show formal and informal manners and consideration for them In other words, by employing a certain address term, the speaker wants to express his or her feeling of respect, solidarity, and intimacy to the addressees An address term may be friendly, unfriendly, or neutral; respectful, disrespectful, or comradely (Nordquist, 2009)

From the above points of view, it can be concluded that the use of addressing forms depends on the power, solidarity, and formality of dimensions in the relation between

addresser and addressee, so changes in the character‟s feelings and attitudes toward each other or in their relationships are conveyed through changes in addressing forms

2.3 The use of addressing terms to express informality in English and Vietnamese

2.3.1 The concept of informality

Different countries and cultures around the world have different conventions for addressing people in a variety of situations Studies on address terms focus on informality and support the view that “speakers of a language share a set of “rule of address”-which may not be consciously known or rigidly adhered to, but which may be inferred as appropriate in specific situation” (Susan Ervin Tripp- 1969)

Addressing forms themselves are of two kinds: formal and informal David Murray Schneider (1980:102) defined the term “informality” in a very simple way, that is “the informal terms informally used” Larry Rios (2004:42) states that “When talking to a close friend or family member you would be probably more intimate and informal”

Actually, it is easy to realize that “informality” posters a warm or friendly atmosphere and it is used in unofficial or casual context

2.3.2 The use of addressing forms to express informality in English

In English, addressing system is not really simple With I-YOU, we can communicate without knowing about the age, gender, social status of the interlocutor, the relationships between the hearer and the speaker, attitudes or feelings … Besides, there exists many other address terms as follows:

- Title alone (T): E.g Professor, Dr., Mr., Miss …

+ Social title: E.g.: Mr., Mrs., Madam …

+ Career title: E.g.: Professor, Doctor …

- Title with last name (TLN): E.g Mr Clinton …

- Last name alone (LN): E.g Michael Nixon, Mary King …

- First name (FN): E.g Michael Nixon, Mary King …

- Multiple names (MNs)

These two address terms are divided into three groups:

- Mutual exchange of FN

- Mutual exchange of TLN

- Nonreciprocal exchange of TLN and FN

According to Holmes and Meyerhoff (2002, p.78) there are many different ways of addressing people in English depending on the level of politeness and closeness For instance, Ervin-Trip (1972/1986) cites a real life example in which a white policeman, after learning a black psychologist‟s social identity, still insists on addressing him as “boy” instead of „Dr.‟ to insult him Therefore, speakers, by manipulating the addressing forms system, may position themselves and express their attitude of respect or contempt, intimacy or distance, toward the addressee as well as position the addressee

2.3.3 The use of addressing forms to express informality in Vietnamese

The addressing system in Vietnamese, as in many Oriental languages, is very complicated In Vietnamese addressing system, there is no equivalent to I-YOU that is used as a prefabricated unit in English The addressing forms I-YOU in English do not imply age, gender, social power, attitudes and feeling in it whereas in Vietnamese, the addressing terms change according to age, gender, personality, social status, family relationship, the degree of respect, familiarity, formality and intimacy between the speakers

Phan (2006), has listed a number of terms that Vietnamese address each other, a summary of which is as follows:

Personal pronouns especially second-person pronouns: bạn/các bạn; mày/chúng mày; bồ;

anh; em; trò; bay/tụi bay; etc

Personal names: Hùng ơi; này Thụ; ông Phương; etc

Professional titles: ông luật sư; anh trạm; cô giáo ơi; etc

Formal titles: Ngài; Ông; ect

Kinship terms: mẹ (má, u, bầm, mợ, bu, mạ, mệ…); bố (ba, cha, tía, thầy, cậu…); thím,

mợ, cô, dì, chú, cậu, bác, ông (nội, ngoại, cố, trẻ); bà (nội, ngoại, cố, trẻ, dì); con, cháu; ect

Terms of endearment: cưng; nhỏ; anh yêu; etc

Insults: thằng gù; con câm; etc

Other terms: cháo gà (“cháo gà! Lại đây!”);đồng nát (“đồng nát ơi!”); etc

In Vietnamese, addressing forms vary with personal pronouns, kinship terms, status terms, and proper nouns (Luong, 1990; Cooke, 1968; Nguyen,1999; Cu, 2001) For the first person singular reference, there are five common pronouns (i.e.toi, tao, ta,to,minh),

and five pronouns for plural forms with the addition of “chung” to the singular form

(i.e.chung toi, chung tao, chung to,chung minh) The third person reference includes four

commonly used pronouns in the singular form and three in the plural form According to Ngo (2006: 4), “the use of Vietnamese personal pronouns pragmatically implies either intimacy/familiarity, among close friends of the same age, or a lack of deference and high degree of arrogance towards the addressee and/or third‐party pronominal referent of

superior age”

In conclusion, this section has briefly reviewed the background and the related issues of addressing terms: Some basic points of language, culture and communication relationship as well as English and Vietnamese addressing forms in expressing informality has been touched upon

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Coming up next is the detailed description of research design which is the use of survey questionnaire to be more specific How the series of questions was built, how participants were chosen as well as different stages to obtain a sufficient collection of reliable and valid data for the study will be investigated thoroughly

3.1 Research questions revisited

To clarify the use of addressing forms to express informality, the study raised specific questions below:

1 What are the major similarities and differences in using addressing terms to express informality in English and Vietnamese?

2 What are the factors that affect the choice of AFs in expressing informality

in two cultures?

3.2 Selection of participants

The study was carried out with the participation of 50 respondents in total, 25 Vietnamese and 25 English native speakers respondents The informants were asked to give information about their age, and nationality (for English native speakers respondents) because these factors may affect their choice of addressing forms The information they supply is useful for the explanation of differences in the responses

By English respondents, the research aims at people from three English speaking countries, which are the US, UK and Australia The respondents were chosen randomly

When carried out the survey, the researcher faced with the fact that it is not easy to find 25 English native speakers as respondents However, thanks to the helpfulness and enthusiasm of many friends who are post- graduate students and human resources

managers, this was managed

3.3 Data collection instrument

To answer the research questions, apart from personal experience as a Vietnamese native speaker, the author decided to use questionnaire as the method of data collection

In comparison with others research instrument, collecting data my means of questionnaire

is more objectively and at a relatively low cost In order to obtain information from a large number of participants in a short time, questionnaire is a quick and efficient instrument

The questionnaire served as a main data collection took for the study They are written in both English and Vietnamese Two questionnaires were designed and delivered The questionnaires were designed with tables and ready parameters so that informants can find it easier to tick or number Besides, there are open questions to seek opinions on:

- Possible addressing forms that express informality in two cultures

- Possible factors that affect the choice of AFs in two cultures

- The frequency of addressing forms use

The questionnaires were made up of two parts: the respondents‟ background information and the questions

The respondent’s background information: with two items for the Vietnamese

version and three items for the English version (one more item of nationality) the main purpose of this part is to limit the research scope For example, the information given by the respondents with their responses would help the researcher to see if the gender has any impacts on the choice of AFs or not

The questionnaires:

In the first questionnaire:

- Q1: to seek information on possible AFs that the respondent use to express informality

- Q2: to provide respondents types of relations in which AFs are used

- Q3: to provide respondent the categories of settings that respondents use the AFs (based on the Q1)

In the second questionnaire:

- Q1: provides the respondents with a list of AFs with which AFs are used and categories of frequency that they used (based on results of the Questionnaire 1)

- Q2: the level influence of the factors on the choice of AFs

3.4 Data collection procedures

The data collection was collected in two stages described as below:

Stage 1: designing questionnaires

As stated above, there were two questionnaires, which were English and Vietnamese versions Then the two questionnaires were piloted with a group of six respondents, three Vietnamese and three English native speakers With the suggestion for wording and expression, the questions were then edited so any ambiguities, obscurities and confusions could be limited Based on that, the second version was designed before actually used

Stage 2: delivering questionnaires 1

Questionnaire 1 was distributed to Vietnamese by the researcher herself Before completing the questionnaire, any unclear points were explained right away An e-version

of the questionnaire was sent to English native speakers respondents by email (with the help of people who are post- graduate students and human resources managers) These respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire and sent back to the researcher via internet

Stage 3: designing and delivering questionnaires 2

Based on the data collected from questionnaire 1, questionnaire 2 was develop and then distributed to two groups of respondents in the same manner

3.5 Data analysis

In this stage the researcher encoded the respondents‟ questionnaires then listed the study points: first point (1st P): possible AFs, 2nd P: categories of relations (based on the 1st P), 3rd P: categories of settings (based on the 1st P)

4th P: list of AFs and frequency that respondents used (base on the 1st P in the first questionnaire)

5th P: the factors affecting the choice of AFs

The Data collected were tabulated and calculated The results then were analyzed to find out the similarities and differences in using AFs to express informality between cultures

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Results from the questionnaires

4.1.1 Vietnamese responses

Figure 1: Vietnamese respondents’ information

Female Male

As indicated in figure 1, 60% of Vietnamese respondents were men and 40% were female

Question 1:AFs that may be used to express informality

Table 1: Different addressing forms that may be used to express informality in Vietnamese

AFs categories responses

N 0 %

Rank

Bare kinship term (Bk) 22 88 2

First name terms (F) 22 88 2

Terms of endearment (E) 18 72 5

Demonstrative words (D) 2 8 7

It is clearly seen in table 2 that when Vietnamese participants were asked to give possible AFs to express informality, 100% participants use P to express informality 60% participants use nickname 88% would address people with bare kinship term 76% use nick name First name term is also used by 88% 76% said that they would employ terms

of endearment, two out of twenty five participants give “đằng này”“đấy” “đằng ấy”,

“ấy” as demonstrative words to express informality

Question 2: In which relations can those addressing forms be used

Categories of relations Responses

in the table indicate that out of the 10 relations in which AFs are used, 12 (48 %) of respondents choose the relations of staff worker and boss, 11(44 %) choose the relation of neighbor - neighbor and boss and staff worker while 4 (16%) tick the relation of children

- parents None of the participants would use AFs in teacher – student relation and only 2 (8%) of respondents use AFs in other relations to express informality (relation with boyfriend‟s parents)

Question 3: In which of the settings below can addressing forms be used to express informality

Categories of settings Responses

Question 4 : How often are these AFs used?

Table 4: The frequency with which addressing forms are used to express

The results of the table show that 44% of the subjects very often use F, while 48%

of the subjects often use these terms Only 8% sometimes use F None of the subjects never

or rarely use F Terms of endearment were very often used by only 12%

Question 5: What factors can possibly affect the choice of addressing forms

N 0 %

Rank

very often often sometimes rarely never Responses

Terms of endearment

(Te)

3 12 10 40 7 28 3 12 2 8

Length of time you have known him/her 25 100 1

in using AFs to express informality, “setting” with 94% of the participants is also a factor that has certain impact on the choice of AFs The figures in table 5 also indicate that three other factors that have impact on the choice of AFs are “social status”, “finance power” and “others” (purpose of the conversation) 52% chose “social status” as a factor that determined the choice of AFs

Question 6: To what extent do these factors affect the choice of addressing forms?

Setting

(at home, at work…) 20 80 2 8 3 12 Gender 16 64 4 16 5 20 Social status 5 20 15 60 5 20 Finance power 2 8 21 84 2 8 Education 5 20 14 56 6 24

Table 6: The level influence of the factors on the choice of AFs

As can be seen in the table, answering the question “To what extent do these factors

affect the choice of addressing forms”, „age‟ 88% chose „much‟, 12% chose item „little‟

64% answered that the choice of AFs is affected much by the length of time while 20% do not affect much and 16% affects little.100% answered that the choice of AFs is affected

by manner of communication (formal, informal…) 80% of informants answered that the choice of AFs is affected much by „setting‟, 8% does not affect much and 12% affects little 64% of informants answered that the choice of AFs is affected much by gender, 16% does not affect much and 20% affects little 20% of participants said that „social status‟ does not affect much the choice of AFs, 60% does not affect much and only 20% of the subjects said that „social status‟ affects little Only 8% of participants show that the choice

of AFs is affected much by „finance power‟ while 84% does not affect much by it and only 4% affects little 20% of participants answered that „education‟ does not affect much, 56%

does not affect much while only 24% affect little the choice of AFs