American English Address

美国英语称谓研究
是否使用“同等”和“权势”的代名词形式是一个人称呼另一个人的选择。

这个称呼的选择对讲英语的人操纵有利，也和那些有“同等”和“权势”的语言一样。

对美国英语称谓系统的研究，著名的是布朗和福特（1961/1964）和欧文·特里普（1972）。

这些研究已经成为一个经典。

此外，史洛宾等（1968）对布朗和福特的研究做了进一步的发展。

虽然稍后我们会提到其他选择，但是美国英语中的主要选择是第一名字和头衔加姓氏。

第一名字是类属于“同等”，而头衔加姓氏是属于“权势”。

布朗和福特在他们的调查中使用各种各样的数据来影响这个选择。

像布朗和吉尔曼，他们使用文学资料(一组美国现代剧)进行研究。

他们也记录了一个公司的超过200名职员之间使用的称谓语，此方法称为人类学家的“参与-观察”法。

此外，他们还记录了对美国西部的56名孩子进行一项心理研究项目的观察。

这个心理项目是关于另一个话题的，他们经常使用称呼语。

他们还对34位业务高管做了问卷调查。

关于这两种形式的三种模式是彼此直呼其名（包括常见的昵称，如“鲍勃”和“吉姆”）、彼此采用头衔加姓名（先生，夫人，博士等等的头衔）和非对称性选择方式（一个人告诉姓名，然后头衔加姓名称呼）。

根据布朗和福特，两个对等模式是由从相识到亲密的单一维度控制。

美国人称呼熟悉的人时用头衔加姓氏，同样他们也希望别人这样称呼他们。

朋友之间的称呼就会使用第一名字。

布朗和福特认为这两种关系之间有微妙的不同，五分钟的谈话就会让美国人的头衔加姓氏的称呼直接变为姓名的称呼。

从我个人的经验来说，如果一个人开始时就一直用比较“权势”的称呼的话，就算过了五分钟称呼也不会改变。

例如：当新职员第一次见同事或一个人刚搬到附近的人遇到邻居时，互换姓名是常见的交际。

这是美国人的特点，而不是其他语言的特点，更不是其他说英语的人的特点。

实际上，这样的观念，像“同等”、“权势”和“亲密是一个国家到另一个国家，甚至一个国家的一个社会团体向另一个团体，是使用称谓形式变化的一个主要来源。

American English Address
Related to the use of T and V pronoun forms is the choice of the name which one person will use to address someone else. The choice is available for manipulation by speakers of English as well as in languages that have T and V. The address system of American English, in particular, has been analyzed by Brown and Ford (1961/1964) and by Ervin-Tripp (1972). Each of these studies has become something of a classic. In addition, Slobin et al. (1968) have down a small follow-up study of the Brown and Ford research.
Although there are other options which we will mention later, the principal choices in American English are between first name (FN) and title with last name (TLN), with FN roughly analogous to T and TLN to V. Brown and Ford used a variety of data in their investigation of which forces influence this choice. Like Brown and Gilman, they used literary sources (a set of modern American plays). They also records of more than 200 interactions came from an employee of the firm who made belief notes of his collogues‟ address behavior (the anthropologist‟s …participant-observer‟ technique). In addition, they had records of observations involving some 56 children in the American Midwest for a psychology research project on another topic, in which address forms were frequent. Besides this they used questionnaire data on the reported usage by 34 business executives.
The three patterns that are possible with the two forms are the mutual exchange of FN (including such common nicknames as …Bob‟ and …Jim‟), the mutual exchange of TLN (with Mr., Mrs., Dr, and so on as the …titles‟), and the nonreciprocal pattern in which one person gives FN and gets TLN. According to Brown and Ford, the two reciprocal patterns are governed by a single dimension, ranging from acquaintance to intimacy. Americans call someone they are merely acquainted with by TNL and expect the same in return. People who are friends call each other by FN. But Brown and Ford point out that the difference between the two relationships for Americans is very small. Five minutes‟ conversation is enough to move from a TLN relationship to a FN one. In my own experience, even five minutes will not be allowed to elapse if some relatively permanent basis for solidarity is beginning. For example, when new employees first meet their co-workers or when a person who has just moved into a neighborhood meets the new neighbors, mutual FN is commonly exchanged as soon as the introductions are over. This is characteristic of Americans and would not be true of speakers of other languages, or even other English speakers. In fact, the meaning of such notions as “solidarity”, …power‟ and …intimacy‟ from one country to another, and even from one social group to another in the same country, is a major source of variation in address from usage.。