RE: [xmca] Terms of Endearment

This audience trumping is evident in a situation I have worked in for a
number of years - that of working with my parents. In work situations
with others present I use their first names (took a while to get used to
doing this). Occasionally in the company of colleagues that I work with
on a daily basis, something will get said which is a 'parental' comment,
to which I reply "yes mum" (or 'yes dad' depending on the situation. My
supervisor looked at me quizically the first time this happened, to
which I replied: Sorry, but that was a mother statement :)

The use of their first names also means that I am judged more on my own
abilities rather than my abilities being attributed to my parents
through a genetic link (although that is definitely there).

Regards

Louise Hawkins

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Cyphert [mailto:Dale.Cyphert@uni.edu]
Sent: Friday, 14 December 2007 11:34 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Terms of Endearment

Mike's post brings up an issue that is particularly salient for me...the
"code switching" that goes on in the presence of others. One of the
principles that I cover in my business communication course is that
informal usage within the office (i.e. calling one's boss by his/her
first name) does NOT extend to "public" venues. That is, when referring
to the boss in the presence of upper management or customers, it is
appropriate to revert to the formal title.

I'm wondering whether this is a more universal principle, even given the
variations on when the informal or formal are used in private. Is it
always true that an "audience" of sorts trumps the relationship of the
two speakers?

dale

Dale Cyphert, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Interim Head
Department of Management
University of Northern Iowa
1227 W. 27th Street
Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0125
(319) 273-6150; fax (319) 2732922
dale.cyphert@uni.edu

Mike Cole wrote:
> Interesting that this discussion has sparked so much interest, perhaps

> because we are all so familiar with the phenomenon but only know some
> of its variations.
>
> In our afterschool work where we mix play and education and friendship

> and ...... the undergrads partner up with the kids and play an
> intermediate role between them and the real authorities.
> I am not in either of the main activities we are conducting, THE
> authority when at the site. But I am usually the eldest and the
> undergrads are in a system where Professor Cole or Dr. Cole is the
> default.
>
> To create some space for me to participate at the sites, a system has
> evolved over time where I am referred to as Dr. Mike or Professor
> Mike. At one of our sites, (heavily African American) the adults are
> expected to be referred to as Mr.
> Danny or Ms. Veverly. But it was a struggle for people to actually be
> able to call me Mr Mike and I am the undergrad's professor, so we
> collectively settled on Professor Mike. But even then, the directress,

> whose rules these were, had a very hard time referring to me as other
> than Professor Cole. Now we have gotten to know each other a lot
> better and she is easy with Professor Mike when the kids are around.
> But if another adult is there? Professor Cole tends to pop out.
>
> My point in writing this is to suggest as (I think we all realize) how

> deeply cultural these conventions of address are, and how they
> encapsulate power relations, forms of respect, local norms........
> even when we move from one idiocultural system to another in a single
> national/cultural system.
>
> The collection of examples has been great to read about.
> mike
> (in this idioculture)
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 4:51 PM, Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>yeah, "mate" also sounds so friendly, especially with an australian
>>accent!
>>
>> "No worries, mate!"
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>Geoff <geoffrey.binder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Australian solution is my favorite, (and not just because I'm
>>Australian, but because I often forget peoples names) and that's mate.
>>Mate can be used across gender and in all but the most formal of
>>situations.
>>
>>On 13/12/2007, Kevin Rocap wrote:
>>
>>>So the more titles we can come up with for Mike, the more he is like
>>>arctic snow. ;-) ????...as the driven snow? (or is this just a snow
>>>job?)
>>>
>>>In Peace,
>>>K.
>>>
>>>Paul Dillon wrote:
>>>
>>>>David,
>>>>
>>>>The question of perception and language is pretty complictated. One
>>>>of
>>
>>my first field work experiences involved tests of color perceptions
>>among Mayan and Spanish speakers in the Yucatan. I haven't revisited
>>that theme in a long time but I do remember those studies (kay,
>>berlin?) showed a pretty consistent variation between the colors that
>>people could remember and those they could successfully communicate to

>>others and that these weren't the same between the two language
groups.
>>
>>>>To me it seems obvious that Inuit or other arctic groups would not
>>
>>only have lots of different words for snow, but also would distinguish

>>qualities of snow that folks who don't live in environments where snow

>>is very important. Maybe these distinctions even involve the
>>development of a concept of snow generative of snowy language and
>>logics permitting an ontological relationship completely absent among,
say, the Nuer.
>>
>>>>In Spanish the use of "tu" and "usted", seems related to the use of
>>
>>"Dr. Cole" and "mike", it's not fixed but situational, people with
>>whom I use "tu" when drinking beer, I use "usted" in a faculty
>>meeting. I think there might be situations in which mike is addressed
>>as Dr. Cole, there might even be situations where he expects it. I
wonder.
>>
>>>>Paul
>>>>
>>>>p.s., I've never thought of myself as a "street fighting man", a
>>
>>"midnight rambler" perhaps.
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>David Kellogg wrote:
>>>>Dear Mike:
>>>>
>>>>The problem is that there are cultures (including ours) where it's
>>
>>really TOO intimate to address a colleague by their first name. In
>>most families in Korea, a younger brother doesn't use the first name
>>of an older brother though the older brother may use that of the
>>younger (just as parents may use their children's first names but not
>>vice versa in the West). I can never get my students to call me
>>anything but "Professor Kellogg" even though I am really only a
>>lecturer (and that's why we address everybody except Mike as
>>"Professor" in our contribution to the discussion on development).
>>
>>>>I gather from Paul's comments that "dear" as a letter salutation is
>>
>>also considered too intimate now, which was certainly not true when I
>>left the USA more or less permanently in the early 1980s.
>>
>>>>In English teaching we try (very stupidly) to teach terms of address
>>
>>as a set of rules, e.g.
>>
>>>>a) WHERE INTIMATE: Never use a FIRST name with a title (except that
>>>>of
>>
>>course here in Korea the last name comes first and the first name
>>comes
>>last)
>>
>>>>b) WHERE NOT INTIMATE: Never use a LAST name without a title
(ditto).
>>>>
>>>>This succeeds in utterly confusing our learners and erects huge
>>
>>barriers to human interaction where none previously existed. Language
>>is NOT a set of rules--not even grammar "rules" are rules, and to to
>>try to teach respect and collegiality as a set of rules is almost a
>>contradiction in terms (since rules will inevitably involve a clash
>>between MY rules and YOURS and the way I end up expressing my respect
>>for you involves NOT respecting your rules).
>>
>>>>So what do I teach? Human interaction, of course. You ask somebody
>>>>how
>>
>>to address them and then you forget your own bloody rules and just do
>>what they tell you to do. In fact, a question like "What do I call
>>you?" is EASIER to teach than the so-called "rules" above. But most
>>importantly it is clearly LIMITING and LIMITED in a way that so-called

>>rules are not. It's concrete and personal, one might almost say
>>intimate, as human interactions have to be.
>>
>>>>Last night I was reading Paul Bloom's book "How Children Learn the
>>
>>Meanings of Words" (MIT: 2001). He has a "rules and words" paradigm
>>for language, so he spends some of the latter part of the book
>>smirking at those of us who consider rules and words negotiable and
not innate.
>>
>>>>He cites the following parody of the Whorfian (and Vygotskyan)
>>
>>position on p. 244.
>>
>>>>Whorfian: Eskimos are greatly infuenced by their language in their
>>
>>perception of snow. for example, they have N words for snow whereas
>>English only has none. Having all these different words makes them
>>think of snow very differently than Americans do.
>>
>>>>Skeptic: How do you know they think differently than Americans do?
>>>>Whorfian: Look at all the words they have for snow!
>>>>
>>>>First of all, if Inuit who see snow every day have exactly the same
>>
>>perception of snow as Americans who have never seen snow in their
>>lives, it is the skeptics and not the Whorfians who have some tough
explaining to do.
>>Secondly, there is really NOTHING circular about language being both
>>cause and effect: the language of previous generations is an effect
>>for them and a cause for us. In the same way, a question like "What do

>>I call you?" is both effect and cause, and so is its effect, namely
>>the answer. What's so hard about that?
>>
>>>>David Kellogg
>>>>Seoul National University of Education
>>>>
>>>>PS:
>>>>
>>>>Actually, Paul, though I am not a Stones fan, at heart I am a street
>>
>>fightin' man like you.... But you can see that our Dear Mike takes his

>>pastoral duties on this list very seriously indeed, and that's surely
>>one reason why the list is such a nice quiet place to work.
>>
>>>>dk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------
>>>>Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------
>>>>Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>xmca mailing list
>>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>xmca mailing list
>>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Geoffrey Binder
>>BA (SS) La Trobe, BArch (Hons) RMIT
>>PhD Candidate
>>Global Studies, Social Sciences and Planning RMIT Ph B. 9925 9951 M.
>>0422 968 567 _______________________________________________
>>xmca mailing list
>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------
>>Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
>>Search.
>>_______________________________________________
>>xmca mailing list
>>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Thu Dec 13 20:09 PST 2007