Search

The present article deals with identification of persons and the use of address forms in the Latvian language viewed sociolinguistically. The aim of the study is to analyse the connection between the identification of the addressee in the pre-communication phase and the use of address form. The aggregated material (approximately 300 speech facts) was recorded from different speech situations and television and radio broadcasts. The present research is based on direct observations, content analysis of essays (written by 100 students from two universities) on the choice between two singular personal pronouns of the Latvian language, tu being informal whereas jūs - polite and formal. Additionally, the data of questionnaire (distributed in 2018) is used. When analysing identification of persons attention is paid to the use of the first name, surname, and words describing their social identity. The term address form is used in the wide sense including pronominal address and patterns of address usage. The tendency to prefer the use of first name is observed in both cases of language means for identification of persons and address forms. For the sake of friendliness, kindness, closer relations (perhaps artificially closer), identifying the employee and addressing the communication partner by name spreads in communication service provider-client, doctor-patient, lecturer-student, teacher-high school student, etc. When analysing the use of address in Latvian, it can be established that both familiar people and strangers are also identified by other features related to their social identity - profession, position, gender, age and other indicators. It can be concluded that a first name is not always sufficient to identify a person. In many cases, the variants of the address agree with the designations that identify the person. However, not all designations that correspond to the social identity of the person being addressed are useful in the address function, for example some names of professions. The results of the content analysis of the essays show that the students, respectively, the authors of the essays, want to preserve the distinction between the two 2nd person pronouns and the traditions of the use of address in Latvian. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]