The (Lack of) Salience of T/V Pronouns in Professional Communication: Evidence from an Experimental Study for Belgian Dutch

IF 0.9 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Languages Pub Date : 2024-03-20 DOI:10.3390/languages9030112
Laura Rosseel, E. Zenner, Fabian Faviana, Bavo Van Landeghem
{"title":"The (Lack of) Salience of T/V Pronouns in Professional Communication: Evidence from an Experimental Study for Belgian Dutch","authors":"Laura Rosseel, E. Zenner, Fabian Faviana, Bavo Van Landeghem","doi":"10.3390/languages9030112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In their quest to find a suitable tone of voice in an informalizing society, many companies are confronted with the choice of using T or V pronouns in their B2C communications. This paper presents an experimental study addressing the question of whether the recipients of these messages actually notice the difference between being addressed with a T form, which carries social meanings of informality and proximity, or a more distant V form, and to what extent the presence of additional informal linguistic features influences the salience of a pronoun switch. We furthermore investigate to what extent the professional socialization of participants impacts on the noticing of pronoun use. In a case study for Belgian Dutch, participants (N = 279) were presented with two versions of an information letter that they were asked to read quickly. The texts were manipulated for the use of T/V pronouns, as well as, depending on the condition, a number of additional informal linguistic features (i.e., informal punctuation, intensifiers, and English lexical items). Participants were not warned in advance about the changes between the two versions of the stimulus text. In a salience test following the presentation of the two text versions, less than 10% of participants noticed a switch in T/V form regardless of the presence of additional informal features. Similarly low rates of noticing were found for the other informal features, except for English loanwords. No differences were found depending on whether participants had a language-related professional background (e.g., language teachers, journalists, editors). We argue that the lack of noticing T/V pronouns may be due to the specifics of the Belgian Dutch system of pronominal address that has an additional highly salient colloquial pronoun of address which may obscure the difference in social meaning between the standard T and V pronouns. The discussion critically evaluates the implications of the study for the use of T/V pronouns in professional communication, musing on the complex relationship between noticing and evaluating.","PeriodicalId":52329,"journal":{"name":"Languages","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Languages","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/languages9030112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In their quest to find a suitable tone of voice in an informalizing society, many companies are confronted with the choice of using T or V pronouns in their B2C communications. This paper presents an experimental study addressing the question of whether the recipients of these messages actually notice the difference between being addressed with a T form, which carries social meanings of informality and proximity, or a more distant V form, and to what extent the presence of additional informal linguistic features influences the salience of a pronoun switch. We furthermore investigate to what extent the professional socialization of participants impacts on the noticing of pronoun use. In a case study for Belgian Dutch, participants (N = 279) were presented with two versions of an information letter that they were asked to read quickly. The texts were manipulated for the use of T/V pronouns, as well as, depending on the condition, a number of additional informal linguistic features (i.e., informal punctuation, intensifiers, and English lexical items). Participants were not warned in advance about the changes between the two versions of the stimulus text. In a salience test following the presentation of the two text versions, less than 10% of participants noticed a switch in T/V form regardless of the presence of additional informal features. Similarly low rates of noticing were found for the other informal features, except for English loanwords. No differences were found depending on whether participants had a language-related professional background (e.g., language teachers, journalists, editors). We argue that the lack of noticing T/V pronouns may be due to the specifics of the Belgian Dutch system of pronominal address that has an additional highly salient colloquial pronoun of address which may obscure the difference in social meaning between the standard T and V pronouns. The discussion critically evaluates the implications of the study for the use of T/V pronouns in professional communication, musing on the complex relationship between noticing and evaluating.
专业交流中T/V代词(缺乏)显著性:比利时荷兰语实验研究的证据
在一个非正规化的社会中,许多公司在寻求合适的语音语调时,都面临着在其 B2C 通信中使用 T 或 V 代词的选择。本文介绍了一项实验研究,探讨了这些信息的接收者是否真正注意到带有非正式和亲近等社会含义的 T 形式与更疏远的 V 形式之间的区别,以及额外的非正式语言特点在多大程度上影响了代词转换的显著性。此外,我们还调查了参与者的职业社会化在多大程度上影响了代词的使用。在一项针对比利时荷兰语的案例研究中,我们向参与者(N = 279)展示了两份要求他们快速阅读的信息信函。这些文本在使用T/V代词的同时,还根据不同的条件使用了一些额外的非正式语言特点(即非正式标点符号、加强语气词和英语词条)。受试者事先未被告知两个版本的刺激文本之间的变化。在展示两个文本版本后进行的显著性测试中,只有不到 10%的受试者注意到了 T/V 形式的转换,无论是否存在额外的非正式特征。除英语借词外,其他非正式特征的注意率同样很低。参与者是否具有与语言相关的专业背景(如语言教师、记者、编辑)也没有发现任何差异。我们认为,没有注意到 T/V 代词可能是由于比利时荷兰语的代词称呼系统的特殊性,该系统有一个额外的非常突出的口语代词称呼,这可能会掩盖标准 T 代词和 V 代词之间在社会意义上的差异。讨论批判性地评估了本研究对专业交流中使用 T/V 代词的影响,并对注意和评价之间的复杂关系进行了思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Languages
Languages Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
22.20%
发文量
282
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信