Rakas Tarja ja hyvä ystävä. Puhuttelu minän ja sosiaalisten suhteiden esittämisen keinoina televisiokeskustelussa

• Pirkko Nuolijärvi
• Liisa Tiittula

Avainsanat: institutionaalinen keskustelu, joukkoviestimien kieli, keskusteluntutkimus, puhuttelu

Abstrakti

Terms of address as a means of expressing self and social relations in television debates (englanti)

4/2001 (105)

Pirkko Nuolijrvi Liisa Tiittula TERMS OF ADDRESS AS A MEANS OF EXPRESSING SELF AND SOCIAL RELATIONS IN TELEVISION DEBATES

Dialogues will always reveal how the participants in the dialogue relate to each other. This will be evident from the terms of address used. The meaning of these terms of address in the given context, specifically at which point in the discussion or in the sequence of turns the terms are used, is of particular importance.

The article examines the terms of address used in Finnish televised election debates. The material consists of four television debates in the second round of the presidential elections in 2000. The article focuses on how presidential candidates Esko Aho and Tarja Halonen varied the way in which they addressed each other.

Direct terms of address are defined as use of the second person singular or plural or other forms of address (e.g. name and title) with which the other party in the debate is addressed explicitly. Indirect terms of address are many: more explicit forms refer to the persons name or both title and name, or use a pronoun; more implicit forms use the passive and generic third person singular. There is no clear boundary between explicitness and implicitness, but rather a continuum exists between them.

Direct terms of address are used sparingly in the election debates analysed. There are, however, clear differences between the two presidential candidates. Halonen uses more direct terms of address than Aho, who uses very few. She uses the formal second person plural as a means of distancing, while Aho does so by avoiding direct terms of address altogether.

The opposing candidate in the debates is more often referred to explicitly than implicitly. Differences exist between the candidates in how clearly they name or otherwise refer to each other. Although there is no quantitative difference between them in their use of implicit references, Aho appears to rely specifically on these implicit references, whereas Halonen more often uses explicit references. In terms of interaction, however, the most implicit references can also be very explicit: the other party in the debate understands immediately that the reference concerns him or her, although there is no sign of any pronoun. Thus, instead of avoiding explicit personal reference, one could talk of such reference being conveyed through various grammatical means.

Context plays a decisive role in the interpretation of meanings. For example, talking directly to another other party in a formal debate could indicate either confrontation or a common understanding. Use of the persons first name could indicate solidarity and closeness, but also belittlement. Indirect terms of address could be used to express strong criticism but can also provide a chance to share an experience.