I. Introduction
Apparently, gender equality has been almost achieved in Hong Kong, with women’s higher levels of education, economic independence and even political power. Hong Kong women seem to have more choices of lifestyles. However, it does not necessarily equate women’s and men’s social status. Social expectations on women from traditional Chinese culture, still limit people’s imagination of gender equality in their intimate-relationships, like marriage, family, or even dating. This paper focuses on the addressing practices between young couples, and obtains an overview on women’s status in Hong Kong’s young generation.
II. Literature Review
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis implies that describing people with language, also involves evaluating and categorizing them. Social labeling practices in fact construct gendered identities and social relations. Hence, terms of address can reflect a relationship’s nature and status, also the degree of affection (Murphy, 1988; Slobin, Miller and Porter, 1968). Term of address is also a kind of projection. Through addressing, couples reflect their feelings towards each other, meanwhile project their own perception or belief on their relationship (including nature and status) onto their partners.
Women’s social status can be evaluated in terms of their power to develop networks, access to resources, valuation of their reproductive capacities, and attitudes towards female value (Leghorn & Parker, 1981). Despite apparent changes in objective conditions (e.g. salaries), there is a cultural lag in the subjective attitudes towards women and gender roles. Traditional views of gender roles and stereotypes slower women’s transformation of their cultural identify in spite of their success in economic domain (Cheung, Lai, Au and Ngai, 1997).
III. Data Collection & Analysis Method
Addressing practices between intimate partners are investigated through the terms of address in Valentine messages. Approximately 170 Valentine messages were collected from two popular Hong Kong online forums among youngsters, i.e. Discussion.com and Uwant.com. Most are in Chinese or verbal Cantonese. About 90 were written by male and 80 by female, within heterosexual relationships.
Terms of address were categorized according to both syntactic structures and semantic meanings. Firstly, quantitative method is used to identify both popular and special trends of terms of address in Valentine messages. Then, qualitative analysis is involved to investigate the representations of male and female status in such trends.
IV. Findings and Discussion
A common trend is that most couples address each other with names (62%), i.e. mostly English first names and single words of Chinese names. By using names only, they avoid identifying the status of the relationship. However, it is noted that male use more Chinese full names and duplication to address their partners, The former expresses intimacy with authority and power, while the later makes the tone of conversation like a kind of baby talk, i.e. sound like talking to babies.
Another popular trend is the use of ‘husband’ and ‘wife’, sometimes ‘little husband’ (老公仔) and ‘little wife’ (老婆仔), which are quite even among both sex. Young couples simulate taking up roles of married partners, even they are not married officially. It indicates sentimental intimacy and long-term commitment, also a sense of possessiveness, as the roles of husbands and wives have stronger bonding and sense of belonging than simply boyfriends and girlfriends.
Young couples also address their partners with animals’ names, like pig, wolf, worm, and bear. Animalizing a person can have either possessive or submissive meanings. Female use animal terms of address more frequently and mostly portrait their partners as strong and smart animals, like wolf (大灰狼, 大豺狼), worm (虫仔) and cock (雞雞老公), which indicate a submissive and obedient attitude towards male. Male use less animal terms of address and usually portrait their partners as cute and lovely animals that need protection, just like keeping pets, such as pig (白豬, 豬豬) and bear (維記), which indicate a possessive and protective attitude towards female. It is even more obvious when adjectives like ‘silly’ or ‘well-behaved’ are added (傻豬/乖豬).
Some terms are mainly used by male. For example, male address female as an object or a kind of food, like pork-chop, beans (豆豆) and biscuits (餅餅), which are obtainable and eatable, hence shows possessiveness of female partners. Besides, male also call their partners directly as baby (寶寶, baby mok), i.e. who need being taken care of, taught and disciplined. It indicates a sense of control over their female partners. Furthermore, there is a special case in which a male addressed his partner as ‘little wife monster’ (老婆仔怪獸兒) and called himself ‘little husband superman’ (老公仔超人豪). It is worth investigation because the male explicitly projected their status as the stronger and the weaker, just like a rightful knight and a devil witch, indicating that women are men’s subordinates, and contribute less than men do or even bring destructions.
Some terms are mainly used by female. For instance, female address their partners with negative connotations, like bad guy (衰野, 衰人), bastard (大壞蛋), selfish guy (自私精) and cheap man (賤男人). With negative and blameful terms of address, female try to act like a spoiled child and play with their emotions or moodiness to get their partners’ attention. Through long-term social conditioning and practices, female are nurtured to regard men’s attention and parental care as an important element in relationships and their self esteem. Female may hence let their mental states frustrate with men’s performance and hand over their own emotions to male partners to take care of or control. In one case, a girl addressed her boyfriend by his position in student union, i.e. ‘vice president’ (副社). It is somehow common among teenagers in schooldays. And male usually have higher status within such relationship, especially when female are not in any relevant public status or official position.
References
Cheung, F. M. (ed.) 1997. EnGendering Hong Kong Society: A Gender Perspective of Women’s Status. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press.
Goddard, A. & Mean Patterson. 2000. Language and Gender. London & New York: Routledge.
Groom, C.J. and Pennebaker, J.W. 2005. The Language of Love: Sex, Sexual Orientation and Language Use in Online Personal Advertisements, Sex Roles, Vol. 52, No. 7/8.
Harding, J. 1998. Sex Acts: Practices of Femininity and Masculinity. London: Sage Publications.
Mcconnell-Ginet, Sally. “What’s in a Name?” Social Labeling and Gendering Practices.
Takiff, H.A., Sanchez, D.T. and Stewart, T.L. 2001. What’s in a name? The Status Implications of Students’ Terms of Address for Male and Female Professors. Psychology of Women Quarterly, U.S.A.: Blackwell Publishers, Vol. 25 (2001), 134-144.
文章定位：
