Rudeness in addressing by x name?

Hi all,

This post is in reference to a post made by Phil Askey that is interesting to me in a non-photographical way. The post is here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=13111934

He mentions:

Member said:

And nobody likes being referred to by their surname, I'm sorry but it is rude.

Click to expand...

Now, the point of my post: I'm a citizen of Panama, Central America, a Spanish-speaking country and tid bits like these help getting an insight into different cultures.

Over here, it is common to be addressed by a surname and doesn't sound rude at all. In fact if you add "señor" or "señora" (depending on the gender of the addressee), if becomes a sign of respect. It also entails using the more formal "usted" way of speaking, and equivalent to "thou" and "thee".

You call people by name when there's a degree of familiarity or friendship.

So I'd like to ask: is it in fact rude to call people by surname in UK, US, other English speaking countries?

Thanks in advance for your answers, as this will help me a bit to understand other cultures.

Best regards,

--
Humberto Olarte Cupas
http://nugar.com/
http://panamarts.com/

Nugar said:

Nugar said:

And nobody likes being referred to by their surname, I'm sorry but it is rude.

Click to expand...

Now, the point of my post: I'm a citizen of Panama, Central
America, a Spanish-speaking country and tid bits like these help
getting an insight into different cultures.

Over here, it is common to be addressed by a surname and doesn't
sound rude at all. In fact if you add "señor" or "señora"
(depending on the gender of the addressee), if becomes a sign of
respect. It also entails using the more formal "usted" way of
speaking, and equivalent to "thou" and "thee".

You call people by name when there's a degree of familiarity or
friendship.

So I'd like to ask: is it in fact rude to call people by surname in
UK, US, other English speaking countries?

Thanks in advance for your answers, as this will help me a bit to
understand other cultures.

Click to expand...

being called "Askey." In the English-speaking world this is not exactly a friendly way to refer to someone. On the other hand, calling him "Mr. Askey" is perfectly polite, but in this day and age, a bit formal. So, at least in the world of fora, probably the best choice would be "Phil".

There is an interesting example in the new media. During the Clinton administration, many news media referred to the President as "Clinton". This was truly rude and demeaning, because in the US, the holder of this office can expect to be called "President XXX". You will note that in the present administration, no respectable news organization refers to the current office holder as "Bush."

pegasus

Yes, in my opinion (and Swan's) it is, with some small exceptions. If you add the prefix Mr, Mrs or Ms then it is not, just as adding the prefix in Spanish renders it more polite. Cultures differ. Japanese use family names, but always with a suffix that makes it polite. Usually san, or sensei, or chan. The family name by itself is quite rude.

In English it does depend on the circumstance to a degree, but in normal circumstances, ie on these forums, and with a normal person, ie Phil Askey, then it would be rude, in my opinion, to just use the family name. If you use the name several times, it may be ok to use the full name the first time, and then just the family name each time after that.

To use just the first name is informal, so depending on the circumstances, can be friendly, or sometimes rude.

When we are talking or writing in English about very public figures, ie politicians that are well known, sportsmen or women, writers, etc., it is quite common to use surnames only, and not considered rude. And the members of some organisations, when referring to each other, often use surnames only, ie the military.

Swan, by the way, is Practical English Usage, written by Michael Swan, and published by Oxford. A very useful book in anyone's library, I think.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan

If you wear your name on the back of your work shirt (like Mr Beckham; the example given at the time) then it's perfectly acceptable, and as pointed out for him it has become a brand. However as 99.9% of everyone else on here refer to me as 'Phil' or 'Phil Askey' the use of just 'Askey' in the title of the thread in question was clearly designed to get mine and others attention.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Do that sort of thing all the time here in the US of A...

I had a girl friend who used to call me by my surname from time to time. And I loved it.

(Maybe because of what she had in mind when she used it.... ;o)

It's a cultural difference Phil.

Phil Askey said:

If you wear your name on the back of your work shirt (like Mr
Beckham; the example given at the time) then it's perfectly
acceptable, and as pointed out for him it has become a brand.
However as 99.9% of everyone else on here refer to me as 'Phil' or
'Phil Askey' the use of just 'Askey' in the title of the thread in
question was clearly designed to get mine and others attention.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Click to expand...

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Penny's Neighborhood - Thailand'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

And the same in South Africa then I assume.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

In the USA, it is rude to call strangers older than you by their first name. Where on earth is it normal for a 70 year old to call a 5 year old by a title?
Okay, maybe in England, e.g., Master ...

On the internet, you typically don't know the age or sex of the person that you are talking to, so, in the interest of briefness, I use the shortest available nomenclature.
--
Author of SAR Image Processor and anomic sociopath
http://www.general-cathexis.com

It is interesting how different cultures view concepts of identity. In Chinese culture, for example, the last name comes first, emphasizing the importance of one's social connection and continuity.

I think that in mainstream American or Canadian culture, people really value their own identity. Being called by one's last name may seem like a generalization ("you're like every other Smith"). Of course, most first names are common too, but people seem to identify more highly with their first name.

Titles are funny too. One of my academic supervisors had a rule that you were only allowed to address her by her first name once you had earned your masters degree because then you were more of a colleague.

Michael

Hey, now I'm a five year old!

aruzinsky said:

In the USA, it is rude to call strangers older than you by their
first name. Where on earth is it normal for a 70 year old to call
a 5 year old by a title?
Okay, maybe in England, e.g., Master ...

On the internet, you typically don't know the age or sex of the
person that you are talking to, so, in the interest of briefness, I
use the shortest available nomenclature.
--
Author of SAR Image Processor and anomic sociopath
http://www.general-cathexis.com

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Subtleties like these are interesting to me.

It is interesting that things such as these can be misunderstood even in neighbouring countries, such as mine and Costa Rica. And let's not even touch language subtle differences among countries that supposedly speak the same language.

Best regards,

Humberto

Phil Askey said:

If you wear your name on the back of your work shirt (like Mr
Beckham; the example given at the time) then it's perfectly
acceptable, and as pointed out for him it has become a brand.
However as 99.9% of everyone else on here refer to me as 'Phil' or
'Phil Askey' the use of just 'Askey' in the title of the thread in
question was clearly designed to get mine and others attention.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Click to expand...

--
Humberto Olarte Cupas
http://nugar.com/
http://panamarts.com/

Phil Askey said:

And the same in South Africa then I assume.

Click to expand...

(As you're likely to get in lots of Asia where the family name comes before the given name. (But you knew that. ;o))

That's an obtuse comment....

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Penny's Neighborhood - Thailand'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

Phil Askey said:

Hey, now I'm a five year old!

Click to expand...

We should all get in touch with our inner five year old from time to time.

Even if we have to be dragged there, kicking and screaming all the way....

Now if it's stopped raining their in Sunny England get outside and play for a while. ;o)

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Penny's Neighborhood - Thailand'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

Using just the last name, without "Mr.", "Mrs." or other appropriate honorific in front of it is generally considered rude, at least outside of the military.

It implies that the person being spoken to has a subservient relationship to the person speaking. For example, a boss often calls his employees solely by their last name. "Smith, get in here with that contract!" "Jones, get back to work!"

Where that superior to subordinate relationship does in fact exist, using just the last name is not all that rude. But to use it among equals (2 people waiting to serve on jury duty, 2 strangers at a cocktail party) would be rude.

The usage also has racial overtones which demonstrate the lack of respect which it shows to the person being spoken to. Look at the wonderful Sidney Poitier movie, In the Heat of the Night. Poitier plays a black cop who has just joined the force as the only black cop in a rural southern town. Another officer, who clearly harbors racist attitudes, calls him "Tibbs" (his last name), in a tone that clearly demonstrates his disdain. Poitier turns around, stares him down, and says: "They call me MISTER Tibbs".

--
Patrick Martin
http://www.patrickmartin.com

It is extremely rude in Japan to use anybody's name without an honorific. Even a 70 year old speaking to or about a five year old would use the honorific, usually 'chan' for children.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan

Darn. I should have called myself 'Sir Skipper'. Goofed again!
Skipper494.

Mr. Martin seems correct, and I expect his take on titles generally came from English culture and still may apply in many parts of the English speaking world.

The rules were something like this, and I don't claim infallibility.

Anyone you were not speaking to in a familiar way, was always called "Mr" or "Mrs" or "Miss". i.e. "Mr Askey". If there were an honorific, that was used instead, i.e. "Dr Askey', or "Professor Askey'. Similar in approach to the French "vous".

If you were speaking privately to someone you knew well, it would be "Phil". But even if you knew them well, it would publicly be "Mr Askey". Similar in approach to the French "tu". A bit old fashioned, but I always use "Mr Askey" in my posts.

Within the English Public Schools (for 'Public", read "Private"), one invariably used the last name only i.e. "Askey". The same for familiar communications throughout the English military. It was a hangover from the Public Schools. In historical terms, use of the last name only, implies substantial familiarity. Out of place in public discourse.

But these usages are in continuous flux, as is English grammar. I have a sense that using a last name only, such as "Askey", is rude and peremptory, but who knows where the usage is going today.

A judge of whom most of you will never have heard, was Bora Laskin. He was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is interesting that the greatest gift he would give an acquaintance maturing into a friend, was "You can call me Bora".

In one sense, these changing rules are a little bit fanciful. In another, they are at the core of civilization which needs cooperation and respect to survive, as well as directness.

From '63 to '88 I served in the U.S. Navy. Most enlisted sailors, at least in the early days, from paygrade E-6 down, were often referred to by their last name or a nickname. Later, E-4 to E-6 would be addressed as "Petty Officer XX". The Chief Petty Officers were always referred to as "Chief XX" or simply "Chief", and the Officers, other than the Commanding Officer or Executive Officer, were referred to as " Mr. XX" or by their rank and name, i.e., Lt. Smith. The Commanding Officer was referred to as "Captain" and the Executive Officer was referred to as "XO" or by his rank depending on the command and time period. For example, the Executive Officer during the '60s, if he was a Lieutenant Commander, was called "Commander XX" or simply "Commander". Later that changed and he was referred to as "XO". I really think this depended on the type of duty you were serving and, again, the time period. Much has changed over the years. Just thought I would give a little perspective of the military (U.S. Navy) way of addressing people. I would love to hear from other military people, U.S. and other countries, on how you addressed people. Of course, being a civilian since '88, I have learned to address people as the situation dictates. There are many cultures with different ways but the bottom line is that I would never want to offend anyone. I would want to address them as they wish to be addressed. Showing respect for people is never "out of style".
Jerry

It seems we're spending a lot of time discussing verbal, face-to-face usage, when the originating issue was written usage.

Every style guide I've seen says full name on first reference, last name only without titles on subsequent reference unless there is potential for confusion (two Smiths referenced in one story). Certainly informal communications (letter, evaluations, narration of family events) often use first names, as does some intentionally informal human-interest writing, but it seems to me a widely-reaad public message board is far closer to the traditional writing-for-many situation

Regarding subject lines, it seems the closest old-media parallel is a headline, and they regularly use only the last name if that is sufficient for recognition--go look at CNN or your local paper. In many cases with headlines, of course, a good fit trumps all.

Contrary to what a previous poster said, I see headline and second references to just "Bush" all the time in reputable news outlets. Only on first body-copy reference is he consistently "President Bush", a situation which I very strongly doubt was any different for President Clinton.

Don Fraser said:

Anyone you were not speaking to in a familiar way, was always
called "Mr" or "Mrs" or "Miss". i.e. "Mr Askey". If there were an
honorific, that was used instead, i.e. "Dr Askey', or "Professor
Askey'. Similar in approach to the French "vous".

If you were speaking privately to someone you knew well, it would
be "Phil". But even if you knew them well, it would publicly be "Mr
Askey". Similar in approach to the French "tu".

Click to expand...

You have it all wrong about the French vous, tu.. The French in normal life address each other as "vous." I have even heard ladies who knew imtimate details about each others' marriages and had known one another for years, use "vous." Exceptions occur in academia, and in sporting clubs, where everyone becomes "tu" on first meeting.

Another odd exception is the aristocracy, who apparently address members of their own family as "vous".

There is a great line in the film "Cousin. Cousine" where a wife confronts her errant husband on his affair with a distant cousin. He counters: "I only slept with her. I never tutoyered her (use the tu form of address)".

Unfortunately it is all beginning to break down in France. In large cities, people you never met (invariably scruffy young people) approach you with the "tu" form. Egads!

pegasus

Notwithstanding all that's been written about the general impoliteness of using a surname (or family name) as an initial form of address, there are occasions when - at least in England - it can be perfectly acceptable.

I'm thinking of mock headlines like "Askey does it again" or "Askey's dpreview leads the way" when - in complimentary references at least - formality may be waived for the sake of brevity, in a Forum post's subject line for example!

Correspondingly though it would normally be less acceptable - if not downright rude - to use this form when writing a derogatory or accusatory comment!

To the English at least, this site's founder gives a clue to his preferred mode of address when he refers to himself not as Mr Askey or Mr P Askey, nor even Philip (or Phillip) Askey - with or without the Mr - but as Phil, which is usually an informal version of those forenames. In doing so he is inviting response in a similarly informal manner and a respondent's failure to use that form suggests their rejection of his openhandedness!

Informally yours,
Peter

http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde