CC BY
38
Вестник МГУ. Сер. 19. Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. 2005. № 2
Elena Gritsenko (Linguistic University of Nizhny Novgorod),
Diana Boxer (University of Florida)
WHAT'S IN A (SUR)NAME?: WOMEN, MARRIAGE,
IDENTITY AND POWER ACROSS CULTURES*
Part I Introduction
For quite some time now, linguists and anthropological linguists have argued convincingly that "language in use" reflects societal values and worldview. For many of us involved in the ethnography of communication, the evidence for this has by and large rested on analyses of speech events or speech acts. The fact that societal values and world-view are also reflected in lexical/semantic labels has been examined in the anthropological linguistic literature regarding such phenomena as color terms (e.g Conklin 1954; MacLaury 1997), kinship terminology (e.g. Greenberg 1980; Hettrich 1985) and social labeling practices (e.g. McConnell-Ginet 2003) in specific speech communities. Less frequently studied from this perspective is the issue of naming choices, specifically the adoption of new surnames by women upon marriage. Naming traditions tell us something about how a society is organized; moreover, analyses of naming conventions unveil how power and status are instantiated and perpetuated in a particular society. Traditions in surname changes or choices upon marriage reflect current sociopolitical realities in societies, and, therein, possible changes in progress.
It is probably not a gross generalization to state that in most western societies, at least, it is typical for women to undergo some change of surname upon marriage. The concept of "choice" in such matters may be relevant only to some societies and not to others. However, the fact that in some communities women do have surname options, leads to questions of what it means to choose to keep one's birth name or to adopt that of one's spouse or partner. Even more critical than the linguistic choice itself is the issue of what such choice means in terms of reflecting and perpetuating the gendered power hierarchy of a society. An examination of what people choose to call themselves is not merely interesting from the perspective of "identity" but even moreso from the perspective of male hegemony: "Naming conventions,
* Support for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Foundation, which funded our collaboration on this project at the Bellagio Study and Conference Center. Bellagio, Italy (July—August, 2004).
Invaluable assistance in data collection and tabulation was provided by Jodi Eister-hold and her graduate research assistants at Georgia State University's Department of Applied Lingusitics.
like the rest of language, have been shaped to meet the interests of society, and in patriarchal societies the shapers have been men" (Miller and Swift 1976: 15).
From the perspective of sociolinguistics, or linguistic pragmatics, narratives by women about their own surnames are telling in terms of the speech acts either directly or indirectly referenced. These narratives are replete with such speech acts/behaviors as "insult", "regret", "insist," and "demand". These directly affect women's lack of autonomy in this domain, providing examples of how surname choices result from external (or internal) encouragement or discouragement.
The present study is an attempt to assess the current state of affairs in women's naming choices across two speech communities in two languages1. We became interested in the subject over the years through thinking about what women around us were doing about the surname issue when faced with marriage or partnership. As academic women, we have also been interested in how naming choices affect one's professional identity; however, this was only the tip of the iceberg. Upon further introspection, discussion and debate, we were left with the notion that, beyond identity, there is a deeper issue of societal power underlying surnames. Indeed, there is much more involved in the surname question than merely "to change one's name or not to change".
Background to the study
The issue of identity has been a salient focus of research in the social sciences generally (e.g. Le Page and Tabouret-Keller 1985; Wiley 1994) and in gender and language specifically (e.g. Kotthoff 2000; Pujolar 2000; Scott 2000; Holmes 1997, 1999; Walters 1996; Khosroshahi 1989). Discourse analysts have discussed identity from the perspective of identity display (e.g. Goffman 1967), performed social identity (e.g. Erickson and Schultz 1982), alignment and realignment (Gumperz 1982), and relational identity development (Boxer and Cortes-Conde 1996; 2000), to cite but a few perspectives on the issue. In an era in which the social constructions of gender, ethnicity, race, and sexual orientation have become critical foci for examination, this emphasis on identity is not surprising. Who we are and how we fit into the social and political structure of where we live is critical for our sense of well-being, belonging, and generally participating as citizen of a society. Thus, identity as a social science issue will no doubt continue to be important. Likewise, from the perspective of critical discourse analysis, the study of identity and identity development and construction is not unrelated to the hierarchical power structure of societies. Naming choices, especially when they reflect one's social identity as a member of a gendered, ethnic or racial group, have important repercussions for where groups fit into the existent hierarchy. The present study thus takes women's naming choices as a platform for a critical examination of
3 BMy, aHHraHCTHKa, № 2
how these reflect and also perpetuate gender identity and social power within a societal structure.
From a US historical perspective, until the early 1800's all women's possessions became her husband's upon marriage. Women themselves were clearly seen as property, just as slaves were in that era. Obviously, both groups took on the surname of the head of the household to which they became attached. If women were not given the freedom to retain their own possessions, neither were they given the choice to retain their birth surname. In the middle of the 19th century a series of "Married Women's Property Acts" in several states gave women the right to retain property held before marriage. The right to retain one's birth surname was not considered an issue. One of the first women to take up this specific agenda was the early women's rights advocate Elizabeth Cady Stanton (Mrs. Henry Stanton). As we see, she kept her birth surname as a middle name upon marriage to Henry Stanton. This was unusual for the time. Discussing the common convention of married women going by "Mrs." followed by the husband's first name and surname, she stated:
"I have very serious objections... to being called Henry... the custom... is founded on the principle that white men are the lords of all. I cannot acknowledge the principle as just; therefore, I cannot bear the name of another" (in Kupper 1990: 10).
Cady Stanton was apparently objecting here to the use of her husband's given first name, not his surname.
The taking of husbands' surnames continues to be very entrenched in present-day North America, despite early objections to the significance of the tradition and more recent changes that have occurred in this area. That women automatically took their husbands' surnames began to be challenged in the middle of the 19th century. Lucy Stone, an early abolitionist and an important figure in the advocacy of social causes, was the first American female to retain her birth surname after marriage, but the matter was not without its difficulties. Despite the fact that her husband, Henry Blackwell, was enlightened enough to agree that retaining her name was a positive move, she suffered negative consequences (Kupper 1990). For example, as a direct result of her attempt to register to vote for a school committee under the surname "Stone", a regulation was enacted that all women from that date would have to register under their husbands' names. Thereafter, women who elected to retain their birth names after marriage came to be called "Lucy Stoners".
Recent research in onomastics has dealt with the evolving nature of the surname issue for women. Kupper (1990) surveyed 362 married women and 70 of their husbands. In collecting her data for that study, she advertised for "Lucy Stoners" in Mensa and the Chicago Newsletter of the National Organization for Women. Clearly, this was not a random
sample, but a group of liberal, intelligent and affluent women ranging in age from 22—67 years. 90% were college educated 96% were employed; however, only 25% of the respondents referred to themselves as feminists. Among the survey sample group, 70% of respondents had kept their birth surnames, 10% had hyphenated their name with their husband's name, and the rest had their former husbands' surname or had created a new name.
Reasons that the respondents gave for retaining their birth surnames revolved around issues of identity—many indicated strong emotional attachment to their names. Indeed, the identity issue is brought up again and again in the psychological literature on the subject. Duggan et. al. (1993) indicates that people's names are sources of identity, and that altering a name may be stressful. This appears to be a widely-held belief, at least for men. The tradition that women adopt their husbands' surnames upon marriage presumably makes the issue more palatable for women.
Even a mere decade ago, very few women retained their birth surname upon marriage (Brightman 1994). At that point in time some 5% of married women in the US had hyphenated surnames and 2% took blended names (e.g. Stockwelling). The reasons for this are varied and are reflected in attitudes toward women who do not abide by this tradition.
We briefly cite several studies on perceptions of women who do or do not change their names. Canadian researchers Embleton and King (1984) sampled 43 people on the issue. They described women who kept their names on nine factors, finding that 50% of the respondents thought those who retained their surnames upon marriage to be assertive and job-oriented rather than family-oriented. A few years later, another Canadian study (Atkinson 1987), women retainers of their birth surnames were judged by 325 respondents to be feminist, career-oriented, and independent. US researchers Foss & Edson (1989) examined married women's motivations for surname choices, finding that the group who took husbands' names defined themselves through their relationships with husbands and children. The retainers concerned themselves with preserving their identity.
Several years later, Murray (1997) surveyed over ten thousand mid-westerners in twelve states, covering four age groups and three social classes. On a Likert scale on 20 characterizations, the study found male and female perceptions of retainers to be similar. Women who kept their surname were judged as independent, feminist, young, self-confident, well educated, and unattractive. Male respondents thought them more likely to work outside the home and less likely to enjoy cooking, less likely to make good wives, and less likely to attend church.
Clearly, prevailing attitudes in North American speech communities see surname retention by women after marriage as somewhat anomalous, and indicate stereotypical characteristics of women who make this choice. Not all of these qualities are positive, as we have seen. To be
career-oriented precludes being family-oriented. Women cannot be both, it seems. Moreover, being career-oriented for many people, obviously entails being non-religious, not good at cooking, and, alas, not good wives.
Cross-cultural perspectives on surnames
It is well known that there are vast cross-cultural variations on the theme of women, marriage and surnames. In a 1988 study Alford examined 60 societies regarding how naming practices correlate with various structures of the societies (e.g. frequency of divorce, religious practices, and family organization). Name changes for women at marriage were found to be more prevalent in technologically more complex societies. However, some changes have occurred. For example, in Sweden the attitude toward women who retain their surname has become more accepting, even among males (Trost 1991). In Norway women seldom take their husbands' names any more, though it was legally required from 1923 until 1961. Moreover, since a law enacted in Norway in1980, children automatically receive the mother's surname unless the couple informs the authorities otherwise (Romaine 1999). Even more clear-cut is the Civil Code of Quebec, which states that in marriage both spouses retain their last name and exercise their civil rights under those names (Duggan et al. 1993).
Different languages have different ways of representing hierarchy in marriage names, showing women as the affiliating parties. Typically, in Spanish-speaking communities, married women are referred to as "Secora de (husband's surname)". This is probably the most telling example of the action of affiliating. De here means of, indicating possession and suggesting — at least from the point of view of linguistic form — that a woman is the property of her husband. An Argentinean informant (Elena Maidana, personal communication), indicated that many young educated Argentineans now joke about this awkward formula; nonetheless, it remains the current and, in fact, the only way of "officially" referring to a married woman in Argentina. On the other hand, Maidana emphasized that many educated women now choose to keep their birth surnames for career purposes, and universities have adopted the practice of concluding contracts with women academics in their birth surname. However, this is a very recent and professionally restricted development.
A similar pattern appears to be true for some parts of Mexico as well. Our Mexican colleague, Patricia Fortuny-Loret de Mola, is an anthropologist in Merida, the Yucatan. Although married, Fortuny-Loret is her father's name (Catalan or French) and de Mola her mother's. She considers herself anomalous in this regard, stating, "as anthropologists are somewhat 'lefty', or 'deviant' about these things; soon after starting my studies in this field I became rebellious". She indicates that there is no need to legally adopt a husband's surname —
it is a societal, not an official mandate. Women of the middle and upper classes are expected to take their husbands' name; there appears to be little difference between urban and rural areas in this regard. The western parts of Mexico are more conservative than the Yucatan. Apparently, the US pattern is even more traditional: "Mexican women complain that they lose their surname when they go to the US".
Legally, at least, western societies are becoming more "liberal" about surname retention after marriage. Nonetheless, western naming traditions continue to influence indigenous cultures. In some parts of the world where surname change was not previously assumed, it has become an issue when marriages are officially registered.
In rural areas of Pakistan, for example, women still do not change their names after marriage unless they face the need to obtain an official document or enter into some other type of communication with government authorities (Zeba Beena Sawar, personal communication). When this occurs, a woman's 'full' name is required. In Pakistan this will be her first name plus the first name of her husband; for an unmarried woman it will be her first name and the first name of her father or the nearest male relative. As Sarwar pointed out, in Pakistani society women from westernized urban families take their husbands' names far more often than women in remote villages.
In Ghana originally the concept of a surname did not exist. Women and men had their own names that were not changed after marriage. Surnames themselves and the tradition for women to take their husbands' surnames after marriage are the result of western influence and Christian traditions (Akosua Adomako Ampofo and Akosua Darkwah, personal communication). As in other societies, some women in Ghana now consider keeping their birth surname or using both surnames if by the time of marriage they have publications and/or are professionally established. One of our two informants retained her birth surname, pointing out that her father and mother (who herself took her husband's name upon marriage) were strong supporters of her decision in favour of surname retention, since her scholarly achievements were the source of familial pride. Predictably though, she is routinely referred to as Mrs Darkwar by those who assume that this is her husband's name. Our other informant added her husband's surname to her birth surname. She always uses her birth surname professionally, but socially she is often referred to by her husband's surname, her birth surname being dropped. Western naming traditions are deeply entrenched in the middle and upper class urban families in Ghana. In fact, a husband's surname and title Mrs. has become a class marker. In rural areas indigenous women are more likely to keep their own names and not change them upon marriage. This is similar to naming patterns in Pakistan but a clear reversal of the situation in the US and Russia as our data will demonstrate. The commonality to all these societies is that men rarely think of changing their names.
The US data
Contexts of controversy: Where identity, power and solidarity live
In a 1985 study of US college students (Intons-Peterson and Crawford 1985), both sexes of undergraduates and graduate students surveyed strongly identified with their birth surnames. The preliminary evidence less than two decades later indicate a sharp contrast. We collected comments from members of a class in the Sociolinguistics of Gender and Language at the University of Florida in the spring semester of 2002. 21 graduate and undergraduate students (18 women and three men) responded to the question of what they would do about the surname issue if and when they marry or partner. Among the 18 female students, only one of whom was married (and had just taken her new husband's surname), the numbers break down as follows:
(Will) take husband's surname: 11 (Will) hyphenate surname: 3 (Will) use both names: 3
(Will) retain birth surname: 1 (graduate student specializing in
Gender and Language)
Among the three male students, one was a married, Korean graduate student who kept his surname (as did his wife — a not uncommon tradition in that country), and two gay undergraduates, who said would either retain their own surname or hyphenate.
When asked about their mothers' choices in surnames, the twenty English native speakers said that their mothers took their fathers' surnames, sometimes using their birth name as a middle name. Many students indicated that despite the fact that their mothers were divorced, they have retained the surname of their most recent husband. The comments of this self-selected group on their own future choices provide examples of how traditional hierarchical structures can be reframed as symbols of solidarity:
"I don't like the idea of losing my last name, but I would rather show solidarity with my husband by taking his name".
"I'm not sure I like the fact that women completely lose their identity and men do not, but I would like to share the same last name with my husband. I don't think my boyfriend or society is ready for him to take my last name".
"Ever since I have been a little girl, I've been dreaming of the day I change my name to my future husband's name, and I still feel that way. To me it symbolizes the two of us becoming one family, and a commitment to that man. No one ever starts a marriage with the anticipation that it will end in divorce, so by taking on his name it symbolizes this commitment".
A bisexual woman clarified the difficulty of the naming issue, depending upon sex of partner:
"I would suggest that both myself and my partner take on a new name along with our old ones. If I marry a male, this may be a little more difficult to sell".
Indeed, it is rare for the male partner in heterosexual unions to take a hyphenated name with his spouse or to consider taking her surname. While women state that taking their partner's surname is symbolic of their "union", few men in heterosexual partnerships have such sentiments. Why is this still so? Why do even young women who hold feminist viewpoints look forward to taking a husband's or partner's surname? Why do women do the "merging"?
Clearly there exists a conflict between the concept of surname as symbolic of family union and women's struggles for independence and equality. Even at present, becoming part of a family entails the desire for affiliation and symmetry. This sort of solidarity is consistent with what we know about women's ways of talking, doing, and knowing. The opposition is the old one of symmetry vs. hierarchy, and brings up yet again the issue of prevailing hegemonic traditions in conflict with feminist discourse of the past few decades.
Quantitative and qualitative perspectives
Women's conflicting desires are clearly represented in their narrative perspectives on surname choices. When taken together with numerical data, we are able to gain both an etic and an emic perspective. The quantitative data we present here are gleaned from 174 women surveyed in the US and 103 in Russia. In both countries the data reflects women's responses in various regions of the countries and among varied age groups and educational levels. We collected the data by asking our students to send or give the questionnaires to women in among family members or friends of the family. Clearly, the samples are not intended to be representative of either context; they are meant to provide a backdrop for women's stories and comments. In both the US and Russia, narratives are derived from quasi-ethnographic oral interviews (12 US; 7 Russia) and extensive written comments on the questionnaires. These highlight some of the salient issues for women in choosing surnames upon marriage or partnership.
Among the dozen women interviewed in the US, three had changed their surname upon marriage and were satisfied with the choice; one chose to hyphenate her surname with her husband's, resulting in a very difficult, multi-syllabic name; two had changed back from their ex-spouse's surname to either their birth surname or another name chosen strategically; six (or half of the informants) had kept their birth surnames. This breakdown reflects to a large extent the distribution of women's surnames, in the survey data, into the following categories:
1) those who took their husband's surname upon marriage (changers);
2) those who retained their birth surname (retainers); 3) those who took a hyphenated name; and 4) those who returned to their birth
surname (returners). There were also several stories from women who took their husband's surname and used their birth surname as a middle name, and these are included numerically within the group of 'changers', since the majority of this group indicated that their birth surname is typically ignored.
134 of the 174 respondents to the questionnaire in the US were married at the time of data collection. 108 were changers and 24 were retainers (see Appendix). There was only one returner and one using a hyphenated name. 17 of the 20 divorced women had kept their former husband's surname after the divorce. This is consistent with what the preliminary data told to us about the majority of the mothers of the 21 students in the Gender and Language course.
Regardless of the age group (from 20s to over 75) the vast majority of women had taken their husbands' surnames. This directly reflects the strength of existing traditions in taking on a man's family name. Even women in their twenties are changing; moreover, as we see from the comments, they indicate that changing their name is an indispensable part of their union or the union they "dream" of having one day.
We looked at possible correlations between religious affiliation and name choice; however, there were very few respondents who indicated religious affiliation other than some Christian denomination (n = 122). Of these 122, 98 were using their husband's names, 21 were retainers, and 3 were returners. Five of the six respondents who self identified as Jewish used their husbands' names, with one retainer. Similar patterns appeared for the other religious groups. Thus, the tendency shown is that surname change prevails across religious groups.
As for educational level at the time of marriage, the trend is that women with higher degrees are less likely to change their surname. Regarding region, most of the data collected in the southern states of Georgia and Florida. Of the 92 southern women (aggregated for marital status), 75 had changed surnames and 14 had retained their surname. The percentages are even higher for north easterners and Midwesterners: 35 of the 38 north-easterners were changers, with two retainers and one returner. 10 of the 18 midwesterners had changed to a husband's surname and 8 were retainers. The ratio is somewhat reversed among women from the western part of the US, but the numbers are too small to indicate any trends.
Surname and family
The vast majority of women indicated the desire to share one family name as the main reason for changing. The desire for affiliation with the new family was especially important for women who married young.
"Taking on my husband's last name was an outward sign of our union. It served to make me feel that I was 'really married' (I was 17), that we were
forming a brand new family together, and that I had a new identity as his wife, by law... Later, I came to feel that I had also lost a little of myself and my heritage when I changed to my husband's name when we married".
The concepts of surname and family are related. They are defined respectively as: "the name borne in common by members of a family" and "a group of individuals living under one roof and, usually, under one head" (Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary). Surname decisions are obviously determined by language as much as by culture. Notably, women themselves often use language related terminology, such as "sign", "symbol", "meaning" to account for their naming choices ("It is a sign of unity and solidarity"; "It is a symbol that we have created a new family"). Some women mentioned that one surname made their union "official" and "more complete"; some emphasised emotional satisfaction in their choices ("I enjoy having my husband's last name..."; "I was pleased to take my husband's name. He is the 'head' of our household...").
Linguistically at least, "head of the family" is, by definition, a man; thus the possibility of taking a woman's surname as a family name is not even considered an option by many women and most men. The obvious lack of symmetry remains unnoticed, as evidenced in most comments:
"My husband and I do most things together and we are officially a team and a union with the same name. I, personally, wouldn't want to be married unless I took my husband's name. Marriage is a commitment, and I feel more committed by using his name".
"That's the reason I got married — to be united and share things. Why shouldn't names be part of that"?
The narratives repeatedly indicate that the basic understanding of roles and statuses of women, as wives and mothers, i.e. in relation to other family members, remains. Indeed, the most important part of family unity for the women who participated in our study was the issue of surnaming children. The overwhelming number of respondents and interviewees discussed this problem in their narratives. A married woman in her 30"s, married for three years, said the following:
"We plan on having children and I have seen, firsthand, how confusing it can be for schools and doctor's offices to keep straight hyphenated last names, or children with last names that are different than the parent's name".
Many others expressed sentiments consistent with the hassles of more than one surname in any family with children:
"I think it's annoying for children to have parents with different last names. I have a friend who kept her maiden name at marriage and now is considering changing since they are expecting their first. I believe it makes the family feel like ONE family, not just individuals from separate worlds".
While many recently married women said that they are considering giving their children their birth surname, the reality is that few families do this. The resulting decision appears to consistently favor choosing the man's surname for children. The anomalous case was described to us by a woman who is a world-renown scholar in her field. She and her husband decided that their daughter would take her (the mother's) surname their son would have his (her husband's) surname. The situation resulted in dissatisfaction for all:
"My daughter has my surname and my son has my husband's. Kids at school don't know they are brother and sister... When I'm in the newspaper for some accomplishment, my son's friends don't know I'm his mother".
Obviously, this is a problem in a particular case for this professional woman. Indeed, such women often choose to be retainers, and if they have children their surname remains the different one in the family.
Keeping husbands' surname after divorce
Family unity was a constant thread of narratives among women who had their husbands' surnames, even after divorce, particularly when children were involved.
"Because I am recently divorced I should have changed my name back, but didn't because I have children and thought it would just be easier. I still may change it!"
This is a condition of many divorced women in US society now. The wish is to have consistency with their children's names. Thus, the "hassle" is to change back and to take a surname that differs from the rest of their nuclear family.
While the above sentiment was expressed repeatedly, it is noteworthy that many women in US society continue to adopt a new husband's surname upon marriage, even though it changes their surname to one that differs from that of their children. Relevant to this issue, a very interesting narrative, from one of our interviewees just turned 40, follows:
"I married at age 15 and a few months later had a baby boy, who is now 24 years old. I took my husband's name, but I hadn't had my maiden name for long. My child had his father's name. I divorced after 10 years and kept my husband's name, since my son used it. Then several years later I got married again. There seemed no need to keep my first husband's name, so I took this new surname. He divorced me shortly afterward, but later we remarried. The second time I didn't take his name, since it had been so hard to change back to my maiden surname after the divorce. Who knows? Maybe I had a secret feeling it wouldn't work again".
This naming story brings up several issues. First, she states that she retained her first husband's name after divorce, since her child used
this name. She then took her new husband's name when she remarried, even though her son would now have a different surname. She went to the trouble of changing back to her birth surname after the second divorce. Despite all of these changes, she indicated in the interview that if she marries again she would probably again take her new husband's surname.
Obviously, power is directly reflected in surname changing in marriage. As Susan Gal states, "the ability to make others accept and enact one's representations of the world is another powerful aspect of symbolic domination" (Gal 1995: 175). In divorce the man cannot influence the woman's choice — she is free to return or to use the surname of her children. That is, she may elect to stay with the surname that identifies her as a mother rather than an independent woman. In a new marriage men's power to influence this decision is at work once again.
Surname and identity
Among the half of the US interviewees who did choose to adopt their husband's surname, identity was repeatedly discussed as a pivotal issue in their stories. Some were reluctant or regretful about having to give up symbols of their ethnic identity ("I wish I had kept my mother's maiden name. I'm from an Italian background. I identify with that name more than my husband's name or my father's"). Stories reflecting eagerness to shed ethnic identities were fewer, and show what they perceived as identity stigmas. One young physician in her late twenties wanted to hide her Jewish identity:
"I didn't like my last name because every time I said [states surname] they knew right away I was Jewish. When I was younger I sometimes went through phases where I was embarrassed about being Jewish. I went to a very WASPY high school — wealthy. I just wanted to fit in — I wasn't very proud of my heritage".
The tendency to change surnames with marriage decreased sharply among women with advanced degrees at the time of marriage or partnership. This appears to be a direct result of professional identity. In the in-depth interviews with highly educated, professional women, half were retainers. Among the retainers interviewed, the general sentiment was that they never considered making a change. A recently married academic in her 30"s stated that, despite having retained her surname, her friends and relatives often address her by her husband's surname name in formal contexts. Another, in her 40's, related the following:
"I married at age 35, after finishing my Ph.D. studies. I had already lived with my husband for several years... getting married didn't significantly change my identity, so I didn't feel strongly about it and I never understood why I should even consider it, since he clearly never considered changing his name".
We see that there is an approach/avoidance when it comes to identity and surnames in the US. The stories are mixed. Some women indicated a desire to melt with their husbands to achieve a unitary family identity; some women were eager to do this but reluctant to give up their ethnic identity; others were eager to shed symbols of their ethnicity or group identity. Many of these are consistent with the Russian data. At the same time, there are specific cultural, historical, and linguistic features underlying the naming issue that differ across the two societies.
Notes
1 We note that employing the concept of speech community here is not unproblematic, given the vastness of the norms described herein.
APPENDIX: US data
US total Husband's name Birth name Hyphenated Returned
1 - MARITAL STATUS
Married 134 108 24 1 1
Divorced 20 17 1 2
Widowed 6 6
Single 8 8
Separated 3 2 1
Partnered 3 3
Total 174 133 37 1 3
2 - AGE
40-55 67 52 8 1 2
20s 47 30 17
30s 34 26 8
55-65 14 14
65-75 8 8
over 75 2 2
NR 6 1 4 1
Total 174 133 37 1 3
3 - RELIGION
Christian 122 98 21 3
Jewish 6 5 1
Muslim 2 1 1
Buddhist 1 1
Mormon 5 5
Hindu 1 1
Other 3 1 2
None
NR 34 23 10 1
Total 174 133 37 1 3
4 - EDUCATIONAT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE
High school 54 44 8 2
BA 89 71 17 1
MA 22 11 11
Professional degree 4 2 1 1
NR 5 5
Total 174 133 37 1 3
5 - REGION
Northeast 38 35 2 1
South 92 75 14 1 2
Mid-west 18 10 8
West 8 3 5
Foreign 15 7 8
NR 3 3
Total 174 133 37 1 3
Bibliography
Alford, Richard D. (1988). Naming and Identity: A Cross-Cultural Study of Personal Naming Practices. New Haven: HRAF (Human Relations Area Files).
Atkinson, Donna (1987). "Names and Titles: Maiden name retention and the use of Ms." Journal of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association 9: 56—83.
Boxer, Diana and Cortes-Conde, Florencia (1997). "From bonding to biting: Conversational joking and identity display". Journal of Pragmatics 27, 275—294.
Boxer, Diana and Cortes-Conde, Florencia (2000). Identity and ideology: Culture and pragmatics in content-based ESL. In J. K. Hall and L. Verplaste (eds) Second and Foreign Language Learning Through Classroom Interaction. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brightman, Joan (1994). "Why Hillary chooses Rodham Clinton." American Demographics 16: 9—10.
Conklin, Harold C. (1954). The Relation of Hanunoo Culture to the Plant World. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
Dralle, Penelope Wasson (1987). "Women physicians' name choices at marriage." Journal of the American Medical Women's Association 42: 173—175.
Duggan, Deborah, Albert A. Cota and Kenneth L. Dion (1993). "Taking thy husband's name: What might it mean?" Names 41(2): 87—102.
Embleton, Sheila M. and Ruth King (1984). "Attitudes towards maiden name retention". Onomastica Canadiana, 66: 11—22.
Erickson, Frederick and Jeffrey Schultz (1982) The Counselor as Gatekeeper. N. Y.: Academic Press.
Foss, Karen A. and Belle A. Edson (1989). "What's in a name?: Accounts of married women's name choices". Western Journal of Speech Communication 53: 356-373.
Gal, Susan (1995). "Language, gender, and power: An anthropological review." In Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self, K. Hall and M. Bucholtz, eds. New York and London: Routledge.
Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to Face Behavior. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday.
Greenberg, Joseph (1980). "Universals of kinship terminology: Their names and the problem of their explanation." In On Linguistic Anthropology: Essays in honor of Harry Hoijer, J. Greenberg, Dell Hymes, Paul Friedrich and Jaques Marquet, eds. Malubu: Undena Publishing.
Gumperz, John (1982). Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hettrich, Heinrich (1985). "Indo-European kinship terminology in linguistics and anthropology." Anthropological Linguistics 27(4): 453—480.
Holmes, Janet (1999). "Analyzing women's talk in New Zealand workplaces." Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 22(2): 1—17.
Holmes, Janet (1997). "Women, language and identity." Journal of Sociolinguistics 1(2): 195—223.
Intons-Peterson, Margaret Jean and Jill Crawford (1985). "The meanings of marital surnames." Sex Roles 12: 1163—1171.
Khosroshahi, Fatemah (1989). "Penguins don't care, but women do: A social identity analysis of a Whorfian problem." Language in Society 18(4): 505—525.
Kotthoff, Helga (2000). "Gender and joking: On the complexities of women's image politics in humourous narrative." Journal of Pragmatics 32(1): 55—80.
Kupper, Susan J. (1990). Surnames for Women: A Decision-Making Guide. Jefferson, N.C.: MacFarland and Company.
Le Page, R.B. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985) Acts of Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacLaury, Robert (1997). Color and Cognition in Mesoamerica: Constructing Categories as Vantages. Austin: University of Texas Press.
McConnell-Ginet, Sally (2003). "What's in a name: Social labeling and gender practices". In J. Holmes and M. Meyerhoff (eds.) The Handbook of Gender and Language. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Miller, Casey and Kate Swift (1976). Words and Women. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor/Doubleday.
Murray, Thomas E. (1997). "Attitudes toward married women's surnames: Evidence from the American Midwest." Names 45(3): 163—183.
Pujolar, Joan (2000). Gender, heteroglossia and power: A sociolinguistic study of youth power. Berlin: Mouton.
Romaine, S. (1999). Communicating Gender. London: Oxford University Press.
Scott, Karla D. (2000). "Crossing cultural borders: 'girl' and 'look' as markers of identity in Black women's language use." Discourse and Society, 11(2): 237—248.
Trost, Jan (1991). "What's in a surname?" Family Reports 19: 1—20.
Walters, Keith (1996). "Gender, identity, and the political economy of language: Anglophone wives in Tunisia." Language in Society 25(4): 515—555.
Wiley, N. (1994). The Semiotic Self. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
