American English and Syrian Arabic Forms of Address: A Contrastive Analysis
Khalil Amr Ahmad
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
Submitted: 13.10.2021
Abstract. The purpose of the study is to conduct a contrastive analysis of American English and Syrian Arabic address forms and account for their pragmatic characteristics within the settings of family and acquaintances. The scientific novelty of the study lies in its new data displaying the influence of social and cultural context on language use, which may lend support to the existing literature that aims at understanding the constructions of social relationships. The findings of the study have shown that the American culture is individualistic, in which the communicative style is oriented toward flattening the hierarchy. By contrast, the Syrian culture is collectivistic, in which the communicative style is age- and status-oriented.
Key words and phrases: формы обращения, термины родства, культурное своеобразие, коммуникативные стили, forms of address, (im)politeness, kinship terms, cultural identity, communicative styles, (не)вежливость
Open the whole article in PDF format. Free PDF-files viewer can be downloaded .
References:
Afful J. B. Non-Kinship Address Terms in Akan: A Sociolinguistic Study of Language Use in Ghana // Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 2006. Vol. 27. Iss. 4.
Ahn H. Seoul Uncle: Cultural Conceptualisations Behind the Use of Address Terms in Korean // Advances in Cultural Linguistics / ed. by F. Sharifian. Singapore: Springer, 2017.
Al-Qudah M. The Jordanian Terms of Address: A Socio-Pragmatic Study. // SHS Web of Conferences. 2017. Vol. 37.
Braun F. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1988.
Brown P., Levinson S. C. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge - N. Y.: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
Clyne M., Norrby C., Warren J. Language and Human Relations: Styles of Address in Contemporary Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Hofstede G. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. L.: Sage, 1984.
Hofstede G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. L.: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
K?d?r D. Z., Haugh M. Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Keshavarz M. H. The Role of Social Context, Intimacy, and Distance in the Choice of Forms of Address // International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2001. Iss. 148.
Leech G. N. The Pragmatics of Politeness. N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Locher M. A., Watts R. J. Relational Work and Impoliteness: Negotiating Norms of Linguistic Behaviour. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2008.
Oyetade S. O. A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Address Forms in Yoruba // Language in Society. 1995. Vol. 24. Iss. 4. DOI: 10.1017/s004740450001900x
Sharifian F. Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2017.
Sifianou M., Blitvich G. C. (Im)politeness and Cultural Variation // The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness / ed. by J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, D. Z. K?d?r. L.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.
Triandis H. C. Individualism and Collectivism. N. Y.: Routledge, 2018.
Wang J. A Comparative Analysis for Sino-English: Appellation of Social Intercourse // Journal of Harbin University. 2003. Vol. 8.
Watts R. J. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Wierzbicka A. A Whole Cloud of Culture Condensed into a Drop of Semantics: The Meaning of the German Word "Herr" as a Term of Address // International Journal of Language and Culture. 2015. Vol. 2. Iss. 1.
Wood L. A., Kroger R. O. Politeness and Forms of Address // Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 1991. Vol. 10. Iss. 3.
Русский
