Politeness Strategies in British and Persian Family Discourse: Forms of Addressing
Neda Kameh Khosh
People’s Friendship University of Russia
Submitted: 13.04.2021
Abstract. The aim of the study is defining the similarities and differences of politeness norms and politeness strategies of addressing in British and Persian family and illustrating them through cultural distinctions. The scientific novelty of the study lies in our analysis of addressing speech act in British and Persian family setting with concentrating on (im)politeness theory, speech act theory, cross-cultural pragmatic and discourse analysis, research on identity construction, and the effect of politeness on communicative styles. Our findings reveal that in British culture, the politeness strategies are egalitarian in asymmetrical top-down (parents to children) and bottom-up (children to parents) contexts. Meanwhile, in Persian culture, due to an expanded index of power distance, there are notable differences in these contexts.
Key words and phrases: стратегии вежливости/невежливости, формы обращения, коммуникативные стили, межличностная коммуникация, семейная обстановка, (im)politeness, addressing forms, communicative styles, interpersonal interaction, family setting
Open the whole article in PDF format. Free PDF-files viewer can be downloaded .
References:
Abugharsa A. Terms of address in Libyan Arabic compared to other Arabic varieties. Oklahoma: Oklahoma University Press, 2014. 13 p.
Afful J. B. A. Address forms and variation among university students in Ghana // Nordic Journal of African Studies. 2007. № 16 (2). R. 179-196.
Aliakbari M., Toni A. The realization of address terms in modern Persian in Iran: A sociolinguistic study [Electronic Reference] // Linguistik Online. 2008. № 35.3. R. 3-12. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242764953_The_Realization_of_Address_Terms_in_Modern_Persian_in_Iran_A_Sociolinguistic_Study (reference date: 01.06.2021).
Anchimbe E. A. On not calling people by their names: Pragmatic undertones of sociocultural relationships in a postcolony // Journal of Pragmatics. 2011. № 43.6. R. 1472-1483.
Blum-Kulka S. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies // Playing It Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1989. R. 37-70.
Blum-Kulka S. The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society // Politeness in Language: Studies in Its History, Theory and Practice. Berlin, Germany & New York, USA: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992. R. 255-280.
Braun F. Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures // Journal of Linguistics. 1988. Vol. 26. Issue 1. P. 265-274.
Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1987. 360 p.
Brown P., Levinson S. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomenon // Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction / ed. by John J. Gymperz. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1978. R. 56-311.
Brown R., Gilman A. The pronouns of power and solidarity // Language and Social Structures: Style in Language / ed. by T. Sebeok. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960. R. 253-276.
Clyne M. G. Address in intercultural communication across languages // Intercultural Pragmatics. 2009. № 6.3. R. 395-409.
Clyne M., Norrby C., Warren J. Language and Human Relations: Style of Address in Contemporary Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 183 p.
Derakhshan Rokni T. Address forms in Persian based on Iranian movies. Troms?: Troms? University Press. 2012. 94 p.
DuFon M. A. The acquisition of terms of address // Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures / ed. by A. Trosborg. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Mouton, 2010. R. 300-323.
Gan D., David M., Dumanig F. Politeness strategies and address forms used by Filipino domestic helpers in addressing their Malaysian employers // Language in India. 2015. Vol. 15:1. R. 46-73.
Hamza A. A. Cross-cultural linguistic politeness: Misunderstanding between Arabs and British speakers of English. L., 2007. 390 p.
Hassal T. Pragmatic performance: What are learners thinking? // Investigating Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning: Teaching and Testing / ed. by Eva Alc?n Soler and Alicia Mart?nez-Flor. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2008. R. 72-93.
Hofstede G. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. The McGraw-Hills Companies, 1991. 576 p.
Hughson J. A. Diversity and Changing Values in Address: Spanish Address Pronoun Usage in an Intercultural Immigrant Context. Frankfurt: Peterlang, 2009. 324 p.
Ilie C. Politeness in Europe: Politeness in Sweden: Parliamentary Forms of Address. Toronto: Multilingual Matters, Ltd., 2005. 331 p.
Kameh Khosh N., Khalil A. A. A., Shehadeh Alhaded H. Cultural values and norms of communication: A view from the middle east // Proceedings of ADVED 2020 - 6th International Conference on Advances in Education. Istanbul, 2020. R. 396-404.
Kamehkhosh N., Larina T. V. Cultural values and politeness strategies in British and Persian family discourse // Proceedings of INTCESS 2020: 7th International Conference on Education and Social Sciences. Dubai, 2020. R. 603-610.
Keshavarz H. Forms of address in post-revolutionary Iranian Persian: A sociolinguistic analysis // Language in Society. 1988. Vol. 17. № 4. R. 565-575.
Kotorova E. Analysis of kinship terms using natural semantic metalanguage: Anna Wierzbicka’s approach // Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2018. № 22 (4). R. 701-710.
Larina T. V. Culture-specific communicative styles as a framework for interpreting linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies // BRILL: International Review of Pragmatics. 2015. № 7. R. 195-215.
Larina T. V. Directness, imposition and politeness in English and Russian // Cambridge ESOL Research Notes. 2008. № 33. R. 33-38.
Larina T. V. Politeness and communicative style: Comparative analysis of English and Russian language and culture traditions // Languages of Slavic Cultures. Moscow, 2009. P. 89-101.
Leech G. Out of Corpora: The Distribution and Function of Vocatives in American and British English Conversation. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. 357 p.
Leech G. The Pragmatics of Politeness. N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 2014. 369 p.
Leech G., Larina T. V. Politeness: West and East // Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2014. № 4. R. 9-34.
Modarresi Tehrani Y. Changes in the markers of politeness and power in Iranian culture and Persian language // Journal of Iranian Studies (Iran Kenkyu). 2009. Vol. 5. R. 318-342.
Peoples J., Bailey G. Humanity: An introduction to cultural anthropology. MA: Engage Learning, 2010. 480 p.
Rhee S. Politeness pressure on grammar: The case of first and second person pronouns and address terms in Korean // Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2019. № 23 (4). R. 950-974.
Said N. E. Politeness strategies in requests: The case of Elfhoul speech community. Tlemcen, 2011. 128 p.
Watts R. J. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2003. 297 p.
Wierzbicka A. Addressing God in European languages: Different meanings, different cultural attitudes // Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2020. № 24 (2). R. 259-293.
Wierzbicka A. Back to "Mother" and "Father": Overcoming the Eurocentrism of kinship studies through eight lexical universals // Current Anthropology. 2016. № 57. P. 408-428.
Wierzbicka A. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. 2nd ed. Berlin, Germany & New York, USA: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003 & 1991. 457 p.
Yang X. Address Forms of English: Rules and Variations // Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 2010. Vol. 1. № 5. R. 743-745.
Yuryeva J. B. Honorific titles in British English and American English // RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics. 2018. Vol. 9. № 3. R. 685-695.
Русский
