1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. It's different with you
  4. Chapter

Chapter 5. Practices of person reference in Chinese and German interactions

A contrastive analysis of “third person reference forms” in SMS, WhatsApp and WeChat communication

image of Chapter 5. Practices of person reference in Chinese and German interactions

Referring to persons in interaction is a central human practice (Enfield 2007: 97), which is located at an intersection where cultural, linguistic, and interactional conventions meet (Levinson 2005: 433). In this paper, I will analyse practices of “third person reference forms” used by participants in Chinese and German SMS-, WeChat- and WhatsApp-interactions. Both Chinese and German speakers make use of a range of different types of third person reference forms to laterally address their co-participants. I will argue that third person reference forms do more than simply refer to one’s co-participant: Speakers employ these practices as a “social index” (Silverstein 1976: 37) to contextualise various social meanings which would be hidden in cases of “referring simpliciter” (Schegloff 1996). In addition to finding parallels in the use of third person reference forms in our Chinese and German data, I also detect differences in the employment of forms of addressing one’s co-participants.

  • Affiliations: 1: University of Münster

References

  1. Agha, Asif
    2007 Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Blum, Susan D.
    1997 Naming practices and the power of words in China. Language in Society26. 357–379. 10.1017/S0047404500019503
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019503 [Google Scholar]
  3. Braun, Friederike
    1988 Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110848113
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848113 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bühler, Karl
    1934/82 Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: UTB Gustav Fischer.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Cao, Wie
    2005 Appellation and Addressing Terms in Modern Chinese. Journal of Jiangsu University7/2. 62–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chao, Yuen Ren
    1956 Chinese Terms of Address. Language32/1. 217–241. 10.2307/410666
     https://doi.org/10.2307/410666 [Google Scholar]
  7. Christen, Helen
    2006 ‘Comutter’, ‘Papi’ und ‘Lebensabschnittsgefährte’. Untersuchungen zum Sprachgebrauch im Kontext heutiger Formen des Zusammenlebens. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, Herbert
    1996 Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  9. Collins, Chris
    2014 Introduction. In Chris Collins (ed.), Cross linguistic Studies of Imposters and Pronominal Agreement. 1–46. www.oxfordscholarship.com. (08 August, 2020). 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199336852.003.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199336852.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting
    2018 Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dammel, Antje , Yvonne Niekrenz , Andrea Rapp & Eva L. Wyss
    2018 Muckelchen oder Süßer? Onymische Gender-Konstruktionen bei Kosenamen im Liebesbrief. In Stefan Hirschauer & Damaris Nübling (eds.), Namen und Geschlechter. Studien zum onymischen un/doing Gender. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 157–190. 10.1515/9783110589122‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110589122-007 [Google Scholar]
  12. Enfield, Nick
    2007 Meanings of the unmarked: How ‘default’ person reference does more than just refer. In Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 97–120. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.006 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fang, Hanqian & J. H. Heng
    1983 Social Changes and Changing Address Norms in China. Language and Society12(4). 495–507. 10.1017/S0047404500010216
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010216 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gao, Chunmin
    2013 A Contrastive Study of Chinese and English Address Forms. Theory and Practice in Language Studies3(1). 190–194. 10.4304/tpls.3.1.190‑194
     https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.190-194 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goffman, Erving
    1971 Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 1979 Footing. Semiotica15–1/2. 1–29. 10.1515/semi.1979.25.1‑2.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gumperz, John J.
    1992 Contextualization and understanding. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 229–252.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Günthner, Susanne
    2000 Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion. Grammatische, prosodische, rhetorisch-stilistische und interaktive Verfahren bei der Konstitution kommunikativer Muster und Gattungen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110919974
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110919974 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2017 Die kommunikative Konstruktion von Kultur: Chinesische und deutsche Anredepraktiken im Gebrauch. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik (ZfAL)66. 1–29. 10.1515/zfal‑2017‑0005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfal-2017-0005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Günthner, Susanne
    2018 Perspektiven einer sprach- und kulturvergleichenden Interaktionsforschung: Chinesische und deutsche Praktiken nominaler Selbstreferenz in SMS-, WhatsApp- und WeChat-Interaktionen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion19. 478–514.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Günthner, Susanne
    2019a ‘der herr ingenIEUR hi isch was ↑BESSeres.’ – Formen und Funktionen nominaler Bezugnahmen auf das Gegenüber. In Tanja Gnosa , & Kerstin Kallass (eds.), Grenzgänge. Digitale Festschrift für Wolf-Andreas Liebert. https://www.grenzgänge.net/Guenthner_Formen-und-Funktionen-nominaler-Bezugnahmen"https://www.grenzgänge.net/Guenthner_Formen-und-Funktionen-nominaler-Bezugnahmen. (08 January, 2020).
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 2019b Tigerle plagt der Hunger. Die kommunikative Konstruktion sozialer Beziehungen – namentliche Selbstreferenzen in der WhatsApp-Interaktion. Vortrag gehalten bei der Tagung: Wissen, Kommunikation und Re-Figuration – Wissenssoziologie. Berlin. (29 March, 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2021): „Kommunikative Praktiken und Kulturalität — Namentliche Selbstreferenzen in deutschen und chinesischen SMS-, WhatsApp- und WeChat-Inter­aktionen”. In: Zhao, Jing (Hrsg.): Kulturalität der Sprache und Sprachlichkeit der Kultur. Berlin: Peter Lang. 99–121.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Günthner, Susanne & Thomas Luckmann
    2001 Asymmetries of Knowledge in Intercultural Communication: The Relevance of Cultural Repertoires of Communicative Genres. In Aldo Di Luzio , Susanne Günthner & France Orletti (eds.), Culture in Communication: Analyses of Intercultural Situations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 55–86. 10.1075/pbns.81.06gun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.81.06gun [Google Scholar]
  25. Günthner, Susanne & Qiang Zhu
    2015 Formen ‘verbaler Fellpflege’: Kosende Anredepraktiken in chinesischen und deutschen SMS-Dialogen. Deutsche Sprache43/1. 42–73. 10.37307/j.1868‑775X.2015.01.04
     https://doi.org/10.37307/j.1868-775X.2015.01.04 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2016 Beziehungsgestaltung durch Sprache. In: Jianhua Zhu , Jin Zhao & Michael Szurawitzki (eds.), Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses Shanghai 2015, Germanistik zwischen Tradition und Innovation. Band 3. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang. 39–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 2017 Anredeformen im Kulturvergleich. Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen als Mittel der kommunikativen Konstruktion sozialer Beziehungen in chinesischen und deutschen SMS-Interaktionen. In Angelika Linke & Juliane Schröter (eds.), Sprache und Beziehung. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 119–149. 10.1515/9783110496918‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110496918-007 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hanks, William F.
    2007 Person reference in Yucatex Maya conversation. In Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference in interaction. Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 149–171. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.008 [Google Scholar]
  29. Haviland, John B.
    2007 Person reference in Tzotzil gossip: referring dupliciter. In: Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 226–252. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.011 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hentschel, Elke
    2012 All men become brothers – The use of kinship terms for non-related persons as a sign of respect or disrespect. Linguistic Online51/1, www.linguistik-online.de/51_12/hentschel.html. (12 July, 2020). 10.13092/lo.51.303
     https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.51.303 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hong, Beverly
    1985 Politeness in Chinese: Impersonal Pronouns and Personal Greeting. Anthropological Linguistics2. 204–213.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Leipzig Glossing Rules
    2015 The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses, https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/pdf/Glossing-Rules.pdf. (08 January, 2020).
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Levinson, Stephen
    2005 Living with Manny’s dangerous idea. Discourse Studies7(4–5). 431–453. 10.1177/1461445605054401
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054401 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lian, Xiaoxia & Mei Han
    2015 A Sociolinguistic Study of the Spouse Appellation: Laogong and Laopo. Journal of Hunan University of Science & Technology18. 142–148. (Original Citation: 连晓霞 / 韩梅 2015: ‘老公”“老婆”称谓的社会语言学调查. 湖南科技大学学报(社会科学版18, 142–148)
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Linke, Angelika
    2001 Zur allmählichen Verfertigung soziokultureller Konzepte im Medium alltäglichen Sprachgebrauchs. In: Andrea Lehret al. (eds.), Sprache im Alltag: Beiträge zu neuen Perspektiven in der Linguistik. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 373–388. 10.1515/9783110880380.373
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110880380.373 [Google Scholar]
  36. Luckmann, Thomas
    1990 Social communication, dialogue and conversation. In Ivana Marková & Klaus Foppa (eds.), The Dynamics of Dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 45–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 2013 The Communicative Construction of Reality and Sequential Analysis. A personal reminiscence. Qualitative Sociology Review IX (2). 40–46. 10.18778/1733‑8077.09.2.04www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/Volume25/QSR_9_2_Luckmann.pdf
     https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.09.2.04 [Google Scholar]
  38. Macha, Jürgen
    1997 Konstanz, Variation und Wandel familiärer Anredeformen. In Hildegard Macha & Lutz Mauermann (eds.), Brennpunkte der Familienerziehung. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag. 199–218.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Nübling, Damaris , Fabian Fahlbusch & Rita Heuser
    2012 Namen. Eine Einführung in die Onomastik. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Pomerantz, Anita & Jenny Mandelbaum
    2005 Conversation Analytic Approaches to the Relevance and Uses of Relationship Categories in Interaction. In Kristine Fitch & Robert E. Sanders (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. 149–171.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Ren, Juanjuan & Xinren Chen
    2019 Kinship term generalization as a cultural pragmatic strategy among Chinese graduate students. Pragmatics and Society10(4). 613–638. 10.1075/ps.18009.ren
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18009.ren [Google Scholar]
  42. Sacks, Harvey
    1967/92 Lectures on Conversation. Volumes I & II. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 1972 On the analyzability of stories by children. In John Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Blackwell. 325–345.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Sacks, Harvey & Emanuel A. Schegloff
    1979 Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language. Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington. 15–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996 Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics. In: Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 437–485. 10.1075/tsl.33.14sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.14sch [Google Scholar]
  46. Schütz, Alfred
    1951 Making Music Together. A Study in Social Relationship. Social Research. 18(1). 76–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Sidnell, Jack & Nick Enfield
    2017 Deixis and the Interactional Foundation of Reference. In Yan Huang (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 217–239.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In Keith Basso & Henry Selby (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 11–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Silverstein, Michael
    1985 Language and the culture of gender: at the intersection of structure, usage and ideology. In Elizabeth Mertz & Richard. J. Parmentier (eds.), Semiotic Meditation: Sociocultural and psychological perspectives. Orlando: Academic Press. 219–259. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑491280‑9.50016‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-491280-9.50016-9 [Google Scholar]
  50. Stivers, Tanya
    2007 Alternative recognitionals in person reference. In Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 73–96. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.005 [Google Scholar]
  51. Stivers, Tanya , Nick Enfield & Stephen Levinson
    2007 Person reference in interaction. In Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference in Interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–20. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.002 [Google Scholar]
  52. Tao, Liang
    1996 Topic Discontinuity and Zero Anaphora in Chinese Discourse. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 487–514. 10.1075/tsl.33.15tao
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.15tao [Google Scholar]
  53. Wang, Arthur
    2014 Mandarin Pseudo-Imposters. In Chris Collins (ed.), Cross linguistic Studies of Imposters and Pronominal Agreement. 1–46. www.oxfordscholarship.com. (08 August, 2020). 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199336852.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199336852.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wu, Yongi
    1990 The usage of kinship address forms amongst non-kin in mandarin Chinese: the extension of family solidarity. Australian Journal of Linguistics10. 61–88. 10.1080/07268609008599432
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268609008599432 [Google Scholar]
  55. Wyss, Eva Lia
    2012 Liebeserklärungen zwischen Ernsthaftigkeit und Fiktionalisierung. Inszenierung von Leidenschaft in schriftlichen Liebesbotschaften von Kindern, Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen. In Eva Neuland (ed.), Sprache der Generationen. Mannheim: Duden Verlag. 294–309.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Yan, Yunxiang
    2010 The Chinese path to individualization. British Journal of Sociology61(3). 489–512. 10.1111/j.1468‑4446.2010.01323.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01323.x [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhu, Qiang
    2014 Kontrastive Studie zum Anredeverhalten in chinesischer und deutscher SMS-Interaktion. In Katharina König & Nils Bahlo (eds.), SMS, WhatsApp & Co. Gattungsanalytische, kontrastive und variationslinguistische Perspektiven zur Analyse mobiler Kommunikation. Münster: Monsenstein und Vannerdat. 125–144.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Agha, Asif
    2007 Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Blum, Susan D.
    1997 Naming practices and the power of words in China. Language in Society26. 357–379. 10.1017/S0047404500019503
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019503 [Google Scholar]
  3. Braun, Friederike
    1988 Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110848113
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848113 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bühler, Karl
    1934/82 Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: UTB Gustav Fischer.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Cao, Wie
    2005 Appellation and Addressing Terms in Modern Chinese. Journal of Jiangsu University7/2. 62–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Chao, Yuen Ren
    1956 Chinese Terms of Address. Language32/1. 217–241. 10.2307/410666
     https://doi.org/10.2307/410666 [Google Scholar]
  7. Christen, Helen
    2006 ‘Comutter’, ‘Papi’ und ‘Lebensabschnittsgefährte’. Untersuchungen zum Sprachgebrauch im Kontext heutiger Formen des Zusammenlebens. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, Herbert
    1996 Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  9. Collins, Chris
    2014 Introduction. In Chris Collins (ed.), Cross linguistic Studies of Imposters and Pronominal Agreement. 1–46. www.oxfordscholarship.com. (08 August, 2020). 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199336852.003.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199336852.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting
    2018 Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dammel, Antje , Yvonne Niekrenz , Andrea Rapp & Eva L. Wyss
    2018 Muckelchen oder Süßer? Onymische Gender-Konstruktionen bei Kosenamen im Liebesbrief. In Stefan Hirschauer & Damaris Nübling (eds.), Namen und Geschlechter. Studien zum onymischen un/doing Gender. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 157–190. 10.1515/9783110589122‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110589122-007 [Google Scholar]
  12. Enfield, Nick
    2007 Meanings of the unmarked: How ‘default’ person reference does more than just refer. In Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 97–120. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.006
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.006 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fang, Hanqian & J. H. Heng
    1983 Social Changes and Changing Address Norms in China. Language and Society12(4). 495–507. 10.1017/S0047404500010216
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010216 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gao, Chunmin
    2013 A Contrastive Study of Chinese and English Address Forms. Theory and Practice in Language Studies3(1). 190–194. 10.4304/tpls.3.1.190‑194
     https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.190-194 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goffman, Erving
    1971 Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. 1979 Footing. Semiotica15–1/2. 1–29. 10.1515/semi.1979.25.1‑2.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gumperz, John J.
    1992 Contextualization and understanding. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 229–252.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Günthner, Susanne
    2000 Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion. Grammatische, prosodische, rhetorisch-stilistische und interaktive Verfahren bei der Konstitution kommunikativer Muster und Gattungen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110919974
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110919974 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2017 Die kommunikative Konstruktion von Kultur: Chinesische und deutsche Anredepraktiken im Gebrauch. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik (ZfAL)66. 1–29. 10.1515/zfal‑2017‑0005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfal-2017-0005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Günthner, Susanne
    2018 Perspektiven einer sprach- und kulturvergleichenden Interaktionsforschung: Chinesische und deutsche Praktiken nominaler Selbstreferenz in SMS-, WhatsApp- und WeChat-Interaktionen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion19. 478–514.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Günthner, Susanne
    2019a ‘der herr ingenIEUR hi isch was ↑BESSeres.’ – Formen und Funktionen nominaler Bezugnahmen auf das Gegenüber. In Tanja Gnosa , & Kerstin Kallass (eds.), Grenzgänge. Digitale Festschrift für Wolf-Andreas Liebert. https://www.grenzgänge.net/Guenthner_Formen-und-Funktionen-nominaler-Bezugnahmen"https://www.grenzgänge.net/Guenthner_Formen-und-Funktionen-nominaler-Bezugnahmen. (08 January, 2020).
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 2019b Tigerle plagt der Hunger. Die kommunikative Konstruktion sozialer Beziehungen – namentliche Selbstreferenzen in der WhatsApp-Interaktion. Vortrag gehalten bei der Tagung: Wissen, Kommunikation und Re-Figuration – Wissenssoziologie. Berlin. (29 March, 2019).
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2021): „Kommunikative Praktiken und Kulturalität — Namentliche Selbstreferenzen in deutschen und chinesischen SMS-, WhatsApp- und WeChat-Inter­aktionen”. In: Zhao, Jing (Hrsg.): Kulturalität der Sprache und Sprachlichkeit der Kultur. Berlin: Peter Lang. 99–121.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Günthner, Susanne & Thomas Luckmann
    2001 Asymmetries of Knowledge in Intercultural Communication: The Relevance of Cultural Repertoires of Communicative Genres. In Aldo Di Luzio , Susanne Günthner & France Orletti (eds.), Culture in Communication: Analyses of Intercultural Situations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 55–86. 10.1075/pbns.81.06gun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.81.06gun [Google Scholar]
  25. Günthner, Susanne & Qiang Zhu
    2015 Formen ‘verbaler Fellpflege’: Kosende Anredepraktiken in chinesischen und deutschen SMS-Dialogen. Deutsche Sprache43/1. 42–73. 10.37307/j.1868‑775X.2015.01.04
     https://doi.org/10.37307/j.1868-775X.2015.01.04 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2016 Beziehungsgestaltung durch Sprache. In: Jianhua Zhu , Jin Zhao & Michael Szurawitzki (eds.), Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses Shanghai 2015, Germanistik zwischen Tradition und Innovation. Band 3. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang. 39–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 2017 Anredeformen im Kulturvergleich. Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen als Mittel der kommunikativen Konstruktion sozialer Beziehungen in chinesischen und deutschen SMS-Interaktionen. In Angelika Linke & Juliane Schröter (eds.), Sprache und Beziehung. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 119–149. 10.1515/9783110496918‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110496918-007 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hanks, William F.
    2007 Person reference in Yucatex Maya conversation. In Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference in interaction. Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 149–171. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.008 [Google Scholar]
  29. Haviland, John B.
    2007 Person reference in Tzotzil gossip: referring dupliciter. In: Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 226–252. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.011
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.011 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hentschel, Elke
    2012 All men become brothers – The use of kinship terms for non-related persons as a sign of respect or disrespect. Linguistic Online51/1, www.linguistik-online.de/51_12/hentschel.html. (12 July, 2020). 10.13092/lo.51.303
     https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.51.303 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hong, Beverly
    1985 Politeness in Chinese: Impersonal Pronouns and Personal Greeting. Anthropological Linguistics2. 204–213.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Leipzig Glossing Rules
    2015 The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses, https://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/pdf/Glossing-Rules.pdf. (08 January, 2020).
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Levinson, Stephen
    2005 Living with Manny’s dangerous idea. Discourse Studies7(4–5). 431–453. 10.1177/1461445605054401
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054401 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lian, Xiaoxia & Mei Han
    2015 A Sociolinguistic Study of the Spouse Appellation: Laogong and Laopo. Journal of Hunan University of Science & Technology18. 142–148. (Original Citation: 连晓霞 / 韩梅 2015: ‘老公”“老婆”称谓的社会语言学调查. 湖南科技大学学报(社会科学版18, 142–148)
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Linke, Angelika
    2001 Zur allmählichen Verfertigung soziokultureller Konzepte im Medium alltäglichen Sprachgebrauchs. In: Andrea Lehret al. (eds.), Sprache im Alltag: Beiträge zu neuen Perspektiven in der Linguistik. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 373–388. 10.1515/9783110880380.373
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110880380.373 [Google Scholar]
  36. Luckmann, Thomas
    1990 Social communication, dialogue and conversation. In Ivana Marková & Klaus Foppa (eds.), The Dynamics of Dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 45–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 2013 The Communicative Construction of Reality and Sequential Analysis. A personal reminiscence. Qualitative Sociology Review IX (2). 40–46. 10.18778/1733‑8077.09.2.04www.qualitativesociologyreview.org/ENG/Volume25/QSR_9_2_Luckmann.pdf
     https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.09.2.04 [Google Scholar]
  38. Macha, Jürgen
    1997 Konstanz, Variation und Wandel familiärer Anredeformen. In Hildegard Macha & Lutz Mauermann (eds.), Brennpunkte der Familienerziehung. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag. 199–218.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Nübling, Damaris , Fabian Fahlbusch & Rita Heuser
    2012 Namen. Eine Einführung in die Onomastik. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Pomerantz, Anita & Jenny Mandelbaum
    2005 Conversation Analytic Approaches to the Relevance and Uses of Relationship Categories in Interaction. In Kristine Fitch & Robert E. Sanders (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. 149–171.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Ren, Juanjuan & Xinren Chen
    2019 Kinship term generalization as a cultural pragmatic strategy among Chinese graduate students. Pragmatics and Society10(4). 613–638. 10.1075/ps.18009.ren
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18009.ren [Google Scholar]
  42. Sacks, Harvey
    1967/92 Lectures on Conversation. Volumes I & II. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 1972 On the analyzability of stories by children. In John Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Blackwell. 325–345.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Sacks, Harvey & Emanuel A. Schegloff
    1979 Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language. Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington. 15–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1996 Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics. In: Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 437–485. 10.1075/tsl.33.14sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.14sch [Google Scholar]
  46. Schütz, Alfred
    1951 Making Music Together. A Study in Social Relationship. Social Research. 18(1). 76–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Sidnell, Jack & Nick Enfield
    2017 Deixis and the Interactional Foundation of Reference. In Yan Huang (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 217–239.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In Keith Basso & Henry Selby (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 11–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Silverstein, Michael
    1985 Language and the culture of gender: at the intersection of structure, usage and ideology. In Elizabeth Mertz & Richard. J. Parmentier (eds.), Semiotic Meditation: Sociocultural and psychological perspectives. Orlando: Academic Press. 219–259. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑491280‑9.50016‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-491280-9.50016-9 [Google Scholar]
  50. Stivers, Tanya
    2007 Alternative recognitionals in person reference. In Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 73–96. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.005 [Google Scholar]
  51. Stivers, Tanya , Nick Enfield & Stephen Levinson
    2007 Person reference in interaction. In Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference in Interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–20. 10.1017/CBO9780511486746.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746.002 [Google Scholar]
  52. Tao, Liang
    1996 Topic Discontinuity and Zero Anaphora in Chinese Discourse. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 487–514. 10.1075/tsl.33.15tao
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.15tao [Google Scholar]
  53. Wang, Arthur
    2014 Mandarin Pseudo-Imposters. In Chris Collins (ed.), Cross linguistic Studies of Imposters and Pronominal Agreement. 1–46. www.oxfordscholarship.com. (08 August, 2020). 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199336852.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199336852.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wu, Yongi
    1990 The usage of kinship address forms amongst non-kin in mandarin Chinese: the extension of family solidarity. Australian Journal of Linguistics10. 61–88. 10.1080/07268609008599432
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268609008599432 [Google Scholar]
  55. Wyss, Eva Lia
    2012 Liebeserklärungen zwischen Ernsthaftigkeit und Fiktionalisierung. Inszenierung von Leidenschaft in schriftlichen Liebesbotschaften von Kindern, Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen. In Eva Neuland (ed.), Sprache der Generationen. Mannheim: Duden Verlag. 294–309.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Yan, Yunxiang
    2010 The Chinese path to individualization. British Journal of Sociology61(3). 489–512. 10.1111/j.1468‑4446.2010.01323.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01323.x [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhu, Qiang
    2014 Kontrastive Studie zum Anredeverhalten in chinesischer und deutscher SMS-Interaktion. In Katharina König & Nils Bahlo (eds.), SMS, WhatsApp & Co. Gattungsanalytische, kontrastive und variationslinguistische Perspektiven zur Analyse mobiler Kommunikation. Münster: Monsenstein und Vannerdat. 125–144.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027249692-tar.5.05gun
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027249692-tar.5.05gun
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027249692
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error