1887

Mirror-like address practice in Arabic-medium classroom interaction

Managing social relations and intersubjectivity

image of Mirror-like address practice in Arabic-medium classroom interaction

This paper examines address inversion in classroom interactions in Arabic. Address inversion, found in various languages, is an address practice where the speaker addresses the recipient with the same address term that the recipient would normally use to call the speaker. Inverted address is a denotationally incongruent, asymmetric address used by speakers who claim cultural seniority. By analyzing the position of address inversion in interaction (in turns, sequences, and activities) and utilizing the notion of stance, this paper examines the ways in which address inversion manages intersubjectivity by constructing the shifting relationships between the participants in classroom interaction. The data are classroom interactions video recorded in Palestinian territories.

  • Affiliations: 1: University of Helsinki

References

  1. Agha, Asif
    2007Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ayoub, Millicent R.
    1964 “Bi-Polarity in Arabic Kinship Terms.” Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists Cambridge, Mass., August 27–31, 1962, ed. by Horace G. Lunt , 1100–1106. London and the Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann
    1966The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1990 “You Don’t Touch Lettuce with Your Fingers: Parental Politeness in Family Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics14: 259–288. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90083‑P
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90083-P [Google Scholar]
  5. Braun, Friederike
    1988Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin, New York, NY and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110848113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848113 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman
    1960 “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” InStyle in Language, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok , 253–276. New York, NY and London: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bühler, Karl
    1990[1934]Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/fos.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fos.25 [Google Scholar]
  8. Butler, Carly W. , Susan Danby and Michael Emmison
    2011 “Address Terms in Turn Beginnings: Managing Disalignment and Disaffiliation in Telephone Counselling.” Research on Language and Social Interaction44: 338–358. 10.1080/08351813.2011.619311
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.619311 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cekaite, Asta and Anna Ekström
    2019 “Emotion Socialization in Teacher-Child Interaction: Teachers’ Responses to Children’s Negative Emotions.” Frontiers in Psychology10, article 1546. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01546
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01546 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clayman, Steven E.
    2010 “Address Terms in the Service of Other Actions: The Case of News Interview Talk.” Discourse & Communication4 (2): 161–183. 10.1177/1750481310364330
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481310364330 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2013 “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Terms.” Journal of Pragmatics57: 290–302. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Craven, Alexandra and Jonathan Potter
    2010 “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies12: 419–442. 10.1177/1461445610370126
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126 [Google Scholar]
  13. Du Bois , John W.
    2007 “The Stance Triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by R. Englebretson , 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  14. Duranti, Alessandro
    2010 “Husserl, Intersubjectivity and Anthropology.” Anthropological Theory10 (1): 1–20. 10.1177/1463499610370517
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499610370517 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ervin-Tripp, Susan
    1972 “Sociolinguistic Rules: Alteration and Co-Occurrence.” InDirections in Sociolinguistics, ed. by J. Gumperez and D. Hymes , 213–250. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Etelämäki, Marja
    2016 “Introduction: Discourse, Grammar and Intersubjectivity.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics39 (2): 101–112. 10.1017/S033258651600007X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S033258651600007X [Google Scholar]
  17. Fraser, Bruce
    1980 “Conversational Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics4: 341–350. 10.1016/0378‑2166(80)90029‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6 [Google Scholar]
  18. Galeano, Giorgia and Alessandro Fasulo
    2009 “Sequenze direttive tra genitori e figli.” Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa2/2009: 261–278.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hanks, William F.
    1990Referential Practice, Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Haverkate, Henk
    1992 “Deictic Categories as Mitigating Devices.” Pragmatics2 (4): 505–522. 10.1075/prag.2.4.03hav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.2.4.03hav [Google Scholar]
  21. Haviland, John B.
    1996 “Projections, Transpositions, and Relativity.” InRethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. by John Gumperz and Stephen Levinson , 271–323. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK and Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jaffe, Alexandra
    2009 “Introduction: The Sociolinguistics of Stance.” InStance, Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. by Alexandra Jaffe , 3–28. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kendon, Adam
    1995 “Gestures as Illocutionary and Discourse Structure Markers in Southern Italian Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics23: 247–279. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00037‑F
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00037-F [Google Scholar]
  25. Kockelman, Paul
    2006 “Agent, Person, Subject, Self.” Semiotica162: 1–18. 10.1515/SEM.2006.072
    https://doi.org/10.1515/SEM.2006.072 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lerner, Gene H.
    2003 “Selecting Next Speaker: The Context-Sensitive Operation of a Context-Free Organization.” Language in Society32: 177–201. 10.1017/S004740450332202X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450332202X [Google Scholar]
  27. 2013 “On the Place of Hesitating in Delicate Formulations: A Turn-constructional Infrastructure for Collaborative Indiscretion.” InConversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi , Geoffrey Raymond and Jack Sidnell , 95–134. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Linell, Per
    2009Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mead, George H.
    1934Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mehan, Hugh
    1979Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674420106
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106 [Google Scholar]
  31. Norrby, Catrin and Camilla Wide
    2015 “Introduction: Address as Social Action across Cultures and Contexts.” InAddress Practice as Social Action: European Perspectives, ed. by Catrin Norrby and Camilla Wide , 1–12. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137529923_1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137529923_1 [Google Scholar]
  32. Parkinson, Dilworth B.
    1985Constructing the Social Context of Communication: Terms of Address in Egyptian Arabic. Berlin, New York, NY and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110857351
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857351 [Google Scholar]
  33. Pauletto, Franco , Karin Aronsson and Giorgia Galeano
    2017 “Endearment and Address Terms in Family Life: Children’s and Parents’ Requests in Italian and Swedish Dinnertime Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics109: 82–94. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.014 [Google Scholar]
  34. Piippo, Irina
    2012 “Viewing Norms Dialogically: An Action-Oriented Approach to Sociolinguistic Metatheory.” PhD dissertation. University of Helsinki.
  35. Rendle-Short, Johanna
    2007 “‘Catherine, You’re Wasting Your Time’: Address Terms within the Australian Political Interview.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 1503–1525. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2010 “‘Mate’ as a Term of Address in Ordinary Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics42: 1201–1218. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rommetveit, Ragnar
    1976 “On the Architecture of Intersubjectivity.” InSocial Psychology in Transition, ed. by Lloyd H. Strickland , Frances J. Aboud and Kenneth J. Gergen , 163–175. New York: Plenum Press. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑8765‑1_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-8765-1_16 [Google Scholar]
  38. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1992 “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology97 (5): 1295–1345. 10.1086/229903
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schütz, Alfred
    1982Collected Papers. Vol. 1, The Problem of Social Reality, ed. by Maurice Natanson and H. L. van Breda . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sidnell, Jack
    2014 “The Architecture of Intersubjectivity Revisited.” InCambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by Nick. J. Enfield , Paul Kockelman and Jack Sidnell , 364–399. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018 [Google Scholar]
  41. Visakko, Tomi
    2015Self-Promotion as Semiotic Behavior: The Mediation of Personhood in Light of Finnish Online Dating Advertisements. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Wilson, Nick
    2019 “When We Means You: The Social Meaning of English Pseudo-Inclusive Personal Pronouns.” InThe Social Dynamics of Pronominal Systems: A Comparative Approach, ed. by Paul Bouissac , 35–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.304.02wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.304.02wil [Google Scholar]
  43. Yassin, Mahmoud Aziz. F.
    1975 “A Linguistic Study of Forms of Address in Kuwaiti Colloquial Arabic.” PhD dissertation. Leeds University.
  44. Yassin, Mahmoud Aziz. F.
    1977 “Bi-Polar Terms of Address in Kuwaiti Arabic.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London40 (2): 297–301. 10.1017/S0041977X00044050
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00044050 [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Agha, Asif
    2007Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ayoub, Millicent R.
    1964 “Bi-Polarity in Arabic Kinship Terms.” Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists Cambridge, Mass., August 27–31, 1962, ed. by Horace G. Lunt , 1100–1106. London and the Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann
    1966The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1990 “You Don’t Touch Lettuce with Your Fingers: Parental Politeness in Family Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics14: 259–288. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90083‑P
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90083-P [Google Scholar]
  5. Braun, Friederike
    1988Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin, New York, NY and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110848113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848113 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman
    1960 “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” InStyle in Language, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok , 253–276. New York, NY and London: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bühler, Karl
    1990[1934]Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/fos.25
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fos.25 [Google Scholar]
  8. Butler, Carly W. , Susan Danby and Michael Emmison
    2011 “Address Terms in Turn Beginnings: Managing Disalignment and Disaffiliation in Telephone Counselling.” Research on Language and Social Interaction44: 338–358. 10.1080/08351813.2011.619311
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.619311 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cekaite, Asta and Anna Ekström
    2019 “Emotion Socialization in Teacher-Child Interaction: Teachers’ Responses to Children’s Negative Emotions.” Frontiers in Psychology10, article 1546. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01546
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01546 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clayman, Steven E.
    2010 “Address Terms in the Service of Other Actions: The Case of News Interview Talk.” Discourse & Communication4 (2): 161–183. 10.1177/1750481310364330
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481310364330 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2013 “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Terms.” Journal of Pragmatics57: 290–302. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  12. Craven, Alexandra and Jonathan Potter
    2010 “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies12: 419–442. 10.1177/1461445610370126
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126 [Google Scholar]
  13. Du Bois , John W.
    2007 “The Stance Triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by R. Englebretson , 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  14. Duranti, Alessandro
    2010 “Husserl, Intersubjectivity and Anthropology.” Anthropological Theory10 (1): 1–20. 10.1177/1463499610370517
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499610370517 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ervin-Tripp, Susan
    1972 “Sociolinguistic Rules: Alteration and Co-Occurrence.” InDirections in Sociolinguistics, ed. by J. Gumperez and D. Hymes , 213–250. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Etelämäki, Marja
    2016 “Introduction: Discourse, Grammar and Intersubjectivity.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics39 (2): 101–112. 10.1017/S033258651600007X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S033258651600007X [Google Scholar]
  17. Fraser, Bruce
    1980 “Conversational Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics4: 341–350. 10.1016/0378‑2166(80)90029‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6 [Google Scholar]
  18. Galeano, Giorgia and Alessandro Fasulo
    2009 “Sequenze direttive tra genitori e figli.” Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa2/2009: 261–278.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hanks, William F.
    1990Referential Practice, Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Haverkate, Henk
    1992 “Deictic Categories as Mitigating Devices.” Pragmatics2 (4): 505–522. 10.1075/prag.2.4.03hav
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.2.4.03hav [Google Scholar]
  21. Haviland, John B.
    1996 “Projections, Transpositions, and Relativity.” InRethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. by John Gumperz and Stephen Levinson , 271–323. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK and Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Jaffe, Alexandra
    2009 “Introduction: The Sociolinguistics of Stance.” InStance, Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. by Alexandra Jaffe , 3–28. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331646.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kendon, Adam
    1995 “Gestures as Illocutionary and Discourse Structure Markers in Southern Italian Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics23: 247–279. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00037‑F
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00037-F [Google Scholar]
  25. Kockelman, Paul
    2006 “Agent, Person, Subject, Self.” Semiotica162: 1–18. 10.1515/SEM.2006.072
    https://doi.org/10.1515/SEM.2006.072 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lerner, Gene H.
    2003 “Selecting Next Speaker: The Context-Sensitive Operation of a Context-Free Organization.” Language in Society32: 177–201. 10.1017/S004740450332202X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450332202X [Google Scholar]
  27. 2013 “On the Place of Hesitating in Delicate Formulations: A Turn-constructional Infrastructure for Collaborative Indiscretion.” InConversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi , Geoffrey Raymond and Jack Sidnell , 95–134. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Linell, Per
    2009Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mead, George H.
    1934Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Mehan, Hugh
    1979Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674420106
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106 [Google Scholar]
  31. Norrby, Catrin and Camilla Wide
    2015 “Introduction: Address as Social Action across Cultures and Contexts.” InAddress Practice as Social Action: European Perspectives, ed. by Catrin Norrby and Camilla Wide , 1–12. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137529923_1
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137529923_1 [Google Scholar]
  32. Parkinson, Dilworth B.
    1985Constructing the Social Context of Communication: Terms of Address in Egyptian Arabic. Berlin, New York, NY and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110857351
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857351 [Google Scholar]
  33. Pauletto, Franco , Karin Aronsson and Giorgia Galeano
    2017 “Endearment and Address Terms in Family Life: Children’s and Parents’ Requests in Italian and Swedish Dinnertime Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics109: 82–94. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.014 [Google Scholar]
  34. Piippo, Irina
    2012 “Viewing Norms Dialogically: An Action-Oriented Approach to Sociolinguistic Metatheory.” PhD dissertation. University of Helsinki.
  35. Rendle-Short, Johanna
    2007 “‘Catherine, You’re Wasting Your Time’: Address Terms within the Australian Political Interview.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 1503–1525. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2010 “‘Mate’ as a Term of Address in Ordinary Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics42: 1201–1218. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rommetveit, Ragnar
    1976 “On the Architecture of Intersubjectivity.” InSocial Psychology in Transition, ed. by Lloyd H. Strickland , Frances J. Aboud and Kenneth J. Gergen , 163–175. New York: Plenum Press. 10.1007/978‑1‑4615‑8765‑1_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-8765-1_16 [Google Scholar]
  38. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1992 “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology97 (5): 1295–1345. 10.1086/229903
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schütz, Alfred
    1982Collected Papers. Vol. 1, The Problem of Social Reality, ed. by Maurice Natanson and H. L. van Breda . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Sidnell, Jack
    2014 “The Architecture of Intersubjectivity Revisited.” InCambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by Nick. J. Enfield , Paul Kockelman and Jack Sidnell , 364–399. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139342872.018 [Google Scholar]
  41. Visakko, Tomi
    2015Self-Promotion as Semiotic Behavior: The Mediation of Personhood in Light of Finnish Online Dating Advertisements. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Wilson, Nick
    2019 “When We Means You: The Social Meaning of English Pseudo-Inclusive Personal Pronouns.” InThe Social Dynamics of Pronominal Systems: A Comparative Approach, ed. by Paul Bouissac , 35–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.304.02wil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.304.02wil [Google Scholar]
  43. Yassin, Mahmoud Aziz. F.
    1975 “A Linguistic Study of Forms of Address in Kuwaiti Colloquial Arabic.” PhD dissertation. Leeds University.
  44. Yassin, Mahmoud Aziz. F.
    1977 “Bi-Polar Terms of Address in Kuwaiti Arabic.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London40 (2): 297–301. 10.1017/S0041977X00044050
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00044050 [Google Scholar]
/content/books/9789027259035-pbns.326.06pii
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027259035
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