1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 28, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 28, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

The current article offers a comparative account of the address system of two dialects of Arabic, Najdi and Tunisian Arabic. Capitalizing on the theory of Idealized Cognitive Model, the article defends the view that the two systems display Idealized models, which are central to the system, and non-Idealized models, which are peripheral to it. Najdi Arabic includes Idealized terms such as first names, teknonyms, and kinship terms while non-Idealized models include a battery of terms of address. Tunisian Arabic Idealized models hinge on Si/Lalla + first names, first names, and kinship terms while non-Idealized models make use of endeared first names, kinship terms, and diminished kinship terms. The two systems are shown to differ at the level of types of encounter (including formality, closeness, and deference), availability of address options, social , and use of metaphor and metonymy.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.00001.ben
2018-02-13
2024-10-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.00001.ben
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/prag.00001.ben.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/prag.00001.ben&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Agha, Asif
    1994 “Honorification.” Annual Review of Anthropology23: 277–302. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.001425
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.23.100194.001425 [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Khatib, Mahmoud A.
    2003 “Address Norms in Jordanian Arabic: A Sociolinguistic Perspective.” Grazer Linguistische Studien59: 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alrabaa, Sami
    1985 “The Use of Address Pronouns by Egyptian Adults: A Sociolinguistic Study.” Journal of Pragmatics9: 645–657. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(85)90057‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90057-8 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barakat, Halim
    1993 The Arab World: Society, Culture, and State. Berkeley: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bin Towairesh, Abdullah
    2012 “The Use of Term of Address in the City of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.” Ph.D. dissertation: University of Queensland.
  6. Bratt Paulston, Christina
    1976 “Pronouns of Address in Swedish: Social Class Semantics and a Changing System.” Language in Society5 (3): 359–386. doi: 10.1017/S004740450000717X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450000717X [Google Scholar]
  7. Braun, Friederike
    1988 Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110848113
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848113 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, Roger , and Albert Gilman
    1960 “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” InStyle in Language, ed. by T. A. Sebeok , 253–276. Mass.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Clyne, Michael
    2009 “Address in Intercultural Communication Across Languages.” Intercultural Pragmatics6 (3): 395–409. doi: 10.1515/IPRG.2009.020
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.020 [Google Scholar]
  11. Clyne, Michael , Heinz-Leo Kretzenbacher , Catrin Norrby , and Doris Schüpbach
    2006 “Perceptions of Variation and Change in German and Swedish Address.” Journal of Sociolinguistics10 (3): 287–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1360‑6441.2006.00329.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2006.00329.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Edwards, Derek
    1997 Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. El Guindi, Fadwa
    2012 “Milk and Blood: Kinship among Muslim Arabs in Qatar.” Anthropos107: 545–555.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. El Guindi, Fadwa , and Wesam Al-Othman
    2013 “Transformationality and Dynamicality of Kinship Structure.” Structure and Dynamics6 (1): 1–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fang, Hanquan , and J. H. Heng
    1983 “Social Changes and Changing Address Norms in China.” Language in Society12 (4): 495–507. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500010216
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010216 [Google Scholar]
  16. Farghal, Mohammed , and Abdullah Shakir
    1994 “Kin Terms and Titles of Address as Relational Social Honorifics in Jordanian Arabic.” Anthropological Linguistics36 (2): 240–253
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fasold, Ralph
    1990 The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Feghali, Ellen
    1997 “Arab Cultural Communication Patterns.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations21 (3): 345–378. doi: 10.1016/S0147‑1767(97)00005‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(97)00005-9 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1982 “Frame Semantics.” InLinguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. byThe Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fillmore, Charles J. , Miriam, R. L. Petruck, Josef Ruppenhofer , and A. Wright
    2003 “Framenet in Action: The Case of Attaching.” International Journal of Lexicography16 (3): 297–323. doi: 10.1093/ijl/16.3.297
     https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/16.3.297 [Google Scholar]
  21. Givón, Talmy
    1989 Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Goffman, Erving
    1974 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Holmes, Janet
    1992 Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London and New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Jones, Doug
    2004 “The Universal Psychology of Kinship: Evidence from Language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences8 (5): 211–215. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.03.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kasanga, Luanga A.
    2009 “Language Socialization: The Naming of Non-Kin Adults by African Children and Preadolescents in Intercultural Encounters.” Intercultural Pragmatics6 (1): 85–114. doi: 10.1515/IPRG.2009.004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.004 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kramer, Chris
    1975 “Sex-related Differences in Address Systems.” Anthropological Linguistics17 (5): 198–210.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lakoff, George
    1982 “Categories: An Essay in Cognitive Linguistics.” InLinguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. byThe Linguistic Society of Korea, 139–193. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 1987 Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983 Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Maalej, Zouheir
    2010 “Addressing Non-Acquaintances in Tunisian Arabic: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Account.” Intercultural Pragmatics7 (1): 147–173. doi: 10.1515/iprg.2010.007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.007 [Google Scholar]
  31. Marmaridou, Sophia S. A.
    2000 Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.72
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.72 [Google Scholar]
  32. Martiny, T.
    1996 “Forms of Address in French and Dutch: A Sociopragmatic Approach.” Language Sciences18 (3–4): 365–375.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Masliyah, Sadok
    1998 “Abu and umm in the Iraqi Dialect.” Journal of Semitic Studies43 (1): 113–129. doi: 10.1093/jss/43.1.113
     https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/43.1.113 [Google Scholar]
  34. Myers Scotton, Carol , and Zhu Wanjin
    1983 “Tóngzhì in China: Language Change and its Conversational Consequences.” Language in Society12 (4): 477–494. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500010204
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010204 [Google Scholar]
  35. 1984 “The Multiple Meanings of shī.fu, a Language Change in Progress.” Anthropological Linguistics26 (3): 326–344.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Pajusalu, Renate , Virve-Anneli Vihman , Birute Klaas , and Karl Pajusalu
    2010 “Forms of Address across Languages: Formal and Informal Second Person Pronoun Usage among Estonia’s Linguistic Communities.” Intercultural Pragmatics7 (1): 75–101. doi: 10.1515/iprg.2010.004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.004 [Google Scholar]
  37. Parkinson, Dilworth B.
    1985 Constructing the Social Context of Communication: Terms of Address in Egyptian Arabic. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110857351
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110857351 [Google Scholar]
  38. Peipei, Ren
    2007 “Sociolinguistic Study on the Term of Address ‘meinü’ in Present-Day China.” Canadian Social Science3 (6): 101–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Potter, Terrence M.
    1995 “Moroccan Terms of Address in the Film Dmu’al-Nadem (Tears of Regret).” The Georgetown Journal of Languages and Linguistics3 (2–4): 218–226.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Rosch, Eleanor
    1978 “Principles of Categorization.” InCognition and Categorization, ed. by Eleanor Rosch , and Barbara B. Lloyd , 27–48. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Romaine, Suzanne
    1994 Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Salami, L. Oladipo
    2004 “Deference and Subordination: Gender Roles and other Variables in Addressing and Referring to Husbands by Yoruba Women.” Linguistik online21: 65–80.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Slobin, Dan I.
    1963 “Some Aspects of the Use of Pronouns of Address in Yiddish.” Word19 (2): 193–202. doi: 10.1080/00437956.1963.11659794
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1963.11659794 [Google Scholar]
  44. Thomas, Jenny A.
    1995 Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London/New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Trudgill, Peter
    1983 Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Wardhaugh, Ronald
    1986 An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Wong, Andrew D.
    2005 “The Reappropriation of Tongzhi.” Language in Society34 (5): 763–793. doi: 10.1017/S0047404505050281
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404505050281 [Google Scholar]
  48. Yassin, M. Aziz F.
    1977 “Kinship Terms in Kuwaiti Arabic.” Anthropological Linguistics19 (3): 126–132.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Yoon, Kyung-Joo
    2004 “Not just Words: Korean Social Models and the Use of Honorifics.” Intercultural Pragmatics1 (2): 189–210. doi: 10.1515/iprg.2004.1.2.189
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2004.1.2.189 [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhucheng, Ju
    1991 “The ‘Depreciation’ and ‘Appreciation’ of some Term of Address in China.” Language in Society20 (3): 387–390. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500016547
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016547 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.00001.ben
Loading
To be or not to be your son’s father/mother
Pragmatics 28, 29 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.00001.ben
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.00001.ben
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.00001.ben
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): horizontality; Idealized; metaphor; metonymy; non-Idealized; Si/Lalla+first name; teknonym; verticality

Most Cited

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