Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2010
-
(2010): Addressing non-acquaintances in Tunisian Arabic. A cognitive-pragmatic account. In: Intercultural Pragmatics 7 (1). DOI: 10.1515/iprg.2010.007
Abstract: The literature on terms of address (TofA) abounds in both sociolinguistics and pragmatics. Mostly, sociolinguistics explains them with rank and age (Trudgill 1983; Wardhaugh 1986; Fasold 1990; Holmes 1992; Romaine 1994) and pragmatics with politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987). Furthermore, TofA are mostly studied as occurring between acquaintances that know about the social rank and age of each other to produce the address that is most coherent with the context of situation. The present study focuses on TofA used in addressing non-acquaintances, i.e., people who have never met one another before. Evidence from Tunisian Arabic (TA) shows that TofA as used with non-acquaintances are not motivated by rank and politeness as much as by the addresser's drive to create familiarity and minimize distance with the addressee. Such a pragmatic minimization of distance is not noticed when TofA are used with acquaintances. Speakers of TA inject kinship-related terms in their address to non-acquaintances in view of creating rapprochement between the speaker as a deictic center and the addressee in the periphery Such a rapprochement is made possible through the manipulation by the speaker of the FAR-NEAR schema (Johnson 1987) related to the CENTER-PERIPHERY image schema. The paper intends to show this taming of addressees by studying TofA in TA through Lakoff's (1982, 1987) theory of categorization known as Idealized Cognitive Models (ICMs).
-
(2010): Eestlaste ja venelaste suhtluskäitumine. Sina, teie ja keegi veel. In: Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat. Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics 6, S. 207-224. DOI: 10.5128/ERYa6.13
Abstract: This paper examines linguistic politeness among Estonians and Russians in Estonia. We raise the question of how groups living in different conditions of societal bilingualism acknowledge different politeness norms and hence exhibit different politeness behavior. Our study focuses especially on the choice of the formal or informal second person pronoun (the T/V phenomenon), but we also investigate other aspects of interaction (such as respondents' metalinguistic awareness of forms of address and reference to an absent third person). The analysis is based on university students' responses to a sociolinguistic questionnaire. Data from native Russian speakers in St. Petersburg are used for comparison with data from Russian speakers in Estonia. On the basis of the findings from this study, we conclude that the communicative culture of Russians and Estonians is not greatly different, although certain particularities exist which differentiate them. Both Russians and Estonians use the formal V pronoun when addressing strangers older than themselves. The most notable difference in making the choice between forms of address is that Russians choose the formal V form primarily on the basis of age difference, addressing even close acquaintances with V if they are older. This behavior is explained by the speakers with the concept of uvazenie, or "respect". For Estonians, age differences are less significant than familiarity, and close acquaintances or relatives are usually addressed with T, even if they are much older. There is no clear, unified stereotypical explanation among the Estonian respondents of why one should use V with anyone (for instance, a lecturer). Explanations tend to appeal to the context of discourse (e.g. it is habitual to use V in the context of academic discussion). Because the norms for using V are clearer amongst Russian speakers, Russians seem to have fewer dilemmas than Estonians regarding which form to use.
- <<
- <
- 1