Cover not available
Part of
Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in language and social interaction
Edited by Jan K. Lindström, Ritva Laury, Anssi Peräkylä and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 326] 2021
► pp. 109–134

Mirror-like address practice in Arabic-medium classroom interaction

Managing social relations and intersubjectivity

| University of Helsinki
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.
Keywords: address inversion, transposed reference, stance, classroom interaction, family interaction, pre-positioned address term, post-positioned address term, transition, directive, admonition
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Address inversion in interaction
    • 2.2Intersubjectivity in semiotic encounters
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Address inversion in classroom interaction
    • 4.1Address inversion in initial action
    • 4.2Address inversion in responsive actions
  • 5.Conclusion and discussion
  • Note of acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.326.06pii
References (44)
References
Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and Social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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
Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1990. “You Don’t Touch Lettuce with Your Fingers: Parental Politeness in Family Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 259–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Friederike. 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin, New York, NY and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger and Albert Gilman. 1960. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” In Style 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
Bühler, Karl. 1990[1934]. Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Interaction 44: 338–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cekaite, Asta and Anna Ekström. 2019. “Emotion Socialization in Teacher-Child Interaction: Teachers’ Responses to Children’s Negative Emotions.” Frontiers in Psychology 10, article 1546. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2010. “Address Terms in the Service of Other Actions: The Case of News Interview Talk.” Discourse & Communication 4 (2): 161–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Terms.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 290–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craven, Alexandra and Jonathan Potter. 2010. “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12: 419–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. “The Stance Triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by R. Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 2010. “Husserl, Intersubjectivity and Anthropology.” Anthropological Theory 10 (1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1972. “Sociolinguistic Rules: Alteration and Co-Occurrence.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics, ed. by J. Gumperez and D. Hymes, 213–250. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja. 2016. “Introduction: Discourse, Grammar and Intersubjectivity.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 39 (2): 101–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1980. “Conversational Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics 4: 341–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galeano, Giorgia and Alessandro Fasulo. 2009. “Sequenze direttive tra genitori e figli.” Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa 2/2009: 261–278.Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. 1990. Referential Practice, Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haverkate, Henk. 1992. “Deictic Categories as Mitigating Devices.” Pragmatics 2 (4): 505–522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haviland, John B. 1996. “Projections, Transpositions, and Relativity.” In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. by John Gumperz and Stephen Levinson, 271–323. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK and Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra. 2009. “Introduction: The Sociolinguistics of Stance.” In Stance, Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. by Alexandra Jaffe, 3–28. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 1995. “Gestures as Illocutionary and Discourse Structure Markers in Southern Italian Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 23: 247–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kockelman, Paul. 2006. “Agent, Person, Subject, Self.” Semiotica 162: 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 2003. “Selecting Next Speaker: The Context-Sensitive Operation of a Context-Free Organization.” Language in Society 32: 177–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. “On the Place of Hesitating in Delicate Formulations: A Turn-constructional Infrastructure for Collaborative Indiscretion.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond and Jack Sidnell, 95–134. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Mead, George H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mehan, Hugh. 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrby, Catrin and Camilla Wide. 2015. “Introduction: Address as Social Action across Cultures and Contexts.” In Address Practice as Social Action: European Perspectives, ed. by Catrin Norrby and Camilla Wide, 1–12. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, Dilworth B. 1985. Constructing the Social Context of Communication: Terms of Address in Egyptian Arabic. Berlin, New York, NY and Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Pragmatics 109: 82–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piippo, Irina. 2012. “Viewing Norms Dialogically: An Action-Oriented Approach to Sociolinguistic Metatheory.” PhD dissertation. University of Helsinki.
Rendle-Short, Johanna. 2007. “‘Catherine, You’re Wasting Your Time’: Address Terms within the Australian Political Interview.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1503–1525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “‘Mate’ as a Term of Address in Ordinary Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1201–1218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rommetveit, Ragnar. 1976. “On the Architecture of Intersubjectivity.” In Social Psychology in Transition, ed. by Lloyd H. Strickland, Frances J. Aboud and Kenneth J. Gergen, 163–175. New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1992. “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (5): 1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schütz, Alfred. 1982. Collected Papers. Vol. 1, The Problem of Social Reality, ed. by Maurice Natanson and H. L. van Breda. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2014. “The Architecture of Intersubjectivity Revisited.” In Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by Nick. J. Enfield, Paul Kockelman and Jack Sidnell, 364–399. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Visakko, Tomi. 2015. Self-Promotion as Semiotic Behavior: The Mediation of Personhood in Light of Finnish Online Dating Advertisements. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Wilson, Nick. 2019. “When We Means You: The Social Meaning of English Pseudo-Inclusive Personal Pronouns.” In The Social Dynamics of Pronominal Systems: A Comparative Approach, ed. by Paul Bouissac, 35–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yassin, Mahmoud Aziz. F. 1975. “A Linguistic Study of Forms of Address in Kuwaiti Colloquial Arabic.” PhD dissertation. Leeds University.
Yassin, Mahmoud Aziz. F. 1977. “Bi-Polar Terms of Address in Kuwaiti Arabic.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 40 (2): 297–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar