Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 28:1 (2018) ► pp.29–60

To be or not to be your son’s father/mother

A cognitive-pragmatic perspective on terms of address in Najdi and Tunisian Arabic

| King Saud University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| King Saud University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| King Saud University, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
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 horizontality-verticality, and use of metaphor and metonymy.
Keywords: Idealized, non-Idealized, teknonym, Si/Lalla+first name, horizontality , verticality , metaphor, metonymy
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.The theory of idealized cognitive models
  • 2.Overview of terms of address
  • 3.Najdi Arabic address system
    • 3.1Propositional structure of Najdi Arabic address system
      • 3.1.1Idealized Cognitive Models
      • 3.1.2Non-Idealized Cognitive Models
    • 3.2Image-schematic structure of Najdi Arabic address system
    • 3.3Metaphorical mappings of Najdi Arabic address system
    • 3.4Metonymical mappings of Najdi Arabic address system
  • 4.Tunisian Arabic address system
    • 4.1Propositional structure of the Tunisian Arabic address system
      • 4.1.1Idealized Cognitive Models
      • 4.1.2Non-idealized cognitive models
    • 4.2Image-schematic structure of the Tunisian Arabic address system
    • 4.3Metaphorical mappings of the Tunisian Arabic address system
    • 4.4Metonymical mappings of the Tunisian Arabic address system
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 13 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.00001.ben
References (50)
References
Agha, Asif. 1994. “Honorification.” Annual Review of Anthropology 231: 277–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Al-Khatib, Mahmoud A. 2003. “Address Norms in Jordanian Arabic: A Sociolinguistic Perspective.” Grazer Linguistische Studien 591: 1–20.Google Scholar
Alrabaa, Sami. 1985. “The Use of Address Pronouns by Egyptian Adults: A Sociolinguistic Study.” Journal of Pragmatics 91: 645–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barakat, Halim. 1993. The Arab World: Society, Culture, and State. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bin Towairesh, Abdullah. 2012. “The Use of Term of Address in the City of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.” Ph.D. dissertation: University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Bratt Paulston, Christina. 1976. “Pronouns of Address in Swedish: Social Class Semantics and a Changing System.” Language in Society 5 (3): 359–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Friederike. 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman. 1960. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity.” In Style in Language, ed. by T. A. Sebeok, 253–276. Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clyne, Michael. 2009. “Address in Intercultural Communication Across Languages.” Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (3): 395–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, Michael, Heinz-Leo Kretzenbacher, Catrin Norrby, and Doris Schüpbach. 2006. “Perceptions of Variation and Change in German and Swedish Address.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 10 (3): 287–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 1997. Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
El Guindi, Fadwa. 2012. “Milk and Blood: Kinship among Muslim Arabs in Qatar.” Anthropos 1071: 545–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
El Guindi, Fadwa, and Wesam Al-Othman. 2013. “Transformationality and Dynamicality of Kinship Structure.” Structure and Dynamics 6 (1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Fang, Hanquan, and J. H. Heng. 1983. “Social Changes and Changing Address Norms in China.” Language in Society 12 (4): 495–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farghal, Mohammed, and Abdullah Shakir. 1994. “Kin Terms and Titles of Address as Relational Social Honorifics in Jordanian Arabic.” Anthropological Linguistics 36 (2): 240–253Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph. 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Feghali, Ellen. 1997. “Arab Cultural Communication Patterns.” International Journal of Intercultural Relations 21 (3): 345–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Miriam, R. L. Petruck, Josef Ruppenhofer, and A. Wright. 2003. “Framenet in Action: The Case of Attaching.” International Journal of Lexicography 16 (3): 297–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1989. Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale, New Jersey and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1992. Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Jones, Doug. 2004. “The Universal Psychology of Kinship: Evidence from Language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (5): 211–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasanga, Luanga A. 2009. “Language Socialization: The Naming of Non-Kin Adults by African Children and Preadolescents in Intercultural Encounters.” Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (1): 85–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Chris. 1975. “Sex-related Differences in Address Systems.” Anthropological Linguistics 17 (5): 198–210.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1982. “Categories: An Essay in Cognitive Linguistics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 139–193. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maalej, Zouheir. 2010. “Addressing Non-Acquaintances in Tunisian Arabic: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Account.” Intercultural Pragmatics 7 (1): 147–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marmaridou, Sophia S. A. 2000. Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martiny, T. 1996. “Forms of Address in French and Dutch: A Sociopragmatic Approach.” Language Sciences 18 (3–4): 365–375.Google Scholar
Masliyah, Sadok. 1998. “Abu and umm in the Iraqi Dialect.” Journal of Semitic Studies 43 (1): 113–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers Scotton, Carol, and Zhu Wanjin. 1983. “Tóngzhì in China: Language Change and its Conversational Consequences.” Language in Society 12 (4): 477–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. “The Multiple Meanings of shī.fu, a Language Change in Progress.” Anthropological Linguistics 26 (3): 326–344.Google Scholar
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 Pragmatics 7 (1): 75–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, Dilworth B. 1985. Constructing the Social Context of Communication: Terms of Address in Egyptian Arabic. Berlin/New York/Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peipei, Ren. 2007. “Sociolinguistic Study on the Term of Address ‘meinü’ in Present-Day China.” Canadian Social Science 3 (6): 101–106.Google Scholar
Potter, Terrence M. 1995. “Moroccan Terms of Address in the Film Dmu’al-Nadem (Tears of Regret).” The Georgetown Journal of Languages and Linguistics 3 (2–4): 218–226.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. “Principles of Categorization.” In Cognition and Categorization, ed. by Eleanor Rosch, and Barbara B. Lloyd, 27–48. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1994. Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Salami, L. Oladipo. 2004. “Deference and Subordination: Gender Roles and other Variables in Addressing and Referring to Husbands by Yoruba Women.” Linguistik online 211: 65–80.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1963. “Some Aspects of the Use of Pronouns of Address in Yiddish.” Word 19 (2): 193–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Jenny A. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1983. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1986. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wong, Andrew D. 2005. “The Reappropriation of Tongzhi.” Language in Society 34 (5): 763–793. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yassin, M. Aziz F. 1977. “Kinship Terms in Kuwaiti Arabic.” Anthropological Linguistics 19 (3): 126–132.Google Scholar
Yoon, Kyung-Joo. 2004. “Not just Words: Korean Social Models and the Use of Honorifics.” Intercultural Pragmatics 1 (2): 189–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhucheng, Ju. 1991. “The ‘Depreciation’ and ‘Appreciation’ of some Term of Address in China.” Language in Society 20 (3): 387–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Albury-Garcés, Nathan John
2024. Choosing between Cyrillic and Latin for linguistic citizenship in contemporary Serbia. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2024:286 ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.