Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 10:4 (2019) ► pp.613–638

Kinship term generalization as a cultural pragmatic strategy among Chinese graduate students

| Nanjing University
| Nanjing University
A common Chinese addressing practice is to address non-kin people with kinship terms, a phenomenon sometimes described as ‘kinship term generalization’. Previous studies have mainly focused on the characteristics and functions of kinship term generalization, confined to certain specific generalized kinship terms (GKTs for short), and limited to GKTs in some Chinese dialects or certain Chinese literary works. The present study adopts the socio-pragmatic perspective to examine the phenomenon among Chinese graduate students, a social group not heeded in the literature. Based on the analysis of the data collected, we argue that Chinese graduate students’ varying use of GKTs in academic settings is a pragmatic strategy, characterized by the family-centered cultural values of the Chinese society. It is hoped that the present study at the intersection between pragmatics and sociolinguistics may enrich the study of address forms in general, and in particular of Chinese GKTs.
Keywords: address forms, generalized kinship terms (GKTs), Chinese, academic setting, family-centered cultural values, socio-pragmatics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Research background
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Research questions
    • 3.2Instruments
    • 3.3Subjects
    • 3.4Data collection and analysis
  • 4.Results of the survey
    • 4.1Frequency and typology of Chinese graduate students’ use of GKTs
    • 4.2Variations in Chinese graduate students’ use of GKTs
  • 5.Discussion of the results
    • 5.1Chinese graduate students’ use of GKTs as a pragmatic strategy
    • 5.2Chinese graduate students’ use of GKTs as a culturally characterized strategy
      • Effect of enrollment sequence
      • Effect of biological age
      • Effect of emotional distance
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18009.ren
References (43)
References
Ballweg, John A. 1969. “Extensions of meaning and use for kinship terms.” American Anthropologist 71(1): 84–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braun, Friederike. 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. 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 Thomas A. Sebeok, 253–276. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Marguerite Ford. 1961. “Address in American English.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62(2): 375–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cameron, Deborah. 2007. “Redefining Rudeness: from Polite Social Intercourse to ‘Good Communication’.” In Rude Britannia, ed. by Mina Gorji, 127–138. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1956. “Chinese Terms of Address.” Language 32(1): 217–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cong, Li, and Linlin Li. 2013. “语境顺应理论视角下亲属称谓语的泛化翻译研究 [A study on translation of extended kinship terms under the framework of context adaptability theory].” Journal of Jilin Institute of Chemical Technology (10): 28–31.Google Scholar
Cui, Jihua. 2008. “现代社会语言环境中拟亲属称谓的汉日比较研究 [A comparative study on Chinese and Japanese fictive kinship terms in contemporary sociolinguistic context].” Journal of Ocean University of China (6): 82–85.Google Scholar
Dewaele, Jean-Marc, and Lora Salomidou. 2017. “Loving a Partner in a Foreign Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 1081: 116–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickey, Eleanor. 2004. “Literal and extended use of kinship terms in documentary Papyri.” Mnemosyne 57(2): 131–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du, Xuan. 2017. “现代汉语亲属称谓的泛化探究 [A study on modern Chinese kinship term generalization].” Modern Chinese (3): 119–122.Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph W. 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Freed, Stanley A. 1963. “Fictive kinship in a north Indian village.” Ethology (1): 86–103.Google Scholar
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. “Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 14(2): 237–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
He, Ziran, and Wei Ren. 2016. “Current address behavior in China.” East Asian Pragmatics 1(2): 163–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Jiebao. 2005. “亲属称谓语外化”及其使用规则——从‘大嫂’称谓说开去 [Kinship term extension and its usage rules – take ‘da sao’ as an example].” Research on Social Language Use (10): 12–13.Google Scholar
Jin, Li, and Yan Jin. 2007. “合作原则在大学生话语交际中的应用 [The application of the cooperative principle in everyday communication among college students].” Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies 11: 20–27.Google Scholar
Keshavarz, Mohammad H. 2001. “The role of social context, intimacy, and distance in the choice of forms of address.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1481: 5–18.Google Scholar
Kueh, Joshua. 2013. “Adaptive strategies of Parián Chinese fictive kinship and credit in seventeenth-century Manila.” Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints 61(3): 362–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Lee-Wong, Song M. 1994. “Imperatives in requests: direct or impolite – observations from Chinese.” Pragmatics 4(4): 491–515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Shuxin, and Ying Yang. 2005. “汉语亲属称谓泛化的文化心理考察 [A cultural psychological study on Chinese kinship term generalization].” Inner Mongolia Social Sciences (3): 89–92.Google Scholar
Ma, Ying. 2003. “《红楼梦》中拟亲属称谓语的语用原则及语用功能 [The Pragmatic principles and functions of generalized kinship terms in A Dream of Red Mansions ].” Journal of Huainan Teachers College 18(5): 12–14.Google Scholar
Mazzon, Gabriella. 2010. “Terms of Address.” In Historical Pragmatics, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker and Irma Taavitsainen, 351–376. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 1985. Whose Language? A study in linguistic pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell. [1993]Google Scholar
Nakassis, Constantine V. 2014. “Suspended kinship and youth sociality in Tamil Nadu, India.” Current Anthropology 55(2): 175–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norbeck, Edward, and Harumi Befu. 1958. “Informal fictive kinship in Japan.” American Anthropologist (1): 102–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Okada, Ferdinand E. 1957. “Ritual brotherhood: A cohesive factor in Nepalese society.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13(3): 212–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pan, Pan. 1998. “论亲属称谓语的泛化 [A study on the generalization of kinship terms].” Applied Linguistics 21: 34–38.Google Scholar
Pan, Yuling. 2000. “Facework in Chinese service encounters.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication (10): 25–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pan, Yuling, and Daniel Z. Kádár. 2011. “Historical vs. contemporary Chinese linguistic politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 1525–1539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Placencia, Maria Elena. 2015. “Address Forms and Relational Work in e-Commerce: The Case of Service Encounter Interactions in MercadoLibre Ecuador.” In A Multidisciplinary Approach to Service Encounters, ed. by María Hernández-López and Lucía Fernández-Amaya, 37–64. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savić, Milica. 2018. “Lecturer perceptions of im/politeness and in/appropriateness in student e-mail requests: A Norwegian perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 1241: 52–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne Scollon. 2001. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 2013. “The impact of globalization on politeness and impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 551: 86–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, Yongmei. 2013. “研究生导师组集体身份的话语建构研究—以导师组‘我们’的使用为例 [A study on the discourse construct of MA advisor team’s collective identities – A case study of the use of ‘we/us’].” Foreign Languages and Teaching 61: 11–14.Google Scholar
Tian, Zhengping, and Xiaoqian Zhang. 2007. “‘老师’称谓源流考 [On the origin and development of the title ‘laoshi’ (teacher)].” Journal of Zhejiang University 37 (3): 61–67.Google Scholar
Wu, Yongyi. 1990. “The usages of kinship address forms amongst non-kin in mandarin Chinese: the extension of family solidarity.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 101: 61–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiang, Lin. 2008. “‘老板’称谓语的变迁及其动因 [A study on the generalization of ‘Laoban’ (boss) and its reasons].” Modern Chinese 31: 114–115.Google Scholar
You, Chenghong. 2014. “Analysis on the Generalization of the Address Term ‘Teacher’ in Chinese from the Perspective of Sociolinguistics.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4(3): 575–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Qi, and Xiaohong Xu. 2009. “上海话和东北话亲属称呼语泛化不均衡现象研究 [A case study on unbalanced fictive use of kinship terms in northeastern dialect and Shanghai dialect].” Journal of Jilin Normal University 37(1): 54–56.Google Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Xiao, Qi & Ling Zhou
2024. How face is perceived in Chinese and Japanese. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 34:2 ► pp. 264 ff. DOI logo
Ren, Wei & Saeko Fukushima
2023. Chapter 4. Address terms in social media requests. In It's different with you [Topics in Address Research, 5], ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Kun & Jing Chen
2023. The son (érzi) is not really a son. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 33:1 ► pp. 78 ff. DOI logo
Li, Jie & Xinren Chen
2022. The performance and relational role of toast intervention in Chinese dining contexts. Pragmatics and Society 13:4 ► pp. 625 ff. DOI logo
Yang, Na & Zihe Wang
2022. Addressing as a gender-preferential way for suggestive selling in Chinese e-commerce live streaming discourse: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Pragmatics 197 ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Günthner, Susanne
2021. Praktiken der Personenreferenz in chinesischen und deutschen Chat-Interaktionen: Die kommunikative Konstruktion von Kulturalität. Interkulturelles Forum der deutsch-chinesischen Kommunikation 1:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Günthner, Susanne
2023. Chapter 5. Practices of person reference in Chinese and German interactions. In It's different with you [Topics in Address Research, 5], ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Han, Nuo, Xiaopeng Ren, Peijing Wu, Xiaoqian Liu & Tingshao Zhu
2021. Increase of Collectivistic Expression in China During the COVID-19 Outbreak: An Empirical Study on Online Social Networks. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Chen (陈新仁), Xinren & Juanjuan Ren (任娟娟)
2020. A memetic cultural practice: The use of generalized kinship terms in a research seminar attended by Chinese graduate students. Lingua 245 ► pp. 102942 ff. DOI logo
Xia, Jie
2020. “Loving you”: Use of metadiscourse for relational acts in WeChat public account advertisements. Discourse, Context & Media 37 ► pp. 100416 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.