The son (érzi) is not really a son: Generalization of address terms in Chinese online discourse

Kun Yang and Jing Chen

Abstract

This paper aims to explore the generalization of address terms in online discourse, a largely unheeded pragmatic phenomenon. Taking the generalized Chinese kinship term “son” (érzi) as an example, it analyzes its referents and functions. The analysis was based on a sizable data set collected from WeChat, and interviews with some WeChat users. It demonstrates that the address term “son” (érzi) conveys its faithful meaning when referring to the male child of (a) parent(s) but virtual meaning when referring to the addresser’s friends, classmates or pets. It is also argued that the generalized use of the address term “son” (érzi) can function to enhance relationships, make jocular abuse, and express emotions. These functions suggest the users’ identity avoidance and relating needs in a virtual community. This study attempts to contribute to a better understanding of the virtualization of address terms and rapport management in online discourse.

Keywords:
Publication history
Table of contents

Address terms are words and expressions for addressing individuals or groups in communication (Alenizi 2019). They can be divided into two categories, namely, kin terms and social terms (Dickey 1997). Among them, kin terms refer to relatives, such as “mum”, “dad”, “son”, and “cousin”, whereas social terms refer to non-relatives, such as “friends”, “colleagues” or even “strangers” (Liu 2009; Sandel 2002). Interestingly, kin terms are frequently employed to address non-relatives in daily communication, which leads to the phenomenon of generalization (Chen and Ren 2020; Nakassis 2014; Ren and Chen 2019). Besides, most of the generalized kin terms in face-to-face interaction are age-based, and they may be borrowed from (1) antecedent kin terms, such as “aunt” or “uncle”, and (2) descendent kin terms, such as “younger brother” (Ren and Chen 2019). Notably, although there truly exist generalized kin terms which are borrowed from descendent kin terms, they are less frequently used, especially in face-to-face interaction (e.g., “son”). The reason might be that this would violate the politeness principle (Fleming and Slotta 2018) or Address Maxim (Gu 1990). However, the borrowing of these descendent kin terms is a common occurrence in online discourse. In addition, while the generalization of kinship terms in face-to-face communication is considered to assist in maintaining and enriching social interaction (Mavunga et al. 2014), whether it performs the same functions online remains unclear.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Afful, J. B. Archibald
2006 “Address Terms among University Students in Ghana: A Case Study.” Language and Intercultural Communication 6 (1): 76–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Address Forms among University Students in Ghana: A Case of Gendered Identities?Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 31 (5): 443–456. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alenizi, Aied
2019 “The Norms of Address Terms in Arabic: The Case of Saudi Speech Community.” International Journal of English Linguistics 9 (5): 227–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anchimbe, Eric
2008 “ ‘Come Greet Uncle Eric’ – Politeness Through Kinship Terms.” In De La Politesse Linguistique au Cameroun [Linguistic Politeness in Cameroon], ed. by Mulo F. Bernard, 109–120. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Arundale, Robert B.
2010 “Constituting Face in Conversation: Face, Facework, and Interactional Achievement.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8): 2078–2105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bin Towairesh, Abdullah
2012 “The Use of Term of Address in the City of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.” Ph.D. diss., University of Queensland. Brisbane.
Braun, Friederike
1988Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger, and Marguerite Ford
1961 “Address in American English.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62 (2): 375–385. CrossrefGoogle 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: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1989 “Politeness Theory and Shakespeare’s Four Major Tragedies.” Language in Society 18 (2): 159–212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cao, Xianghong
2007 “The Effect of Age and Gender on the Choice of Address Forms in Chinese Personal Letters.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 11 (3): 392–407. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carstarphen, Meta G., and Jacqueline Johnson Lambiase
1998 “Domination and Democracy in Cyberspace: Reports from the Majority Media and Ethnic/Gender Margins.” In Cyberghetto or Cybertopia?: Race, Class, and Gender on the Internet, ed. by Bosah Ebo, 121–136. Westport & London: Praeger.Google Scholar
Che, Yuejiao 车越娇
2019 “Jiyu shehui yuyan xue de nvxing fensi yanyu shequ yanjiu 基于社会语言学的女性粉丝言语社区研究 [Research on the Speech Community of Female Fans Based on Sociolinguistics].” M.A. thesis, Bohai daxue 渤海大学 [Bohai University].
Chen, Jing 陈静
2018 “Fudao yuan qinshu lei shenfen dingwei xianxiang yu fenxi 辅导员亲属类身份定位现象与分析 [Analysis of the University Counselor’s Kinship Identity Positioning].” Henan keji xueyuan xuebao 河南科技学院学报 [Journal of Hennan Institute of Science and Technology] (1): 100–104.Google Scholar
Chen, Qin, and Yang Xuming 陈琴, 杨绪明
2015 “ ‘Ge/jie’ deng qinshu chengwei zicheng yi fanhua yanjiu ‘哥/姐’等亲属称谓自称义泛化研究 [On the Generalization of the Self-addressed Kinship Terms ‘Ge/Jie’].” Guangxi shifan xueyuan xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 广西师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版) [Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition)] 36 (1): 128–131.Google Scholar
Chen, Songcen 陈松岑
1984 “Beijing chengqu liangdairen dui shang yi bei qinshu shiyong qinshu chengwei de bianhua 北京城区两代人对上一辈亲属使用亲属称谓的变化 [The Changes of Using Kinship Terms to Address Non-kins from the Previous Generation in Beijing Downtown].” Yuwen Yanjiu 语文研究 [Linguist Research] 2: 43–49.Google Scholar
Chen, Xinren
2019 “ ‘You’re a Nuisance!’: ‘Patch-up’ Jocular Abuse in Chinese Fiction.” Journal of Pragmatics 139: 52–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2022Exploring Identity Work in Chinese Communication. London: Bloomsbury. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Xinren, and Juanjuan Ren
2020 “A Memetic Cultural Practice: The Use of Generalized Kinship Terms in a Research Seminar Attended by Chinese Graduate Students.” Lingua 245: 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E.
2018 “Address Terms in the Organization of Turns at Talk: The Case of Pivotal Turn Extensions.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1853–1867. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cong, Li, and Li Linin 丛丽, 李琳琳
2013 “Yujing shunying lilun shijiao xia qinshu chengweiyu de fanhua fanyi yanjiu 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].” Jinlin huagong xueyuan xuebao 吉林化工学院学报 [Journal of Jilin Institute of Chemical Technology] (10): 28–31.Google Scholar
Crozier, W. Ray, and Patricia S. Dimmock
1999 “Name-calling and Nicknames in a Sample of Primary School Children.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 69: 505–516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Klerk, Vivian, and Barbara Bosch
1999 “Nicknames as Evidence of Verbal Playfulness.” Multilingua 18 (1): 1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, Eleanor
1997 “Forms of Address and Terms of Reference.” Journal of Linguistics 33: 255–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Literal and Extended Use of Kinship Terms in Documentary Papyri.” Mnemosyne 57 (2): 131–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dornyo, Philip
2010 “Nicknaming Practices among University Students: A Case Study of the University of Cape Coast.” B.A. thesis, University of Cape Coast.
Du, Xuan 杜璇
2017 “Xiandai hanyu qinshu chengwei de fanhua tanjiu 现代汉语亲属称谓的泛化探究 [A Study on the Modern Chinese Kinship Terms Generalization].” Xiandai yuwen 现代语文 [Modern Chinese] (3): 119–122.Google Scholar
Fitch, Kristine L.
1991 “The Interplay of Linguistic Universals and Cultural Knowledge in Personal Address: Columbian Madre Terms.” Comunication Monographs 58: 254–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, Luke, and James Slotta
2018 “The Pragmatics of Kin Address: A Sociolinguistic Universal and Its Semantic Affordances.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 22 (4): 375–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Annie B., Danuta Bukatko, Mark Hallahan, and Mary Crawford
2007 “The Medium Makes a Difference Gender Similarities and Differences in Instant Messaging.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 26 (4): 389–397. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gu, Yueguo
1990 “Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 14: 237–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hampel, Elisabeth
2015 “ ‘Mama Zimbi, Pls Help Me!’ – Gender Differences in (Im)politeness in Ghanaian English Advice-giving on Facebook.” Journal of Politeness Research 11 (1): 99–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, Elke
2013 “All Men Become Brothers: The Use of Kinship Terms for Non-related Persons as a Sign of Respect or Disrespect.” Linguistik Online 51: 1–12.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1960 “Linguistic and Poetics.” In Style in Language, ed. by Thomas A. Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ju, Zhucheng
1991 “The ‘Depreciation’ and ‘Appreciation’ of Some Address Terms in China.” Language in Society 20: 387–390. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kraska-Szlenk, Iwona
2018 “Address Inversion in Swahili: Usage Patterns, Cognitive Motivation and Cultural Factors.” Cognitive Linguistics 29 (3): 545–583. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kueh, Joshua
2013 “Adaptive Strategies of Parian Chinese Fictive Kinship and Credit in Seventeenth-century Manila.” Philippine Studies: Historical & Ethnographic Viewpoints 61 (3): 362–384. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Heeju, Danjie Su, and Hongyin Tao
2017 “A Crosslinguistic Study of Some Extended Uses of What-based Interrogative Expressions in Chinese, English, and Korean.” Chinese Language and Discourse 8 (2): 137–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983Pragmatics. London: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, Jin
2018 “Digital Affordances on WeChat: Learning Chinese as a Second Language.” Computer Assisted Language Learning 31 (1–2): 27–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Yonghou
2009 “Determinants of Stall-holders’ Address Forms to Customers in Beijing’s Low-status Clothing Markets.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 638–648. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
1977Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maalej, Zouhair
2010 “Addressing Non-acquaintances in Tunisian Arabic: A Cognitive Pragmatic Account.” Intercultural Pragmatics 7 (1): 147–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martiny, Thierry
1996 “Forms of Address in French and Dutch: A Sociopragmatic Approach.” Language Sciences 18 (3–4): 365–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mavunga, George, John Mutambwa, and Partson Kutsaru
2014 “ ‘Iwe’ or ‘imi’? An Analysis of Terms of Address Used by Police Officers at Mbare Police Station.” Language Matters 45 (1): 148–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, John
2008Doing Optimality Theory: Applying Theory to Data. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jennifer
2000 “Language Use, Identity and Social Interaction: Migrant Students in Australia.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 33 (1): 69–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mühlhaüsler, Peter, and Rom Harré
1990Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nakassis, Constantine V.
2014 “Suspended Kinship and Youth Sociality in Tamil Nadu, India.” Current Anthropology 55 (2): 175–199. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Obeng, Samuel Gyasi
1999 “Requests in Akan Discourse.” Anthropological Linguistics 41 (2): 230–251.Google Scholar
Pan, Pan 潘攀
1998 “Lun qinshu chengwei yu de fanhua 论亲属称谓语的泛化 [On Kinship Term Generalization].” Yuyan wenzi yingyong 语言文字应用 [Applied Linguistics] (2): 34–38.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svatrvik
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ren, Juanjuan, and Xinren Chen
2019 “Kinship Term Generalization as a Cultural Pragmatic Strategy among Chinese Graduate Students.” Pragmatics and Society 10 (4): 613–638. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rendle-Short, Johanna
2007 “ ‘Catherine, You’re Wasting Your Time’: Address Terms within the Australian Political Interview.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1503–1525. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandel, Todd L.
2002 “Kinship Address: Socializing Young Children in Taiwan.” Western Journal of Communication 66 (8): 257–280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandel, Todd L., Chuyue Ou, Dorji Wangchuk, Bei Ju, and Miguel Duque
2019 “Unpacking and Describing Interaction on Chinese WeChat: A Methodological Approach.” Journal of Pragmatics 143: 228–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oteay, Helen
2000Culturally Speaking Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Taylor, Charlotte
2016Mock Politeness in English and Italian: A Corpus-assisted Metalanguage Analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Jenny A.
1995Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
1989 “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change.” Language 57: 33–65. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans-Jörg Schmid
1996An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Wang, Na 王娜
2006 “Xiandai hanyu qinshu chengwei yu de fan hua yanjiu 现代汉语亲属称谓语的泛化研究 [A Study on the Modern Chinese Kinship Term Generalization].” M. A. Thesis, Qufu shifan daxue 曲阜师范大学 [Qufu Normal University].
Wardhaugh, Ronald
1986An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wong, Andrew D.
2008 “The Trouble with Tongzhi: The Politics of Labeling among Gay and Lesbian Hongkongers.” Pragmatics 18 (2): 277–301.Google Scholar
Yang, Kun
2021 “Disclaimer as a Metapragmatic Device in Chinese: A Corpus Based Study.” Journal of Pragmatics 173: 167–176. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yueh, Hsin-I.
2017Identity Politics and Popular Culture in Taiwan: A Sajiao Generation. London: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Yule, George
2006The Study of Language. UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco
2011Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated Communication in Context. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Jie, and Ma Yikun 张杰, 马一琨
2021 “Yujing bengkui: Pingtai ke gong xing haishi xin shehui qingjing? – Gainian suyuan yu lilun jifa 语境崩溃:平台可供性还是新社会情境—概念溯源与理论激发 [Context Collapse: Platform Availability or New Social Context?: Concept tracing and theoretical inspiration]” Xinwen jizhe 新闻记者 [Shanghai Journalism Review] (2): 27–38.Google Scholar
Zhao, Qi, and Xu Xiaohong 赵琪, 徐晓红
2009 “Shanghai hua he dongbei hua qinshu chenghu yu fan hua bu junheng xianxiang yanjiu 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].” Jilin shifan daxue xuebao(renwen shehui kexue ban) 吉林师范大学学报(人文社会科学版) [Jilin Normal University Journal (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition)] (1): 54–56.Google Scholar
Zhou, Lei 周雷
2019 “Wangluo liuxing yu ‘X ya’ weitan 网络流行语‘X鸭’微探 [An Exploration of the Internet Buzzword ‘X ya (duck)’].” Hanzi wenhua 汉字文化 [Chinese Character Culture] 13: 103–106.Google Scholar
Zhu, Hua
2010 “Language Socialization and Interculturality: Address Terms in Intergenerational Talk in Chinese Diasporic Families.” Language and Intercultural Communication 10 (3): 189–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar