In:Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in language and social interaction
Edited by Jan 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
Published online: 17 November 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.326.06pii
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.326.06pii
Abstract
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.
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
References (44)
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.
Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The
Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology
of
Knowledge. London: Penguin.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1990. “You
Don’t Touch Lettuce with Your Fingers: Parental Politeness
in Family Discourse.” Journal
of
Pragmatics 14: 259–288.
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.
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.
Bühler, Karl. 1990[1934]. Theory
of Language: The Representational Function of
Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
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.
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.
Clayman, Steven E. 2010. “Address
Terms in the Service of Other Actions: The Case of News
Interview Talk.” Discourse
& Communication 4
(2): 161–183.
Craven, Alexandra and Jonathan Potter. 2010. “Directives:
Entitlement and Contingency in
Action.” Discourse
Studies 12: 419–442.
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.
Duranti, Alessandro. 2010. “Husserl,
Intersubjectivity and
Anthropology.” Anthropological
Theory 10
(1): 1–20.
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.
Etelämäki, Marja. 2016. “Introduction:
Discourse, Grammar and
Intersubjectivity.” Nordic
Journal of Linguistics 39
(2): 101–112.
Galeano, Giorgia and Alessandro Fasulo. 2009. “Sequenze
direttive tra genitori e
figli.” Etnografia e Ricerca
Qualitativa 2/2009: 261–278.
Hanks, William F. 1990. Referential
Practice, Language and Lived Space among the
Maya. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Haverkate, Henk. 1992. “Deictic
Categories as Mitigating
Devices.” Pragmatics 2
(4): 505–522.
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.
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel
and
Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK and Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Jaffe, Alexandra. 2009. “Introduction:
The Sociolinguistics of
Stance.” In Stance,
Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed.
by Alexandra Jaffe, 3–28. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kendon, Adam. 1995. “Gestures
as Illocutionary and Discourse Structure Markers in Southern
Italian
Conversation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 23: 247–279.
Lerner, Gene H. 2003. “Selecting
Next Speaker: The Context-Sensitive Operation of a
Context-Free
Organization.” Language in
Society 32: 177–201.
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.
Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking
Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and
Contextual Theories of Human Sense
Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Mead, George H. 1934. Mind,
Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social
Behaviorist. Chicago, IL and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Mehan, Hugh. 1979. Learning
Lessons: Social Organization in the
Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Visakko, Tomi. 2015. Self-Promotion
as Semiotic Behavior: The Mediation of Personhood in Light
of Finnish Online Dating
Advertisements. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
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.
Yassin, Mahmoud Aziz. F. 1975. “A
Linguistic Study of Forms of Address in Kuwaiti Colloquial
Arabic.” PhD
dissertation. Leeds University.