Cover not available

In:It's different with you: Contrastive perspectives on address research
Edited by Nicole Baumgarten and Roel Vismans
[Topics in Address Research 5] 2023
► pp. 113–141

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 5
Practices of person reference in Chinese and German interactions

A contrastive analysis of “third person reference forms” in SMS, WhatsApp and WeChat communication

 | University of Münster
Published online: 6 September 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tar.5.05gun
Abstract
Referring to persons in interaction is a central human practice (Enfield 2007: 97), which is located at an intersection where cultural, linguistic, and interactional conventions meet (Levinson 2005: 433). In this paper, I will analyse practices of “third person reference forms” used by participants in Chinese and German SMS-, WeChat- and WhatsApp-interactions. Both Chinese and German speakers make use of a range of different types of third person reference forms to laterally address their co-participants. I will argue that third person reference forms do more than simply refer to one’s co-participant: Speakers employ these practices as a “social index” (Silverstein 1976: 37) to contextualise various social meanings which would be hidden in cases of “referring simpliciter” (Schegloff 1996). In addition to finding parallels in the use of third person reference forms in our Chinese and German data, I also detect differences in the employment of forms of addressing one’s co-participants.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Reference to persons in everyday interactions: Nominal forms of referring to addressed recipients
  • 3.Third person reference forms in Chinese and German interactions
    • 3.1Kinship terms
      • 3.1.1Interactions between parents and children
      • 3.1.2Interactions between siblings and cousins
      • 3.1.3The construction of ‘metaphorical kinship-relations’ by using kinship terms among non-kin participants
    • 3.2Pet names
    • 3.3Ad hoc descriptors and names
    • 3.4Honorifics
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (57)
References
Agha, Asif. 2007. Language and social relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum, Susan D. 1997. Naming practices and the power of words in China. Language in Society 26. 357–379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Braun, Friederike. 1988. Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1934/82. Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: UTB Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cao, Wie. 2005. Appellation and Addressing Terms in Modern Chinese. Journal of Jiangsu University 7/2. 62–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1956. Chinese Terms of Address. Language 32/1. 217–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christen, Helen. 2006. ‘Comutter’, ‘Papi’ und ‘Lebensabschnittsgefährte’. Untersuchungen zum Sprachgebrauch im Kontext heutiger Formen des Zusammenlebens. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2014. Introduction. In Chris Collins (ed.), Cross linguistic Studies of Imposters and Pronominal Agreement. 1–46. [URL]. (08 August, 2020). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dammel, Antje, Yvonne Niekrenz, Andrea Rapp & Eva L. Wyss. 2018. Muckelchen oder Süßer? Onymische Gender-Konstruktionen bei Kosenamen im Liebesbrief. In Stefan Hirschauer & Damaris Nübling (eds.), Namen und Geschlechter. Studien zum onymischen un/doing Gender. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. 157–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick. 2007. Meanings of the unmarked: How ‘default’ person reference does more than just refer. In Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 97–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fang, Hanqian & J. H. Heng. 1983. Social Changes and Changing Address Norms in China. Language and Society 12(4). 495–507. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gao, Chunmin. 2013. A Contrastive Study of Chinese and English Address Forms. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 3(1). 190–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1979. Footing. Semiotica 15–1/2. 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1992. Contextualization and understanding. In Alessandro Duranti & Charles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 229–252.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 2000. Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion. Grammatische, prosodische, rhetorisch-stilistische und interaktive Verfahren bei der Konstitution kommunikativer Muster und Gattungen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Die kommunikative Konstruktion von Kultur: Chinesische und deutsche Anredepraktiken im Gebrauch. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik (ZfAL) 66. 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Perspektiven einer sprach- und kulturvergleichenden Interaktionsforschung: Chinesische und deutsche Praktiken nominaler Selbstreferenz in SMS-, WhatsApp- und WeChat-Interaktionen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 19. 478–514.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019a. ‘der herr ingenIEUR hi isch was ↑BESSeres.’ – Formen und Funktionen nominaler Bezugnahmen auf das Gegenüber. In Tanja Gnosa, & Kerstin Kallass (eds.), Grenzgänge. Digitale Festschrift für Wolf-Andreas Liebert. [URL][URL]. (08 January, 2020).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019b. Tigerle plagt der Hunger. Die kommunikative Konstruktion sozialer Beziehungen – namentliche Selbstreferenzen in der WhatsApp-Interaktion. Vortrag gehalten bei der Tagung: Wissen, Kommunikation und Re-Figuration – Wissenssoziologie. Berlin. (29 March, 2019).
. (2021): „Kommunikative Praktiken und Kulturalität — Namentliche Selbstreferenzen in deutschen und chinesischen SMS-, WhatsApp- und WeChat-Inter­aktionen”. In: Zhao, Jing (Hrsg.): Kulturalität der Sprache und Sprachlichkeit der Kultur. Berlin: Peter Lang. 99–121.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne & Thomas Luckmann. 2001. Asymmetries of Knowledge in Intercultural Communication: The Relevance of Cultural Repertoires of Communicative Genres. In Aldo Di Luzio, Susanne Günthner & France Orletti (eds.), Culture in Communication: Analyses of Intercultural Situations. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 55–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne & Qiang Zhu. 2015. Formen ‘verbaler Fellpflege’: Kosende Anredepraktiken in chinesischen und deutschen SMS-Dialogen. Deutsche Sprache 43/1. 42–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Beziehungsgestaltung durch Sprache. In: Jianhua Zhu, Jin Zhao & Michael Szurawitzki (eds.), Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses Shanghai 2015, Germanistik zwischen Tradition und Innovation. Band 3. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang. 39–44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017. Anredeformen im Kulturvergleich. Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen als Mittel der kommunikativen Konstruktion sozialer Beziehungen in chinesischen und deutschen SMS-Interaktionen. In Angelika Linke & Juliane Schröter (eds.), Sprache und Beziehung. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. 119–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanks, William F. 2007. Person reference in Yucatex Maya conversation. In Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference in interaction. Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 149–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haviland, John B. 2007. Person reference in Tzotzil gossip: referring dupliciter. In: Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 226–252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hentschel, Elke. 2012. All men become brothers – The use of kinship terms for non-related persons as a sign of respect or disrespect. Linguistic Online 51/1, [URL]. (12 July, 2020). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hong, Beverly. 1985. Politeness in Chinese: Impersonal Pronouns and Personal Greeting. Anthropological Linguistics 2. 204–213.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leipzig Glossing Rules. 2015. The Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses, [URL]. (08 January, 2020).
Levinson, Stephen. 2005. Living with Manny’s dangerous idea. Discourse Studies 7(4–5). 431–453. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lian, Xiaoxia & Mei Han. 2015. A Sociolinguistic Study of the Spouse Appellation: Laogong and Laopo. Journal of Hunan University of Science & Technology 18. 142–148. (Original Citation: 连晓霞 / 韩梅 2015: ‘老公”“老婆”称谓的社会语言学调查. 湖南科技大学学报(社会科学版18, 142–148)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linke, Angelika. 2001. Zur allmählichen Verfertigung soziokultureller Konzepte im Medium alltäglichen Sprachgebrauchs. In: Andrea Lehr et al. (eds.), Sprache im Alltag: Beiträge zu neuen Perspektiven in der Linguistik. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 373–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luckmann, Thomas. 1990. Social communication, dialogue and conversation. In Ivana Marková & Klaus Foppa (eds.), The Dynamics of Dialogue. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 45–61.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. The Communicative Construction of Reality and Sequential Analysis. A personal reminiscence. Qualitative Sociology Review IX (2). 40–46. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macha, Jürgen. 1997. Konstanz, Variation und Wandel familiärer Anredeformen. In Hildegard Macha & Lutz Mauermann (eds.), Brennpunkte der Familienerziehung. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag. 199–218.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris, Fabian Fahlbusch & Rita Heuser. 2012. Namen. Eine Einführung in die Onomastik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita & Jenny Mandelbaum. 2005. Conversation Analytic Approaches to the Relevance and Uses of Relationship Categories in Interaction. In Kristine Fitch & Robert E. Sanders (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. 149–171.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1967/92. Lectures on Conversation. Volumes I & II. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1972. On the analyzability of stories by children. In John Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Blackwell. 325–345.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey & Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1979. Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language. Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington. 15–21.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics. In: Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 437–485. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schütz, Alfred. 1951. Making Music Together. A Study in Social Relationship. Social Research. 18(1). 76–97.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack & Nick Enfield. 2017. Deixis and the Interactional Foundation of Reference. In Yan Huang (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 217–239.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In Keith Basso & Henry Selby (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 11–55.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1985. Language and the culture of gender: at the intersection of structure, usage and ideology. In Elizabeth Mertz & Richard. J. Parmentier (eds.), Semiotic Meditation: Sociocultural and psychological perspectives. Orlando: Academic Press. 219–259. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2007. Alternative recognitionals in person reference. In Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 73–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Nick Enfield & Stephen Levinson. 2007. Person reference in interaction. In Nick Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference in Interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tao, Liang. 1996. Topic Discontinuity and Zero Anaphora in Chinese Discourse. In Barbara Fox (ed.), Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 487–514. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Arthur. 2014. Mandarin Pseudo-Imposters. In Chris Collins (ed.), Cross linguistic Studies of Imposters and Pronominal Agreement. 1–46. [URL]. (08 August, 2020). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wu, Yongi. 1990. The usage of kinship address forms amongst non-kin in mandarin Chinese: the extension of family solidarity. Australian Journal of Linguistics 10. 61–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wyss, Eva Lia. 2012. Liebeserklärungen zwischen Ernsthaftigkeit und Fiktionalisierung. Inszenierung von Leidenschaft in schriftlichen Liebesbotschaften von Kindern, Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen. In Eva Neuland (ed.), Sprache der Generationen. Mannheim: Duden Verlag. 294–309.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yan, Yunxiang. 2010. The Chinese path to individualization. British Journal of Sociology 61(3). 489–512. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhu, Qiang. 2014. Kontrastive Studie zum Anredeverhalten in chinesischer und deutscher SMS-Interaktion. In Katharina König & Nils Bahlo (eds.), SMS, WhatsApp & Co. Gattungsanalytische, kontrastive und variationslinguistische Perspektiven zur Analyse mobiler Kommunikation. Münster: Monsenstein und Vannerdat. 125–144.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue