Forms of Address in American and Syrian Lingua-Cultures: A Socio-Pragmatic Perspective (Формы обращения в американской и сирийской лингвокультурах: социопрагматичеcкий аспект) тема диссертации и автореферата по ВАК РФ 10.02.20, кандидат наук Халил Амр А А

• Халил Амр А А
• кандидат наук
• 2022

Оглавление диссертации кандидат наук Халил Амр А А

Table of Contents

Contents

INTRODUCTION

Chapter I: ADDRESS AS AN OBJECT OF SOCIO-CULTURAL AND SOCIO-PRAGMATIC RESEARCH

1.1. Socio-cultural factors influencing the choice of address forms

1.2. Social organization and cultural values

1.3. Classification schemes of address forms

1.4. Literature review of address forms

1.4.1. Address as a reflection of power, solidarity, politeness, and social relationships

1.4.2. Address as an expression of emotion, attitudes, and distance versus intimacy

1.5. Forms of address and (im)politeness as important aspects of language use

1.5.1. Socio-cultural approaches to (im)politeness

1.5.2. Pragmatic approaches to (im)politeness

1.5.3. Forms of address and (im)politeness across cultures

Summary

Chapter II: MAJOR CATEGORIES OF ADDRESS FORMS IN SYRIAN ARABIC AND AMERICAN ENGLISH

2.1. First names

2.2. Terms of endearment

2.2.1. Terms of endearment in Syrian Arabic

2.2.2. Terms of endearment in American English

2.3. Kinship terms

2.3.1. Kinship terms in Syrian Arabic

2.3.2. Kinship terms in American English

2.4. Teknonyms as forms of address

2.4.1. Definitions, types, and functions

2.4.2. Teknonyms in Syrian Arabic

2.5. Zero address forms in Syrian Arabic and American English

Summary

Chapter III: CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF ADDRESS FORMS IN AMERICAN AND SYRIAN DISCOURSE

3.1. Data and methodology

3.2. Discourse analysis of Syrian address practices

3.2.1. First names in the Syrian discourse

3.2.2. Terms of endearment in the Syrian discourse

3.2.3. Kinship terms in the Syrian discourse

3.2.4. Teknonyms in the Syrian discourse

3.2.5. Zero address in the Syrian discourse

3.3. Discourse analysis of American address practices

3.3.1. First names in the American discourse

3.3.2. Terms of endearment in the American discourse

3.3.3. Kinship terms in the American discourse

3.3.4. Zero address forms in the American discourse

3.4. Contrastive analysis of Syrian Arabic and American English address practices

3.4.1. First names

3.4.2. Terms of endearment

3.4.3. Kinship terms

3.4.4. Teknonyms

3.4.5. Zero address forms

Summary

CONCLUDING REMARKS

References

Appendices

Введение диссертации (часть автореферата) на тему «Forms of Address in American and Syrian Lingua-Cultures: A Socio-Pragmatic Perspective (Формы обращения в американской и сирийской лингвокультурах: социопрагматичеcкий аспект)»

INTRODUCTION

Interacting with other people through language is not just a mere exchange of information, thoughts, or opinions; it is a complicated process in which relationships of the participants in a conversation are outlined or even negotiated. During this process, the use of language may reveal the interlocutors' cultural conceptualizations (cf. Sharifian 2017; Sharifian & Jamarani 2013), belonging to a specific culture or speech community, and inclination to show closeness or distance to other individuals. Besides, once a speaker is engaged in an interaction, they constantly make linguistic decisions or choices, determining how they position themselves and others in the interaction, which is often expressed by forms of address1.

The use of address forms is natural and very frequent among interlocutors in their daily interactions. Addressing other people is significant in connection with social relationship makings since the use of address forms reverberates attitudes and sheds light on the relationships of interlocutors. Speakers are able to regulate the degree of social or power distance between them and their addressees with address forms, e.g., first names, endearment terms, honorifics, etc. (cf. Norrby, Schupbach, Hajek & Kretzenbacher 2019)

Forms of address are crucial tools for any successful communication (Kluge et al. 2019: 24, Parkinson 1985: 3). They are regarded as remarkable indicators of both social relationships and status as well (Yang, 2010). Similarly, they symbolize utterances that indicate some aspects of the communicants' relationships, such as social status, position, and identity differences (Yule 2020: 318). Addressees draw their conclusions such as being disrespected or respected; hated or loved; accepted or rejected based on how they are addressed by their speakers (DuFon 2010: 309). Thus, an inappropriate use of address forms may convey a wrong message resulting

1 Forms of address and address forms are used interchangeably in the present study.

in a disturbance in the communicants' social relationships (c.f. Brown & Levinson 1987: 126).

The relevance of the study. The problem of conveying attitudes towards interlocutors and their understanding is complicated by the fact that different communities and ethnic groups employ different strategies to achieve their social goals, such as establishing relationships. Correspondingly, different languages provide culture-specific sets of address forms (e.g., Ahn 2017; Braun 1988; Clyne 2009; Kluge et al. 2019; Norrby & Wide 2015; Kotorova 2018; Kretzenbacher & Schupbach 2015; Rhee 2019; Rendle-Short 2009; Wierzbicka 2013 among many others). Featuring "interpersonal and transcultural ramifications" of relationships, forms of address are vital factors for comprehending communicative behaviors (Leech 1999) and accounting for how social relationships are structured both socially and strategically (Morford 1997; Raymond 2016).

Encoding social norms, cultural and religious values of communicants and their conceptualizations of impolite and polite behaviors, forms of address signify an essential component of social and cultural identity (Bila, Kacmarova & Vankova 2020). They can also be seen as social interaction opening sequence, self-esteem indictors and means of showing appreciation of other interlocutors (Dittrich, Johansen & Kulinskaya 2011). Therefore, forms of address offer a wealth of information on how the speakers of a given speech community perceive and categorize their interlocutors and how they organize their relationships as well (Fasold 1990; Holmes 2013). Forms of address are, in other words, important linguistic as well as cognitive means that exhibit how speakers perceive their addressees (Maalej 2010: 148; Parkinson 1985: 1).

Forms of address are fundamental means for interaction. They represent specific instances of language use (Wodak & Meyer 2015), forms of address reflect social construction on language because they encode information related to age, gender,

and social class of interlocutors along with the level of formality and informality of the context (Holms & Wilson 2017). Forms of address, simply put, are significant means that reflect attitudes and relationships of interlocutors and reveal information regarding their social class, age, and gender. As they also reverberate cultural values and norms of a particular speech community, forms of address are fundamental means for interaction, and they can be a great source of miscommunication among speakers of different linguistic backgrounds due to the variation in their use from one culture to another (Wierzbicka, 2015).

The degree of scientific development of the research problem. Investigating forms of address in different contexts and cultures is of great interest and a quite relevant topic. It has attracted scholarly attention aiming at studying forms of address in a wide variety of cultures and languages and finding out the variables governing their use since the advent of Brown & Gilman's (1960) work. However, the studies tackling repertoires of address forms across different languages, cultures, and speech communities have mostly taken into account the European cultures (e.g., Bruns & Kranich 2021; Clyne, Kretzenbacher, Norrby, & Warren 2003; Dittrich, Johansen & Kulinskaya 2011; Tchesnokova 1998). Research covering the Arab cultures and Arabic-speaking communities has not been given due attention. The relatively scarce research on such cultures includes Al-Qudah (2017) analyzing address forms in Jordanian Arabic, Farghal & Shakir (1994) investigating Jordanian Arabic kinship terms, Khalil & Larina (2018) exploring Arabic kinship terms, Maalej (2010) discussing Tunisian Arabic address terms used among non-acquaintances, Parkinson (1985) tackling Egyptian Arabic forms of address, and Yassin (1978) discussing personal names of address in Kuwaiti Arabic. With specific reference to research on forms of address, there have been no analyses of the Syrian Arabic address system, particularly in sociopragmatic and lingua-cultural

perspectives. There are no comparative or contrastive studies on Syrian Arabic forms of address and their functioning in different social settings.

The main hypothesis of the study: In addition to the situational context, socio-cultural characteristics and cultural values affect the system of address forms and the preference for certain categories as well as their socio-pragmatic and functional characteristics.

The goal of the present study is to identify the linguistic and socio-pragmatic features of address forms in Syrian Arabic and American English and explain them through socio-cultural factors, which determine their choice and meaning. To achieve the goal, we have undertaken the following objectives:

1) to define the contextual, socio-cultural and pragmatic aspects influencing forms of address;

2) to explore the social organization and cultural values of Syrian and American societies, which shape the understanding of (im)politeness and communicative behavior of their representatives;

3) to determine the role of socio-cultural context on politeness;

4) to identify the main categories of address forms in the two cultural contexts and find out what forms are the most frequent;

5) to explore discursive practices of address in the Syrian and American communicative cultures and highlight their socio-pragmatic characteristics;

6) to identify and systematize the culture-specific features of Syrian Arabic and American English forms of address and their functioning and to reveal their influence on communicative styles;

7) to explain the culture-specific features of Syrian Arabic and American English forms of address through the social factors, values and contexts that condition them.

The present study is devoted to the role of context and social factors governing the proper choice of address forms in the Syrian Arabic and American English lingua-cultures. It explores the Syrian Arabic and American English everyday discourse focusing on forms of address within the family setting and beyond, as well as their socio-pragmatic characteristics. In other words, this study is dedicated to examine the Syrian and American everyday discourse with a focus on forms of address in various social contexts and socio-cultural and socio-pragmatic factors that predetermine their choice.

The hypotheses for the defense are as follows: Hypothesis 1. The variation in address forms is predetermined by situational, as well as socio-cultural context, namely the social organization of a society, cultural values, and understanding of (im)politeness.

Hypothesis 2. Different cultural values, namely closeness and respect to the age and status in the collectivist Syrian society and distance and equality in the individualistic American one mold the understanding of (im)politeness and communicative behavior of their representatives and predetermine the choice of address forms.

Hypothesis 3. The main categories of address forms in Syrian Arabic and American English are almost the same. They are first names, endearment terms, kinship terms, and zero forms of address. However, their frequency, relevance, functional and pragmatic features differ significantly. Besides, there is a culture-specific category in Syrian Arabic, known as teknonyms, which is an important component of the Syrian communicative culture.

Hypothesis 4. While first names are a dominant category of address forms in the American discourse where they are used to address almost everyone regardless of context, age and relationship, kinship terms are the most frequent forms of address among Syrian interlocutors. Alongside with teknonyms, they are used within the

family setting and beyond to avoid using first names that has many limitations and to signal important relations for the Syrian culture.

Hypothesis 5. Kinship terms and teknonyms are widespread and relevant categories of address in Syrian Arabic, used to indicate relationships. Pragmatically, they can express politeness, intimacy and respect. They are important components of the Syrian culture and identity testifying to the fact that both social life and identity are family-centered in Syria. The prevalence of the first names in the American culture, in contrast, testifies to an individual-centered identity of its representatives. Hypothesis 6. The socio-cultural characteristics of a society affect both the system of address forms and their pragmatic meaning and functioning, which shape their communicative ethno-styles and once again indicate the close interrelation of language, culture, cognition, and communication.

Data for the research were obtained from Syrian and American drama television series and some personal observations in addition to a questionnaire and interviews on teknonyms to highlight their socio-pragmatic attributes. A dataset of approximately 50 hours of American English and Syrian Arabic spoken discourse was collected from an American drama television series, titled as "This is us" (2016), and a Syrian drama television series, titled as "Rouzana" (2018). The American series follows the family life of two parents and their three children in different periods; the Syrian series narrates the life of Syrian people during the Syrian crisis, especially the people of Aleppo and Damascus. Overall, 586 dyadic encounters were analyzed (335 in the Syrian material and 251 in American one) in which 1570 forms of address were observed (1039 Syrian and 531 American ones).

Methodology of the study. The collected data were categorized both qualitatively and quantitatively; they were discussed theoretically as well as contextually. Implicating an interdisciplinary methodology, the study draws on:

• Sociolinguistics (Coulmas 2013; Holmes & Wilson 2017; Trudgill 2000; Wardhaugh & Fuller 2021).

• Pragmatics (Fisher & Adams 1994; Kecskes 2014; Leech 1983; Levinson 1983; Locher & Graham 2010; Senft 2014), including cross-cultural pragmatics (Wierzbicka 1991/2003, 1992, 1997).

• Linguistic anthropology (Bonvillain 2016; Ahearn 2021; Enfield, Kockelman & Sidnell 2014; Salzmann, Stanlaw & Adachi 2014).

• Theory of address forms (Braun 1988, 2012; Kluge et al. 2019; Norrby & Wide 2015).

• Politeness and impoliteness theory (Brown & Levinson 1987; Kadar & Haugh 2013; Larina 2009, 2015; Leech 2014; Leech & Larina 2014; Locher 2008, 2012, 2015, 2018; Sifianou 1992; Watts 2003, etc.).

• Discourse-pragmatic approach to emotion (Alba-Juez 2020; Alba-Juez & Larina 2018; Larina & Ponton 2022; Mackenzie & Alba-Juez 2019).

• Cultural linguistics (Sharifian 2014, 2017).

• Cultural studies (Hofstede et al. 2005; Triandis 1994, 2018; Triandis & Gelfand 1998).

Social factors such as age, gender, power distance, and social distance were taken into account throughout the whole analysis. The present study is of a limited nature as we mostly focused on the data from TV series and on the family setting. Regarding the settings beyond the family circle, the present research paper is limited to acquaintances (e.g., boyfriends/girlfriends, friends and casual acquaintances, such as neighbors) and strangers of different age and gender categories. Settings such as workplace, university, and medical facilities were not given a thorough attention.

Novelty of the study. The present dissertation is the first socio-pragmatic and lingua-cultural study of Syrian Arabic forms of address and the first contrastive

study that investigates forms of address in the Syrian dialect of Arabic and American variety of English. It specifies the main categories of address forms and identifies the discursive-pragmatic peculiarities and the contexts of their functioning in the two lingua-cultures. Drawing on an interdisciplinary methodology, it systematizes the culture-specific features of Syrian Arabic and American English forms of address, identifies their impact on communicative styles and explains them through the social factors, values, and contexts that condition them, as well as the understanding of (im)politeness in the cultures under consideration.

Theoretical significance of the study lies in the fact that it further investigates the interaction of language, culture, cognition and communication, using previously unexplored material and providing new data. It reveals and systematizes the culture-specific features of address forms and their functioning in the Syrian and American lingua-cultures. The study identifies the social factors and cultural values that affect both the systems of address forms and their functional and pragmatic characteristics, which reflect differences in the understanding of politeness and shape the communicative ethno-styles. The results and conclusions obtained contribute to sociolinguistics, cultural linguistics, cross-cultural pragmatics, discourse-analysis and the theory of intercultural communication, providing new data and expanding the understanding of the role of culture in language and its functioning. The study may have significant implications on further development of communicative ethno-stylistics, theory of politeness and translation studies. In addition, it demonstrates the relevance and effectiveness of an interdisciplinary approach to contrastive studies.

Practical implications. The main results and conclusions of the present study can be used in research and teaching activities to develop theoretical courses and course books on sociolinguistics, cross-cultural pragmatics, discourse analysis, communicative ethno-stylistics, intercultural communication and translation studies.

Moreover, the findings obtained, as well as the research material, can be utilized in second language teaching of English and Arabic, as well as in translation practices and intercultural communication. In other words, the study may also be useful for students, who are learning Modern Standard Arabic and Levantine dialects including the Syrian one and students of American English if applied in intercultural communication and second language teaching classes.

Dissertation structure. In order to provide a systematic dissertation, this paper is divided into an Introduction, three chapters, Concluding remarks, References (253 references) and two Appendices that include the forms of a questionnaire and interview used to accomplish the study on teknonyms provided in Chapter II.

Chapter I, Address as an object of socio-cultural and socio-pragmatic research, gives a brief overview of literature review of the most influential empirical and theoretical studies on forms of address. It starts with highlighting the socio-cultural factors governing the choice of address forms, cultural values and social organization and classification schemes of address forms. Research on address theory along with a number of empirical studies that have explored and investigated forms of address in different languages and cultures are also disclosed. The chapter also attempts to highlight (im)politeness through socio-cultural and pragmatic lenses together with the relationship between forms of address and (im)politeness.

Chapter II, Major categories of address forms in Syrian Arabic and American English, is divided into five divisions: first names, endearment terms, kinship terms, teknonyms, and zero address forms. It discusses the aforementioned categories in Syrian Arabic and American English lingua-cultures with reference to their lexical and morphological characteristics and gives some hints on their use in general. The chapter also provides a detailed study on teknonyms in the Syrian

Arabic lingua-culture to reveal how they constitute a significant feature of the Syrian culture and the identity of its representatives.

Chapter III, Contrastive analysis of address forms in the American and Syrian discourse, presents and explains the research methodology, used to achieve the study objectives and test the hypotheses. The chapter outlines a detailed analysis of first names, kinship terms, endearment terms, and zero address forms in Syrian Arabic and American English along with Syrian Arabic teknonyms. It also provides a contrastive analysis of discursive practices of address in Syrian and American settings and highlights their culture-specific characteristics.

The section of conclusions restates the purpose of the study, summarizes the key supporting ideas discussed throughout the study. Furthermore, it offers the final impression and core findings of the study and suggests prospects for further research.

The main results of the present research were published in the subsequent articles

I. The publications in Scopus and Web of Science indexed journals

1. Larina, T., & Khalil, A. 2018. Arabic forms of address: Sociolinguistic overview. The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences EpSBS, 39. 229-309. (WoS)

2. Khalil, A., Larina, T., & Suryanarayan, N. 2018. Socio-cultural competence in understanding forms of address: case study of Kinship terms in different cultural contexts. In EDULEARN18 Proceedings. 3038-3045). IATED. (WoS)

3. Kameh Khosh, N., Khalil, A. A. A., & Shehadeh Alhaded, H. 2020. Cultural values and norms of communication: A view from the Middle East. Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Advances in Education Ocerint. 396-404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47696/adved.202096 (WoS)

4. Suryanarayan, N., Khalil, A. 2021. Kinship terms as indicators of identity and social reality: A case study of Syrian Arabic and Hindi. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1). 125-146. (Scopus Q1)

II. The publications in VAK indexed journals

5. Khalil, A. A. 2021. American English and Syrian Arabic forms of address: a contrastive analysis. Philology, Theory & Practice, 14(12). 4032 - 4035. https://doi.org/10.30853/phil20210622 (VAK)

6. Khalil, A. A., & Larina, T. V. 2022. Terms of endearment in American English and Syrian Arabic family discourse. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 13(1). 27-44. (VAK)

III. Related publications

7. Khalil, A. A. 2020. Pragmalinguistic aspects of Syrian address inversion. Proceedings of Current Problems of Intercultural Communication. Moscow: Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN). 239-251. (Conference paper)

8. Khalil, A.A. (2022). Kinship terms vs first names as a reflection of cognition and culture amongst American and Syrian acquaintances. Proceedings of Prague Linguistic Circle and Development Linguistics of the XX century (to the 140-th anniversary of the birth of Villem Matheusa). 149-162.

Заключение диссертации по теме «Сравнительно-историческое, типологическое и сопоставительное языкознание», Халил Амр А А

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The present study was devoted to the role of context and the socio-cultural

factors governing the choice of address forms in Syrian Arabic and American English. It explored the main categories of address forms in Syrian Arabic and American English: first names, endearment terms, kinship terms, teknonyms and zero forms of address within the family setting and beyond; it was aimed at investigating how conventionally, and in what contexts they are used and highlighting their socio-pragmatic characteristics. We have revealed their main differences and attempted to explain them through the social factors and contexts that condition them.

Our results display that the use of address forms within a given speech community offers some concrete insight into their cultural conceptualizations, cultural values, and social organization as well. They correspond to the idea that culture is one of the most important factors that determine the systems of interpersonal communications within speech communities and societies (Smakman, 2019: 210).

The findings obtained from the present study validate the notion that language is an interpretation of socio-cultural knowledge, beliefs, and values, and culture is socially constructed (Bargiela-Chiapini, 2006: 3). Constituting a significant component of verbal behavior, forms of address reverberate cultural values, norms, and the social practices of a given society. Forms of address imply cultural specificities, reflecting the peculiarities of social categorization of a particular social group or speech community and differences in their socio-cultural relationships.

Language use is pre-determined by situational, as well as socio-cultural context, namely the social organization of a society, their shared cultural values, and their understanding of (im)politeness.

The findings of the present study confirm the fact that the concept of face and politeness notions of Western cultures (individualist cultures) do not tolerably account for interaction patterns of the representatives of collectivist cultures.

Based on the findings of the present research paper, the following conclusions can be made:

A short horizontal distance and a considerable vertical distance characterize the Syrian culture while the American one is characterized by a pronounced horizontal distance and small vertical distance. Consequently, different cultural values, such as closeness and respect to the age and status in the collectivist Syrian society and distance along with equality in the individualist American society shape the understanding of (im)politeness and communicative behavior of their representatives and guide the choice of address forms.

Syrian Arabic forms of address are more context dependent than the American address forms, and they are more sensitive to such social characteristics as age, gender, status, and relationship. Although the main categories of address forms in both lingu-cultures are almost the same (first names, endearment terms, kinship terms, and zero address), their frequency, relevance and pragmatic meanings differ significantly. Whereas the main category in American English is first names, used to address almost everyone, kinship forms and teknonyms are dominant categories of the Syrian culture, which testify to a family-centered we-identity of the Syrian interlocutors and an individual-centered I-identity of the American ones

Our results have revealed that Syrian Arabic has a complex kinship system, specifying almost every relationship and distinguishing between patrilineal and matrilineal family members, indicating that the Syrian culture is collectivist (Hofstede et al. 2005) in which families are extended and high values are assigned to close family relations. The plain kinship system in the American culture indicates

that the American culture is individualist (ibid) with a nuclear family and high value assigned to equality and individuality.

The variation in the hierarchy of both age and status, as well as in the cultural values of Syrian Arabic and American English representatives, resulting in an differential use of address forms in most cases verifies the notion that socio-cultural context is a core determinant of interpersonal communicative styles within different societies. The decline of overt attention to hierarchy and tendency towards informality among Americans manifested in the extensive use of first names and limited use of kinship terms shows that Americans identify themselves mostly as individuals, not as members belonging to a group. This implies that since politeness, in the Syrian communicative culture, means showing closeness and respect, the Syrian communicative style is status and intimacy oriented. In the American communicative culture, politeness is distance and equality-based and as a result, the American style of communication is egalitarian and person-oriented.

Kinship categories hold culture-specific characteristics depending on both cultural values and organization of a specific social group, illustrating that kinship categories reflect how the speakers of different speech communities conceptualize their social life and reality (Sharifian 2017, Wierzbicka 2013). They, in other word, denote social position, gender, and symbolize the interpersonal relationships of a whole family or speech community (cf. Godelier & Scott 2020; Jones 2010; Racz, Passmore & Jordan 2020). Kinship terms, in Syrian Arabic, have extended meanings to include individuals, who are not family members (e.g., Akhi means, my brother, a male friend, brother's friend (male), male neighbor of the same age, and male stranger of the same age. In addition, Ammi/Ammo means my paternal uncle, and a male such as a parents' friend, neighbor, and stranger of the same age of one's parents, or older). Therefore, such results also confirm that socio-cultural characteristics of society influence forms of address, their pragmatic meanings and

functioning, revealing the close relation among language, culture, cognition and communication.

The use of kinship terms as well as teknonyms in the Syrian culture demonstrates that Syrians identify themselves through other people, showing their belonging to a group. Hence, the Syrian culture is a we-culture, which is characterized by we-identity (Larina & Ozyumenko 2016; Larina, Ozyumenko & Kurtes 2017). On the contrary, the lack of teknonyms and the limited use of kinship terms in American English illustrates that the American culture is an I-culture that is characterized by I-identity.

Another striking difference concerns the regularity of using appellatives as forms of address, which is characteristic of the representatives of the Syrian communicative culture. The revealed differences shape communicative styles of the two cultures and allow us characterize the Syrian communicative style in relation to forms of address as kinship-hierarchical or intimacy-hierarchical. It requires the speakers to name their addressee, even a stranger, and signal the relationship and attitude to them, whereas the American English communicative style can be defined as egalitarian and informal and in some contexts anonymously egalitarian demonstrating the reluctance to name an addressee (especially a stranger) and showing status differences.

Depending on the context and function, Syrian Arabic and American English terms of endearment can be seen as markers of informality, closeness, and emotive politeness, as well as emotion and personal attitude indicators. The findings of the present study have revealed that Syrian Arabic terms of endearment are more expressive, variable, and conventional; they display deference and respect, suggesting that they are a remarkable characteristic of the Syrian lingua-culture. The results obtained, in addition, have reaffirmed that forms of address, including endearment terms are largely determined by social identity and cultural values of the

individuals of a specific speech community (e.g., endearment terms and first names are used to address Syrian spouses only in private while American spouses use them in both public and private).

To sum it up, the Syrian communicative style is characterized by status orientation as well as intimacy. Linguistic forms and cultural values along with the careful choice of address forms interweave exceptionally to show the importance of hierarchy, bestowed by age and the importance of lineage and having children in the Syrian culture. The American English communicative style is characterized by equality and informality in which lineage and age do not seem to enjoy any special value.

The present study is of a limited nature as we only focused on the data from TV series and mostly on the family setting. Regarding the settings beyond the family circle, the present research paper is limited to acquaintances (e.g., friends and casual acquaintances such as neighbors) and strangers of different age and gender categories. Settings such as workplace, university, and medical facilities were not given a thorough attention.

The topic of address forms is a fertile research area that is worthy of more investigation, as it exhibits how language works within a social group or society and contributes to categorizing the social relationships among its representatives. Therefore, we anticipate carrying out further research in the future to provide a more complete picture of addressing behavior in the Syrian Arabic and American English lingua-cultures in other settings and discourses. Moreover, further research can be executed to trace what changes the Syrian Arabic and American English address systems have experienced through history and the factors that have governed and led to such changes.

Список литературы диссертационного исследования кандидат наук Халил Амр А А, 2022 год

References

1. Adler, M. K. (1978). Naming and addressing: A sociolinguistic study. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

2. Afful, J. B. A. (2006a). Non-kinship address terms in Akan: A sociolinguistic study of language use in Ghana. Journal of multilingual and multicultural development, 27(4), 275-289.

3. Afful, J. B. A. (2006b). Address terms among university students in Ghana: A case study. Language andIntercultural Communication, 6(1), 76-91.

4. Afful, J.B., & Nartey, M. (2013). Hello sweet pie: A sociolinguistic analysis of terms of endearment in a Ghanaian University. The International Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 17 No. 1. Tijoss.

5. Ahearn, L. M. (2021). Living language: An introduction to linguistic anthropology. John Wiley & Sons.

6. Ahn, H. (2017). Seoul uncle: Cultural address conceptualisations behind the use of address terms in Korean. In F. Sharifian (ed.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics (pp. 411-431). Singapore: Springer Nature. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_19

7. Ajlouni, M. Q., & Abulhaija, L. (2015). Variation in address forms for Arab married and unmarried women in the workplace: a sociolinguistic study. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 6(3), 396-421.

8. Al Aghbari, K., & Al Mahrooqi, R. (2019). Terms of Endearment in Omani Arabic. Anthropological Linguistics, 61(3), 389-404.

9. Al_Husseini, H., Al-Shaibani, G., & Pandian, A. (2015). Pragmalinguistic aspects of kinship terms in English and Arabic. In Sepora Tengku Mahadi, Tengku (ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Language Learning Conference, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, 2-4 November 2015, 77-90.

10.Alba-Juez, L. (2020). Emotion in intercultural interaction. In G. Rings & S. Rasinger (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Intercultural Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

11.Alba-Juez, L., & Larina, T. (2018). Language and Emotion: Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22 (1), 9—37. doi 10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-1 -9-37

12.Aliakbari, M., & Toni, A. (2008). The realization of address terms in modern Persian in Iran: A sociolinguistic study. Linguistik online, 35(3).

13.Almasov, A. (1974). " Vos" and" Vosotros" as Formal Address in Modern Spanish. Hispania, 57(2), 304-310.

14.Al-Qudah, M. (2017). The Jordanian terms of address: Asocio-pragmatic study. SHS Web of Conferences, 37, 01080. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20173701080

15.Al-Sahlany, Q. A., & Al-Husseini, H. A. (2010). Kinship terms in English and Arabic: A contrastive study. Majallah Universitas Babilonia, 18(3).

16.Al-Shboul, Y., Maros, M., & Yasin, M. S. M. (2012). The appropriateness in advice-giving from a cross-cultural perspective. Arab World English Journal, 3(3), 106-122.

17.Althen, G. (2001). American values and assumptions. The Negotiation Sourcebook, 341.

18.Anchimbe, E. A. (2011). On not calling people by their names: Pragmatic undertones of socio-cultural relationships in a postcolony. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 14721483.

19.Baider, F. H., Cislaru, G., & Claudel, C. (2020). Researching politeness: from the 'classical'approach to Discourse Analysis and back. Corpus Pragmatics, 4(3), 259-272.

20.Baker, P. (2013). Will Ms ever be as frequent as Mr? A corpus-based comparison of gendered terms across four diachronic corpora of British English. Gender and Language.

21.Bargiela-Chiapini, F. (2006). Interculturality,'culture-in-use' and Intercultural Business Discourse. Series A: General and Theoretical Papers. Essen: LAUD 2006.

22.Bashir, A. (2015). Address and reference terms in Midob (Darfur Nubian). Dotawo: A Journal of Nubian Studies, 2(1), 6.

23.Bhat, J. A. (2016). Modes of Address in Gojri: A Sociolinguistic Study. Interdisciplinary Journal of Linguistics, 9 (1), 145-149.

24.Bilá, M., & Ivanova, S., V. (2020). Language, culture and ideology in discursive practices. Russian Journal of Linguistics 24 (2). 219—252. DOI: 10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-2-219-252

25.Bilá, M., Kacmárová, A., & Vañková, I. (2020). The encounter of two cultural identities: The case of social deixis. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 344-365.

26.Bingku, S. M., & Kojongian, P. E. (2019). Terms of Address in Expressing Politeness and Solidarity in Sangir Community Indonesia. International Journal on Social Science. Atlantis Press.

27.Birounrah, B., & Fahim, M. (2015). The impact of sex on the choice of forms of address in the speech form of Tehran Persian. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 9(8), 1402-1406.

28.Blum-Kulka, S. (2008). The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In S. Ide & K. Ehlich (Ed.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp. 255-280). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819.2.255

29.Bonvillain, N. (2016). The Routledge handbook of linguistic anthropology. Routledge.

30.Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

31.Bousfield, D., & Locher, M. A. (2008). Impoliteness in language : studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice. Mouton De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848113

32.Braun, F. (1988). Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

33.Braun, F. (2012). Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848113

34.Bromhead, H., & Ye, Z. (2020). Meaning, Life and Culture: In Conversation with Anna Wierzbicka (pp. 534). Australian National University Press.

35.Brown, L. (2011). Korean honorifics and politeness in second language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

36.Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

37.Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBQ9780511813085

38.Brown, R., & Ford, M. (1961). Address in American English. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 375.

39.Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. Style in language, 252-281.

40.Bruns, H., & Kranich, S. (2021). Terms of Address: A Contrastive Investigation of Ongoing Changes in British, American and Indian English and in German. Contrastive Pragmatics, 1(aop), 1-32.

41.Buchler, I. R. (1964). A formal account of the Hawaiian-and Eskimo-type kinship terminologies. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 20(3), 286318.

42.Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: a socio-cultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 585614.

43.Buu, K. (1972). How to say 'you' in Vietnamese. In Xuan Thu Nguyen (ed.), Vietnamese Studies in a Multicultural World (103-109). Vietnamese Language & Culture Publications. Victoria, Australia.

44.CASSON, R. W. (1975). the semantics of kin term usage1. American Ethnologist, 2(2), 229-238. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1975.2.2.02a00020

45.Chao, Y. R. (1956). Chinese terms of address. Language, 32(1), 217-241.

46.Chejnová. P. (2015). How to ask a professor: politeness in Czech academic culture. Charles University In Prague, Karolinum Press.

47.Chen, X., & Ren, J. (2020). A memetic cultural practice: The use of generalized kinship terms in a research seminar attended by Chinese graduate students. Lingua, 245, 102942.

48.Chunling, G. E. N. G. (2015). Comparison between Chinese address terms and English address terms. Higher Education of Social Science, 9(4), 1-4.

49.Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge university press.

50.Clyne, M. (2009). Address in intercultural communication across languages. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(3). 395-409.

51.Clyne, M., Kretzenbacher, H. L., Norrby, C., & Warren, J. (2003). Address in some Western European languages. In Christo Moskovsky (ed.), Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society.

52.Clyne, M., Norrby, C., & Warren, J. (2009). Language and Human Relations: Style of Address in Contemporary Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBQ9780511576690

53.Collins, P., & Yao, X. (2012). Modals and quasi-modals in New Englishes. In M. Hundt & U. Gut (Eds.), Mapping unity and diversity world-wide: Corpus-based studies of New Englishes (pp. 35-54). John Benjamins publishing Company.

54.Conant, F. P. (1961). Jarawa kin systems of reference and address: A componential comparison. Anthropological Linguistics, 19-33.

55.Cook, H. M. (1996). The use of addressee honorifics in Japanese elementary school classrooms. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 5, 67-81.

56.Cooke, J. R. (1965). Pronominal reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese. University of California, Berkeley.

57.Coulmas, F. (2013). Sociolinguistics: The study of speakers' choices. Cambridge University Press.

58.Crystal, D. (2011). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. John Wiley & Sons.

59.Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3

60.Culpeper, J. (2011a). Politeness and impoliteness. In K. Ajimer & G. Andersen (Eds.), Pragmatics of Society: Vol. 5. Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 391-436). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

61.Culpeper, J. (2011b). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge. U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

62.Culpeper, J., & Terkourafi, M. (2017). Pragmatic approaches (im) politeness. In The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im) politeness (pp. 11-39). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

63.Culpeper, J., Haugh, M. & Kadar, D. (2017). Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)Politeness. London: Palgrave

64.Dickey, E. (1996). Greek forms of address: from Herodotus to Lucian. Oxford University Press.

65.Dickey, E. (2012). KYPIE, AEDnOTA, Domine. Greek Politeness in the Roman Empire. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 121, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.2307/631824

66.Dittrich, W. H., Johansen, T., & Kulinskaya, E. (2011). Norms and situational rules of address in English and Norwegian speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3807-3821.

67.DuFon, M. A. (2010). 10. The acquisition of terms of address in a second language. In Pragmatics across languages and cultures (pp. 309-332). De Gruyter Mouton.

68.Dunkling, L. (2008). A dictionary of epithets and terms ofaddress. Routledge.

69.Duranti, A. (1984). The social meaning of subject pronouns in Italian conversation. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 4(4), 277-312.

70.Eelen, G. (2001). Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St Jerome's Press.

71.Emihovich, C. A. (1981). The intimacy of address: Friendship markers in children's social play. Language in society, 10(2), 189-199.

72.Enfield, N. J. (2006). Social consequences of common ground. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and interaction (pp. 399-430). Oxford: Berg.

73.Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P., & Sidnell, J. (Eds.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology. Cambridge University Press.

74.Ervin-Tripp, S. (1972). Sociolinguistic Rules: Alteration and Co-Occurrence. In: J. Gumperez, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics (pp. 213250). Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.

75.Esmae'li, S. (2011). Terms of address usage: The case of Iranian spouses. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(9), 18388.

76.Etaywe, A. S. (2017). A sociolinguistic study of husband-to-wife address forms and functions in rural Jordanian community. Macrolinguistics, 5(7), 84-117. https : //doi.org/10.26478/ja2017.5.7.5

77.Ethelb, H. (2015). Using address terms in showing politeness with reference to their translation from Arabic into English. International Journal of Comparative Literature and Translation Studies, 3(3), 27-37.

78.Farghal, M., & Shakir, A. (1994). Kin terms and titles of address as relational social honorifics in Jordanian Arabic. Anthropological Linguistics, 36(2), 240-253.

79.Fasold, R. W. (1990). The sociolinguistics of language . Oxford: Blackwell Pub.

80.Fernandez-Mallat, V. (2020). Forms of address in interaction: Evidence from Chilean Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 161, 95-106. https : //doi.org/10.1016/j .pragma.2020.03.006

81.Fisher, B. A., & Adams, K. L. (1987). Interpersonal communication: pragmatics of human relationships. Mcgraw-Hill.

82.Fitch, K. L. (1991). The interplay of linguistic universals and cultural knowledge in personal address: Colombian Madreterms. Communication Monographs, 58(3), 254-272. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759109376229

83.Formentelli, M. (2009). Address strategies in a British academic setting. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 19(2), 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19.2.02for

84.Formentelli, M., & Hajek, J. (2016). Address practices in academic interactions in a pluricentric language. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 26(4), 631-652. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.4.05for

85.Foster, G. M. (1964). Speech Forms and Perception of Social Distance in a Spanish-Speaking Mexican Village. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 20(2), 107-122. https://doi.org/10.1086/soutjanth.20.2.3629321

86.Fremer, M. (2015). At the cinema: The Swedish 'du-reform'in advertising films. In Address practice as social action: European perspectives (pp. 5474). Palgrave Pivot, London.

87.Geertz, H., & Geertz, C. (1964). Teknonymy in Bali: Parenthood, Age-Grading and Genealogical Amnesia. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 94(2), 94-108.

88.Geoghegan, A. (1972). Information Processing Systems in Culture. In P. Kay (Ed.), Explorations in Mathematical Anthropology (pp. 4-35). The MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/explorations-mathematical-anthropology

89.Ghazzoul, N. (2019). Linguistic and Pragmatic Failure of Arab Learners in Direct Polite Requests and Invitations: A Cross-cultural Study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9(2), 223. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0902.13

90.Gilman, A., & Brown, R. (1958). Who says" tu" to whom. ETC: A review of general semantics, 15(3), 169-174.

91.Gisle Andersen, & Aijmer, K. (2012). Pragmatics of society. De Gruyter Mouton.

92.Gladkova, A. (2010). Sympathy, compassion, and empathy in English and Russian: A linguistic and cultural analysis. Culture & Psychology, 16(2), 267285.

93.Gladkova, A. (2013). "Intimate" Talk in Russian: Human Relationships and Folk Psychotherapy. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 33(3), 322-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2013.846453

94.Godelier, M., & Scott, N. (2020). The metamorphoses of kinship. Verso Books.

95.Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. New Brunswick, NJ: Adeline.

96.Gottfried, B. (1970). Some aspects of pronouns of address in Argentinian Spanish. Revista de Lenguas Extranjeras, 27 (1), 29-50.

97.Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol.3. Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York, NY: Academic Press.

98.Griffin, Z. M. (2010). Retrieving personal names, referring expressions, and terms of address. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Academic Press (pp. 345-387). Sciencedirect.

99.Griswold, W. (2012). Cultures and societies in a changing world. Sage.

100. Grz^sko, A. (2015). On the semantic history of selected terms of endearment. Linguistics Beyond and Within (LingBaW), 1(1), 104-118.

101. Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., & Chua, E. (1989). Culture and interpersonal communication (p. 231). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

102. Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1989). Understanding cultural Differences: Germans, French and Americans. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.

103. Hampel, E. (2015). "Mama Zimbi, pls help me!"-Gender differences in (im) politeness in Ghanaian English advice-giving on Facebook. Journal of Politeness Research, 77(1), 99-130. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0005

104. Haugh, M. (2007). The Discursive Challenge to Politeness Research. Journal of Politeness Research 3 (2), 295-317.

105. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

106. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (2nd ed.) New York: Mcgraw-hill.

107. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.

108. Holmes, J. (2013). Women, men and politeness. Routledge.

109. Holmes, J., & Wilson, N. (2017). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223

110. Hwang, S. J. J. (1991). Terms of address in Korean and American cultures. Intercultural Communication Studies, 7(2), 117-136.

111. Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural andInterlanguage Communication, 8(2-3), 223-248.

112. I§ik-Güler, H., & Ruhi, §. (2010). Face and impoliteness at the intersection with emotions: A corpus-based study in Turkish. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(4), 625-660. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.028

113. Jacoby, T. (2009). Reinventing the melting pot: The new immigrants and what it means to be American. Basic Books. New York, N.Y.

114. Jandt, F. E. (2007). An Introduction to Intercultural Communication. London: Sage.

115. Jandt, F. E. (2018). An introduction to intercultural communication: identities in a global community. Sage.

116. Jones, D. (2010). Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(5), 367-381. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x10000890

117. Jones, J. B. (2016, August 2). Southern Sweet Talk. Our State. https://www.ourstate.com/a-guide-to-southern-sweet-talk/.

118. Kádár, D. Z. (2017). Politeness in pragmatics. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Retrieved 14 May. 2021, from https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001. 0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-218.

119. Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge University Press.

120. Kádár, D. Z., & Mills, S. (Eds.). (2011). Politeness in East Asia. Cambridge University Press.

121. Kádár, D., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

122. Kameh Khosh, N., Khalil, A. A. A., & Shehadeh Alhaded, H. (2020). Cultural values and norms of communication: A view from the Middle East. Proceedings of 6th Internaltiona Conference on Adavances in Education (pp.396-404), Ocerint. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47696/adved.202096

123. Kecskés, I. (2014). Interculturalpragmatics. Oxford University Press.

124. Kennedy, R. (2002). Nigger: The strange career of a troublesome word. New York: Pantheon.

125. Keshavarz, M. H. (2001). The role of social context, intimacy, and distance in the choice of forms of address. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2001(148). https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2001.015

126. Khalil, A. (2020). Pragmalinguistic aspects of Syrian address inversion. Proceedings of Current problems of intercultural communication (pp. 239251). Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN).

127. Khalil, A., & Larina, T. (2018). Arabic forms of address: sociolinguistic overview. The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences EpSBS, 39, 229-309.

128. Khalil, A., & Larina, T. (2022). Terms of endearment in American English and Syrian Arabic family discourse. Theory of language. Semiotics. Semantics.

129. Khalil, A., Larina, T., & Suryanarayan, N. (2018). Socio-cultural competence in understanding forms of address: case study of kinship terms in different cultural contexts. In EDULEARN78 Proceedings (pp. 3038-3045). IATED.

130. Kluge, B., Moyna, M. I., Simon, H. J., & Warren, J. (2019). It's not all about you: new perspectives on address research. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

131. Koshal, S. (1987). Honorific Systems of the Ladakhi language. Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 6(2), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1987.6.2.149

132. Kotorova, E. (2018). Analysis of Kinship Terms Using Natural Semantic Metalanguage: Anna Wierzbicka's Approach. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 22(3), 701-710. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-3-701-710.

133. Koul, O. N. (1995). Prsonal names in Kashmiri. In Sociolinguistics: South Asian perspectives (pp. 145-166). CREATIVE BOOKS.

134. Kretzenbacher, H. L., & Schüpbach, D. (2015). Communities of addressing practice? address in internet forums based in german-speaking

countries. In Address Practice As Social Action (pp. 33-53). Palgrave Pivot, London.

135. Krishnan, V., & Eisenstein, J. (2014). " You're Mr. Lebowski, I'm the Dude": Inducing Address Term Formality in Signed Social Networks. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Human Language Technologies, (pp.1616-1626). HLT-NAACL. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/N15-1185.

136. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p's and q's. In Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292-305). Chicago Linguistic Society.

137. Larina, T. (2009). Politeness and Communicative Styles: Comparative analyses of English andRussian lingua-cultural traditions. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul'tur (In Russ.).

138. Larina, T. (2015). Culture-specific communicative styles as a framework for interpreting linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies. International Review of Pragmatics, 7(2), 195-215.

139. Larina, T. (2020). Correlation of formality, informality, politeness, impoliteness and rudeness: Discourse-pragmatic perspective. Cuadernos de Rusística Española. 2020, 16. 99 -114.

140. Larina, T. V., Ozyumenko, V. I., & Kurtes, S. (2017). I-identity vs we-identity in language and discourse: Anglo-Slavonic perspectives, Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 13(1), 109-128. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2017-0006

141. Larina, T., & Ponton, D. M. (2022). I wanted to honour your journal, and you spat in my face: Emotive (im)politeness and face in the English and Russian blind peer review. Journal Journal of Politeness Research. 18(1). 201-226. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2019-0035

142. Larina, T., & Suryanarayan, N. (2013). Madam or aunty ji: Address forms in British and Indian English as e reflection of culture and cognition. / Monika Reif, Justina A. Robinson, Martin Putz (eds.) Variation in Language and Language Use. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang. 2013. P. 190 - 217.

143. Larina, T., Suryanarayan, N., & Yuryeva, J. (2019). Socio-cultural context, address forms and communicative styles: A case study of British and Indian Englishes. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie, 18(3), 39-51.

144. Lee, K., & Harvey, Y. (1973). Teknonymy and Geononymy in Korean Kinship Terminology. Ethnology, 12(1), 31. doi:10.2307/3773095

145. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York. Longman.

146. Leech, G. (1999). The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In H. Hasselga°rd & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 107-118). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

147. Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

148. Leech, G., & Larina, T. (2014). Politeness: West and East. Russian Journal of Linguistics (former Bulletin of Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Linguistics). 4, 9-34.

149. Levinson, C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge university press.

150. Lewis, R. D. (2019). The cultural imperative: Global trends in the 21st century. Training, Language and Culture, 3(3), 8-20.

151. Locher, M., & Larina T. V. (2019). Introduction to politeness and impoliteness research in global contexts. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23 (4). 873—903. DOI: 10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-873-903

152. Locher, M., & Watts, R. (2008). Chapter 4. Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. In D. Bousfield & M. Locher (Ed.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp. 77-100). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208344.2.77

153. Locher, M., (2008). 18. Relational work, politeness, and identity construction. In G. Antos & E. Ventola (Ed.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 509-540). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211399.4.509

154. Locher, M. (2012). Politeness research from past to future, with a special focus on the discursive approach. In L. Fernandez-Amaya, O. Maria de la, H. Lopez, R. G. Moron, M. P. Cruz, M. M. Borrero, & M. R. Barranca (Eds.), New Perspectives on (Im)Politeness and Interpersonal Communication (pp. 36-60). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

155. Locher, M. (2015). Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 5-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.010

156. Locher, M. (2018). Politeness. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0916.pub2

157. Locher, M. A., & Graham, S. L. (2010). Interpersonal pragmatics. Mouton De Gruyter.

158. Locher, M. A., & Langlotz, A. (2008). Relational work: At the intersection of cognition, interaction, and emotion. Bulletin VALS-ASLA, 88, 165-191.

159. Locher, M. A., & Larina, T. V. (2019). Introduction to Politeness and Impoliteness Research in Global Contexts. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23(4), 873-903. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2019-23-4-873-903

160. Maalej, Z. (2010). Addressing non-acquaintances in Tunisian Arabic: A cognitive-pragmatic account. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(1), 147-173. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2010.007

161. Mackenzie, J. L., & Alba-Juez, L. (2019). Emotion in discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

162. Malone, M. J. (2004). Structure and affect: The influence of social structure on affective meaning in American kinship. Social psychology quarterly, 67(2), 203-216.

163. Manjulakshi, L. (2004). Modes of address in Kannada: A sociolinguistic study of language use in Mysore District. Languages in India, 4.

164. Mardiha, M. (2012). The role of age and gender in the choice of address forms: A sociolinguistic study. International journal of applied linguistics and English literature, 1(4), 173-182.

165. Martin, S. (1964). Speech levels and social structure in Japan and Korea. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Language in culture and society: A reader in linguistics and anthropology (pp. 407-415.). New York (NY): Harper & Row.

166. McCormick, J., & Richardson, S. (2006). Vocatives in MICASE [Electronic Version]. MICASE Kibbitzers, 12, Retrieved November 18, 2008, from http://micase.elicorpora.info/micase-kibbitzers/12-vocatives-in-micase

167. Mehrotra, R. R. (1981). Non-kin forms of address in Hindi. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 1981(32). https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1981.32.121

168. Mills, S. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

169. Mills, S. (2017). Sociocultural Approaches to (Im)politeness. In: Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., Kadar, D. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of

Linguistic (Im)politeness (pp. 40-61). Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7 3

170. Morford, J. (1997). Social Indexicality in French Pronominal Address. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7(1), 3-37. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1997.7.1.3

171. Motley, C. M., & Craig-Henderson, K. M. (2007). Epithet or Endearment? Examining Reactions Among Those of the African Diaspora to an Ethnic Epithet. Journal of Black Studies, 37(6), 944-963. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934705282094

172. Mugford, G. (2020). Mexican politeness: An empirical study on the reasons underlying/motivating practices to construct local interpersonal relationships. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24 (1). 31—55. DOI: 10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-1-31-55.

173. Murray, T. E. (2002). A New Look at Address in American English: The Rules Have Changed. Names, 50(1), 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1179/nam.2002.50.1.43

174. Naden, T. (1974). Kinship terminology and some of the social correlates or outworkings of the kinship system in ghanaian culture. Legon Institue of African Studies, University of Ghana.

175. Nevala, M. K. (2003). Family first: Address formulae in English family correspondence from the 15th to the 17th century. In I. Taavitsainen, & A. H. Jucker (Eds.), Diachronic Perspectives in Address Term Systems (pp. 147176). John Benjamins.

176. Norrby, C., & Wide, C. (2015). Introduction: Address practice as social action across cultures and contexts. In: Catrin Norrby and Camilla Wide (eds.), Address Practice as Social Action: European Perspectives (pp.

1-2). Houndsmills/Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137529923 1

177. Norrby, C., Schupbach, D., Hajek, J., & Kretzenbacher, H. L. (2019). Introductions at international academic conferences: Address and naming in three national varieties of English. In M. I. Moyna, H. J. Simon, & J. Warren (Eds.), It's not all about you: new perspectives on address research (pp. 376395). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

178. Ostermann, A. C. (2003). Localizing power and solidarity: Pronoun alternation at an all-female police station and a feminist crisis intervention center in Brazil. Language in Society, 32(3), 351-381.

179. Ostor, A. (1982). Terms of address and Hungarian society. Language Sciences, 4(1), 55-69.

180. Park, M. (2002). Differences in the advice-giving behavior between Korean EFL learners and English native speakers. SNU Working Papers in English Language and Linguistics, 1.

181. Parkinson, D. (1985). Constructing the Social Context of Communication: Terms of Address in Egyptian Arabic. Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin. New York. Amsterdam.

182. Pillai, N. (1972). Address terms and the social hierarchy of the Tamils. In Vadasery I. Subramonian (ed.), Proceedings of the first All-India conference of Dravidian linguistics (pp. 424-432). Trivandrium: Dravidian Linguistic Association of India, University of Kerala.

183. Racz, P., Passmore, S., & Jordan, F. M. (2019). Social Practice and Shared History, Not Social Scale, Structure Cross-Cultural Complexity in Kinship Systems. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(2), 744-765. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12430

184. Raymond, C. W. (2016). Reconceptualizing identity and context in the deployment of forms of address. In M. I. Moyna & S. Rivera-Mills (Eds.), Forms of Address in the Spanish of the Americas (pp. 267-288). John Benjamin publishing company.

185. Rendle-Short, J. (2009). The address term mate in Australian English: Is it still a masculine term?. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29(2), 245-268.

186. Rhee, S. (2019). Politeness pressure on grammar: The case of first and second person pronouns and address terms in Korean. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23(4), 950-974.

187. Rosenkrantz, L., & Satran, P. R. (2006). Beyond Jennifer & Jason, Madison & Montana: What to Name Your Baby Now. Macmillan.

188. Ruhi, §. (2008). Intentionality, communicative intentions and the implication of politeness. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(3) 287-314. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2008.014

189. Sadock, J. M. (1969). Hypersentences. Paper in Linguistics, 1(2), 283370. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351816909389120

190. Salifu, N. A. (2010). Signaling politeness, power and solidarity through terms of address in Dagbanli. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 19(4), 19-19

191. Salzmann, Z., Stanlaw, J., & Adachi, N. (2014). Language, culture, and society: An introduction to linguistic anthropology. Westview Press.

192. Schneider, D. M., & Homans, G. C. (1955). Kinship terminology and the American kinship system. American anthropologist, 57(6), 1194-1208.

193. Searle, J. R. (1958). Proper names. Mind, 67(266), 166-173.

194. Senft, G. (2014). Understanding pragmatics. Routledge.

195. Sharifian, F. (2014). Advances in cultural linguistics. In approaches to language, culture, and cognition (pp. 99-123). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

196. Sharifian, F., & Jamarani, M. (Eds.). (2013). Language and intercultural communication in the new era. New York: Routledge.

197. Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural linguistics : cultural conceptualisations and language. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

198. Sidnell, J., & Shohet, M. (2013). The problem of peers in Vietnamese interaction. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 19(3), 618-638.

199. Sifianou, M. (1992). The use of diminutives in expressing politeness: Modern Greek versus English. Journal of pragmatics, 17(2), 155-173.

200. Sifianou, M., & Blitvich G. C. (2017). (Im)politeness and cultural variation. In Culpeper, Jonathan, Kádár, Daniel and Haugh, Michael (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness. 572 - 600. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

201. Sillander, K. (2010). Teknonymy, name-avoidance, solidarity and individuation among the Bentian of Indonesian Borneo. In Z. Yangwen , & C. J-H. Macdonald (Eds.), Personal names in Asia (pp. 101-127). NUS press.

202. Smakman, D. (2019). Cultural bias and Sociolinguistics. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23 (1). 9-22. DOI: 10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-1-9203. Smith, E. B. (2015). Understanding Culture, Social Organization, and

Leadership to Enhance Community Engagement. Leadership & Organizational Management Journal, 2015(3), 1-11.

204. Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of pragmatics, 26(1), 1-24.

205. Stewart, M. (2001). Pronouns of power and solidarity: The case of Spanish first person plural nosotros. Multilingua 20 (2), 155-216. https://doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2001.007

206. Subon, F. (2013). Gender differences in the use of linguistic forms in the speech of men and women in the Malaysian context. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 13(3), 67-79.

207. Suryanarayan, N., & Khalil, A. (2021). Kinship terms as indicators of identity and social reality: A case study of Syrian Arabic and Hindi. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1), 125-146.

208. Svennevig, J. (2000). Getting acquainted in conversation: a study of initial interactions. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

209. Taavitsainen, I., & Jucker, A. H. (2003). Diachronic perspectives on address term systems. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

210. Tawalbeh, A., & Al-Oqaily, E. (2012). In-directness and politeness in American English and Saudi Arabic requests: A cross-cultural comparison. Asian Social Science, 8(10), 85.

211. Tawalbeh, A., & Al-Oqaily, E. (2012). In-directness and Politeness in American English and Saudi Arabic Requests: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Asian Social Science, 8(10). https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n 10p85

212. Tchesnokova, O. (1998). Dialogic Motivation of Spanish Forms of Address. In S. Cmejrkova, J. Hoffmannova & O. Müllerova (Ed.), Dialoganalyse VI/1: Referate der 6. Arbeitstagung, Prag 1996 (pp. 487-492). Berlin, Boston De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110965056-048

213. Terkourafi, M. (2005). Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(2), 237-262.

214. Terkourafi, M., & Kadar, D. (2017). Convention and ritual. In J. Culpeper, M. Haugh, & D. Kadar (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic politeness. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.

215. Terkourafi, M., & Kadar, D.Z. (2017). Convention and Ritual (Im)politeness. In: Culpeper, J., Haugh, M., Kadar, D. (eds) The Palgrave

Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness (pp.171-195). Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_8

216. Ton, T. (2017). Vietnamese terms of address: Pragmatic connotations, translation and ESL/EFL pedagogy. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Armidale: University of New England. https://hdl.handle.net/1959.! 1/22577

217. Ton, T. N. L. (2018). Ellipsis ofterms of address and reference in casual communication events in Vietnamese. Language and Linguistics, 19(1), 196218. Tran, Y. V. M. (2010). Vietnamese expressions of politeness. Griffith

Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 3 (1). 12-2

219. Triandis, H. C. (2018). Individualism and collectivism. Routledge.

220. Triandis, H.C. (1994). Culture and Social Behaviour. New York: McGraw Hill.

221. Triandis, H.C., & Gelfand, M., J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 (1). 118-128. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.118

222. Tritton, A. S. (1966). Mishkat al-Masabih. Translated by J. Robson. pp. xx, 1453. Lahore, Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1963-1966. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 98(2), 148-148.

223. Trudgill, P. (2000). Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. Penguin UK.

224. Twenge, J. M., Abebe, E. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Fitting In or Standing Out: Trends in American Parents' Choices for Children's Names, 1880-2007. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 19-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609349515

225. Ullrich, H. E. (1975). Etiquette among women in Karnataka: Forms of address in the village and the family. Social Action, 25(3), 235-248.

226. Wang, J. (2003). A Comparative Analysis for Sino-English Appellation of Social Intercourse. Journal of Harbin University, (1)8, 48-50.

227. Wardhaug, R. (2006). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics: 5th Edition. UK:

Blackwell Publishing.

228. Wardhaugh, R. (1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

229. Wardhaugh, R., & Fuller, J. M. (2021). An introduction to sociolinguistics. John Wiley & Sons.

230. Wattenberg, L. (2013). The Baby Name Wizard: A Magical Methodfor Finding the Perfect Name for Your Baby. Harmony.

231. Watts, R. J. (1989). Relevance and relational work: linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, 8(2-3), 131-166. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.131

232. Watts, R. J. (1992). 2. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In R. Watts, S. Ide & K. Ehlich (Ed.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp. 43-70). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110886542-005

233. Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

234. Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts: Polish vs. English. Journal of pragmatics, 9(2-3), 145-178.

235. Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Mouton De Gruyter

236. Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Universal Human Concepts in Culture-Specific Configurations. New York: Oxford University Press.

237. Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding Cultures through their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. New York: Oxford University Press.

238. Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Mouton De Gruyter.

239. Wierzbicka, A. (2013) Kinship and Social Cognition in Australian Languages: Kayardild and Pitjantjatjara, Australian Journal of Linguistics, 33(3), 302-321. DOI: 10.1080/07268602.2013.846458

240. Wierzbicka, A. (2015). A whole cloud of culture condensed into a drop of semantics: The meaning of the German word Herr as a term of address. International Journal of Language and Culture, 2(1), 1-37.

241. Wierzbicka, A. (2016). Back to 'Mother' and 'Father': Overcoming the Eurocentrism of Kinship Studies through Eight Lexical Universals. Current Anthropology, 57(4), 408-429. doi:10.1086/687360

242. Wierzbicka, A. (2020). Addressing God in European languages: Different meanings, different cultural attitudes. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 259-293.

243. Wittermans, E. P. (1967). Indonesian terms of address in a situation of rapid social change. Social Forces, 46(1), 48-51.

244. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2015). Methods of critical discourse studies. Sage.

245. Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (1991). Politeness and Forms of Address. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10(3), 145-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x91103001

246. Yang, X. (2010). Address forms of English: rules and variations. Journal of language teaching and research, 1(5), 743.

247. Yassin, M. A. F. (1977). Bi-polar terms of address in Kuwaiti Arabic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 40(2), 297-301. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0041977x00044050

248. Yassin, M. A. F. (1978). Personal names in Kuwaiti Arabic. Anthropological Linguistics, 20(2), 53-63.

249. Ye, Z. (2013). Understanding the conceptual basis of the 'old friend'formula in Chinese social interaction and foreign diplomacy: A cultural script approach. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 33(3), 365-385.

250. Yoon, K. J. (2007). My experience of living in a different culture: The life of a Korean migrant in Australia. In M. Besemeres & A. Wierzbicka (Eds.), Translating Lives: Living with Two Languages and Cultures (pp. 114127). University of Queensland Press.

251. Yu, K.-A. (2011). Culture-specific concepts of politeness: indirectness and politeness in English, Hebrew and Korean requests. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(3), 385-409. https://doi.org/10.1515/iprg.2011.018

252. Yule, G. (2020). The study of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

253. Zhang, H. (2002). Bilingual creativity in Chinese English: Ha Jin's In the Pond. World Englishes, 21(2), 305-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971x.00250