Cover not available
Part of
It’s not all about you: New perspectives on address research
Edited by Bettina Kluge and María Irene Moyna
[Topics in Address Research 1] 2019
► pp. 23–46

A literature review of address studies from pragmatic and sociolinguistic perspectives

Terms of address and reference have garnered enormous interest in the research literature, ranging from sociolinguistics and ethnolinguistics to language learning and anthropology. From a sociolinguistic perspective, address terms can be considered as the starting point to the understanding of human relationships, and how such relationships can be socially and strategically constructed (Fitch 1991; Leech 1999; Morford 1997). Terms of address and reference have therefore been well recognized as a particularly fruitful field for sociolinguistic research, in three phases: from the mid-1950s to the 1970s; through the 1980s and 1990s; and from the early 2000s to the present day. The studies conducted during these three periods have made significant contributions to the understanding of different social features of address systems, such as how they convey solidarity, politeness, and politic behavior (Brown & Ford 1961, 1964; Brown & Gilman 1960; Brown & Levinson 1978; Watts 1989) as well as pragmatic connotations such as emotion, attitude, intimacy and distance. This chapter is an attempt to provide an integrated survey of the field of address research with an eye on cross-cutting themes characterising these three periods. A special focus is placed on (a) the use of address terms to reflect social relationships, power, solidarity, and politeness, (b) address expressing personal feelings such as emotion/attitude and distance versus intimacy, and (c) the translation of these terms.
Keywords: address terms, address systems, sociolinguistics, pragmatics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Use of TOA to reflect social relationships, power, solidarity and politeness
  • 3.Address expressing personal feelings: Emotion, attitude, and distance versus intimacy
  • 4.The translation of TOA
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 28 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tar.1.01ton
References (180)
References
Adler, Max K. 1978. Naming and addressing: A sociolinguistic study. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Afful, Joseph 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006b. Address terms among university students in Ghana: A case study. Language & Intercultural Communication 6 (1). 76–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ajlouni, Mays Q. & Lutfi Abulhaija. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aliakbari, Mohammad & Arman Toni. 2008. The realization of address terms in modern Persian in Iran: A sociolinguistic study. Linguistik Online 35 (3). 3–12. [URL]. (14 May, 2015.)
Almasov, Alexery. 1974. “Vos” and “vosotros” as formal address in modern Spanish. Hispania 57 (2). 304–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amany, Farideh, Mohammad Davoudi & Mohsen O. Jaghi. 2014. A corpus-based study on the translation of politeness strategies with emphasis on address terms. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLIALW) 5 (1). 502–522.Google Scholar
Anderman, Gunilla M. 1993. Untranslatability: The case of pronouns of address in literature. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 1 (1). 57–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bala, Madhu. 1995. Punjabi pronouns: A sociosemantic study. In Omkar N. Koul (ed.), Sociolinguistics (South Asian perspectives), 167–175. New Delhi: Creative Books.Google Scholar
Baron, Naomi. 1978. Professor Smith, Miss Jones: Terms of address in academe. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Modern Language Association [MLA], New York.
Bashir, Abeer. 2015. Address and reference terms in Midob (Darfur Nubian). Dotawo, A Journal of Nubian Studies 2 (1). 133–153.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth & Laura Benigni. 1975. Rules of address in Italy: A sociological survey. Language in Society 4 (3). 171–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednjanec, Katarina. 2015. Načini oslovljavanja sudionika na hrvatskim i njemačkim internetskim forumima [Ways of addressing among Croatian and German Internet forum participants]. Zagreb: University of Zagreb (Master’s thesis).Google Scholar
Beidelman, Thomas O. 1963. Terms of address as clues to social relationships. In Alvin W. Gouldner & Helen P. Gouldner (eds.), Modern sociology: An introduction to the study of human interaction, 308–317. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Birounrah, Behnaz & Mansour Fahim. 2015. The impact of sex on the choice of forms of address in the speech form of Tehran Persian. International Research Journal of Applied & Basic Sciences 9 (8). 1402–1406.Google Scholar
Bloch, Maurice. 1971. The moral and tactical meaning of kinship terms. Man (N.S.) 6. 79–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borràs-Comes, Joan, Rafèu Sichel-Bazin & Pilar Prieto. 2015. Vocative intonation preferences are sensitive to politeness factors. Language & Speech 58 (1). 68–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1983. On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Braun, Friederike. 1988. Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Colin Fraser. 1979. Speech as a marker of situation. In Klaus R. Scherer & Howard Giles (eds.), Social markers in speech, 33–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Esther N. Goody (ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (Cambridge Papers in Social Anthropology 8), 56–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger W. & Marguerite Ford. 1961. Address in American English. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62 (2). 375–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1964. Address in American English. In Dell Hymes (ed.), Language in culture & society, 234–244. New York, Evanston & London: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger W. & Albert Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 253–276. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burt, Susan M. 2015. ‘There’s not a lot of negotiation’: Address terms in an academic department. In Marina Terkourafi (ed.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on im/politeness (AILA Applied Linguistics Series 14), 71–90. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buu, Khai. 1972. How to say ‘you’ in Vietnamese. In Nguyen Xuan Thu (ed.), Vietnamese studies in a multicultural world, 103–109. Melbourne: Vietnamese Language and Culture Publications.Google Scholar
Casson, Ronald W. 1975. The semantics of kin term usage. American Ethnologist 2 (2). 229–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chao, Yuen R. 1956. Chinese terms of address. Language 32 (1). 217–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chatelain, Emile. 1880. Du pluriel de respect en Latin. Revue de Philologie 4. 129–139.Google Scholar
Chejnová, Pavla. 2015. How to ask a professor: Politeness in Czech academic culture. Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clyne, Michael, Heinz L. Kretzenbacher, Catrin Norrby & Jane Warren. 2003. Address in some Western European languages. In Christo Moskovsky (ed.), Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistics Society (ALS), 1–10. [URL] (14 May, 2015.)
Cook, Haruko M. 1996. The use of addressee honorifics in Japanese elementary school classroom. In Noriko Akatsuka, Shoichi Iwasaki & Susan Strauss (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5, 67–81. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Cooke, Joseph R. 1968. Pronominal reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Conant, Francis P. 1961. Jarawa kin systems of reference and address. Anthropological Linguistics 3. 20–33.Google Scholar
Das, Sisir K. 1968. Forms of address and terms of reference in Bengali. Anthropological Linguistics 10 (4). 19–31.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 1984. The social meaning in subject pronouns in Italian conversation. Text 4. 277–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria. 2015. Teaching e-mail politeness in the EFL/ESL classroom. ELT Journal 69 (4). 415–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrismann, Gustav. 1901. Duzen und Ihrzen im Mittelalter (I). Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 1. 117–149.Google Scholar
. 1902. Duzen und Ihrzen im Mittelalter (II). Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 2. 118–159.Google Scholar
. 1903. Duzen und Ihrzen im Mittelalter (III). Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 4. 210–248.Google Scholar
. 1903/04. Duzen und Ihrzen im Mittelalter (IV). Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 5. 127–220.Google Scholar
Emihovich, Catherine A. 1981. The intimacy of address: Friendship markers in children’s social play. Language in Society 10 (2). 189–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan. 1967. Sociolinguistics. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
. 1972. On sociolinguistic rules, alternation and co-occurrence. In John J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics, 300–302. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Esmae’li, Saeedeh. 2011. Terms of address usage: The case of Iranian spouses. International Journal of Humanities & Social Science 1 (9) (Special Issue). 183–188.Google Scholar
Evans-Pritchard, Edward E. 1948. Nuer modes of address. The Uganda Journal 12. 166–71.Google Scholar
Fang, Hanquan & J. H. Heng. 1983. Social changes and changing address norms in China. Language in Society 12 (4). 495–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fasold, Ralph (ed.). 1990. The sociolinguistics of language. (Introduction to sociolinguistics, Volume 2). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Filbeck, David. 1973. Pronouns in Northern Thai. Anthropological Linguistics 15 (8). 345–61.Google Scholar
Firth, John R. 1964. On sociological linguistics. In Dell Hymes (ed.), Language in culture & society, 66–72. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Fiske, Shirley. 1978. Rules of address: Navajo Women in Los Angeles. Journal of Anthropological Research 34. 72–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitch, Kristine. 1991. The interplay of linguistic universals and cultural knowledge in personal address: Colombian Madre terms. Communication Monographs 8. 254–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Formentelli, Maicol & John Hajek. 2015. Address in Italian academic interactions: The power of distance and (non)-reciprocity. In Catrin Norrby & Camilla Wide (eds.), Address practice as social action: European perspectives, 119–140. Basingstoke/London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Foster, George. 1964. Speech forms and perception of social distance in a Spanish-speaking Mexican village. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 20. 107–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franceschini, Lucelene T. & Loremi Loregian-Penkal. 2015. A variável sexo/gênero e o uso de tu/você no sul do Brasil. Signum, Estudos da Linguagem 18.1. 182–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fremer, Maria. 2015. At the cinema: The Swedish ‘du-reform’ in advertising films. In Catrin Norrby & Camilla Wide (eds.), Address practice as social action: European perspectives, 54–74. Basingstoke/London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1966a. Structural implications of Russian pronominal usage. In William Bright (ed.), Sociolinguistics, 214–259. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
. 1966b. The linguistic reflex of social changes from Tsarist to Soviet Russian kinship. In Stanley Lieberson (ed.), Explorations in sociolinguistics (pp. 31–57). Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
. 1972. Social context and semantic feature: The Russian pronominal usage. In John Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics, 273–300. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Gedike, Friedrich. 1794. Ueber Du und Sie in der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Johann Friedrich Unger.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. 1960. The religion of Java. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Geoghegan, William. 1970. A theory of marking rules. Working Paper No. 37 Language-Behavior Research Laboratory, 1–37. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
. 1971. Information processing systems in culture. In Paul Kay (ed), Explorations in mathematical anthropology, 4–35. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gilman, Albert & Roger W. Brown. 1958. Who says “tu” to whom? ETC: A Review of General Semantics 15 (3). 169–174.Google Scholar
Gottfried, Biserka. 1970. Some aspects of pronouns of address in Argentinian Spanish. Revista de lenguas extranjeras 1. 29–50.Google Scholar
Hampel, Elisabeth. 2015. “Mama Zimbi, pls help me!” Gender differences in (im)politeness in Ghanaian English advice-giving on Facebook. Journal of Politeness Research 11 (1). 99–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasegawa, Nobuko. 1984/1985. On the So-called “Zero Pronouns” in Japanese. The Linguistic Review 4. 289–341.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2005. Politeness distinctions in second person pronouns. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures, 185–202. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Typologie und Diffusion von Höflichkeitspronomina in Europa. Folia Linguistica 39 (3–4). 417–452.Google Scholar
Henricson, Sofie, Camilla Wide, Jenny Nilsson, Marie Nelson, Catrin Norrby & Jan Lindström. 2015. You and I in Sweden-Swedish and Finland-Swedish supervision meetings. In Rudolf Muhr & Dawn Marley (eds.), Pluricentric languages: New perspectives in theory and description, 127–139. Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hook, Donald D. 1974. Sexism in English pronouns and forms of address. General Linguistics 14 (2). 86–96.Google Scholar
Huang, James C.-T. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 531–574.Google Scholar
1989. Pro-drop in Chinese: a generalized control theory. In Osvaldo Jaeggli & Kenneth J. Safir (eds.), The null subject parameter, 185–214. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hwang, Shin Ja J. 1991. Terms of address in Korean and American cultures. Intercultural Communication Studies 1 (2). 117–134.Google Scholar
Ide, Sachiko. 1989. Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8 (2). 223–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo & Kenneth J. Safir. 1989. The null-subject parameter and parameter theory. In Osvaldo A. Jaeggli & Kenneth J. Safir (eds.), The null subject parameter, 1–44. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jain, Dhanesh K. 1969. Verbalization of respect in Hindi. Anthropological Linguistics 11 (3). 79–97.Google Scholar
Jalli, Ninni & Renate Pajusalu. 2015. Samat keinot, eri käyttö, puhuttelu virossa [The same means, different uses, address in Estonian]. In Johanna Isosävi & Hanna Lappalainen (eds.), Saako sinutella vai täytyykö teititellä? Tutkimuksia Eurooppalaisten kielten puhuttelukäytännöistä [Addressing people with T or V? Studies on address practices in European languages] (Tietolipas 246), 105–134. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Johnston, Oliver M. 1904. The use of “ella”, “lei” and “la” as polite forms of address in Italian. Modern Philology 1 (3). 469–475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Oscar F. 1965. The pronouns of address in present-day Icelandic. Scandinavian Studies 37. 245–258.Google Scholar
Jonz, Jon G. 1975. Situated address in the United States marine corps. Anthropological Linguistics 17 (2). 68–77.Google Scholar
Ju, Zhucheng. 1991. The “depreciation” and “appreciation” of some address terms in China. Language in Society 20 (3). 387–390. [URL]. (17 May, 2015.)
Jucker, Andreas H. & Irma Taavitsainen. 2003. Diachronic perspectives on address term systems: Introduction. In I. Taavitsainen & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems, 1–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kantorovich, V. 1966. “Ty I vy: Zametki pisatelya” (“Ty and vy: a writer’s notes”). Moscow: Izd-vo pol.lit.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Arthur G. 1915. The pronoun of address in English literature of the thirteenth century. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1916. French culture and Early Middle English forms of address. (Flugel Memorial Volume). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Keshavarz, Mohammad H. 2001. The role of social context, intimacy, and distance in the choice of forms of address. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 148. 5–18.Google Scholar
Kess, Joseph F. & Želimir B. Juričić. 1978. Slovene pronominal address forms: Rural vs. urban sociolinguistic strategies. Anthropological Linguistics 20 (7). 297–311.Google Scholar
Kikvidze, Zaal. 2015. Essays in sociolinguistics. Tbilisi: Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato & Adrienne Lehrer. 1990. Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 14 (5). 739–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konthong, Nathawadee. 2012. Relationship between speaker and addressee in terms of address translation through foreignization and domestication approaches. Journal of English Studies 7. 1–25.Google Scholar
Kopytko, Roman. 1993. Polite discourse in Shakespeare’s plays. In Andreas H. Jucker (ed.), Historical pragmatics. Pragmatic developments in the history of English (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35), 515–540. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koshal, Sanyukta. 1987. Honorific systems of the Ladakhi language. Multilingua 6 (2). 149–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koul, Omkar N. 1995. Personal names in Kashmiri. In Omkar N. Koul (ed.) Sociolinguistics, (South Asian perspectives), 145–166. New Delhi: CREATIVE BOOKS.Google Scholar
Kovács, Magdolna & Outi T. Tánczos. 2015. Hapuilua pimeässä? Unkarin muuttuvat puhuttelukäytännöt [Fumbling in the dark? Changing address practice in Hungarian]. In Johanna Isosävi & Hanna Lappalainen (eds.), Saako sinutella vai täytyykö teititellä? tutkimuksia Eurooppalaisten kielten puhuttelukäytännöistä [Addressing people with T or V? Studies on address practices in European languages] (Tietolipas 246), 241–261. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Kramer, Cheris. 1975. Sex-related differences in address systems. Anthropological Linguistics 17 (5). 198–210.Google Scholar
Kretzenbacher, Heinz L., Michael Clyne, John Hajek, Catrin Norrby & Jane Warren. 2015. Meet and greet: Nominal address and introductions in intercultural communication at international conferences. In John Hajek & Yvette Slaughter (eds.), Challenging the monolingual mindset, 78–94. Bristol/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Kretzenbacher, Heinz L. & Doris Schüpbach. 2015. Communities of addressing practice? Address in Internet forums based in German-speaking countries. In Catrin Norrby & Camilla Wide (eds.), Address practice as social action: European perspectives, 33–53. Basingstoke/London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Krishnan, Vinodh & Jacob Eisenstein. 2015. “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 [HLT-NAACL], 1616–1626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, Wallace E. 1967. The use of tu and vous as forms of address in French Canada: A pilot study. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6 (4). 614–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, Wallace E. & Richard G. Tucker. 1976. Tu, vous, usted: A social-psychological study of address patterns. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.Google Scholar
Lappalainen, Hanna. 2015. “Sinä vai te vai sekä että? Puhuttelukäytännöt suomen kielessä [T or V or both? Addressing practices in Finnish].” In Johanna Isosävi & Hanna Lappalainen (eds.), Saako sinutella vai täytyykö teititellä? tutkimuksia Eurooppalaisten kielten puhuttelukäytännöistä [Addressing people with T or V? Studies on address practices in European languages] (Tietolipas 246), 72–104. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1999. The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In Hilde Hasselgård & Signe Oksefjell (eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honor of Stig Johansson, 107–118. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Lotfollahi, Bahareh & Dabbaghi, Azizollah. 2012. Translation of terms of address from English into Persian: Strategies in focus. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 3 (3). 329–333.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1956. A semantic analysis of the Pawnee kinship usage. Language 32. 158–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luong, Hy V. 1990. Discursive practices and linguistic meanings: The Vietnamese system of person reference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1980. Pronouns of address in Anna Karenina: The stylistics of bilingualism and the impossibility of translation. In Sydney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (eds.), Studies in English linguistic for Randolph Quirk, 235–249. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Manjulakshi, Lakkaiah. 2004. Modes of address in Kannada: A sociolinguistic study of language use in Mysore District. [URL]. (17 May, 2015.)
Manns, Howard. 2012. First-person pronominal variation: Stance and identity in Indonesia. Australian Journal of Linguistics 32 (4). 435–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Samuel E. 1964. Speech levels and social structures in Japan and Korea. In Dell Hymes (ed.), Language in culture and society: A reader in linguistics and anthropology, 407–415. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1989. Politeness and conversational universals: observations from Japanese. Multilingua 8 (2). 207–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mbaga, K. & Wilfred H. Whiteley. 1961. Formality and informality in Yao speech. Africa 31. 135–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McConnell-Genet, Sally. 1978. Address forms in sexual politics. In Douglas Butturff & Edmund L. Epstein (eds.), Women’s language & style, 23–35. Akron: University of Akron.Google Scholar
McIntire, Marina L. 1972. Terms of address in an academic setting. Anthropological Linguistics 14 (7). 286–292.Google Scholar
Mehrotra, Raja R. 1981. Non-kin forms of address in Hindi. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 32. 121–137.Google Scholar
Methven, Andrew. 2006. Discussions of the difficulties in translating terms of address in Chinese and English. Unpublished master’s thesis. London: SOAS University of London. [URL] (12 May, 2018)
Morford, Janet. 1997. Social indexicality in French pronominal address. Journal of Linguistic Anhthropology 7 (1). 3–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naden, Tony (ed.). 1974. Kinship terminology and some of the social correlates or outworkings of the kinship system in Ghanaian culture. Legon: Institute of African Studies, University of Ghana.Google Scholar
Ndhlovu, Finex J. 2014. On politic behaviour: The personal pronoun as an address term in the Ndebele language of Zimbabwe. In Kate Burridge & Reca Benczes (eds.), Wrestling with words and meanings. Essays in honour of Keith Allan, 176–197. Melbourne: Monash University Publishing.Google Scholar
Nevala, Minna. 2003. Family first: Address and subscription formulae in English family correspondence from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century. In Irma Taavitsainen & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Diachronic perspectives on address term systems, 147–176. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1994. Ladies and gentlemen: The generalization of titles in early modern English. In Francisco Fernández, Miguel F. Márquez & Juan J. Calvo (eds.), English historical linguistics 1992 (Current issues in linguistic theory 113), 317–327. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1988. A textbook on translation. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ngo, Thanh. 2006. Translation of Vietnamese terms of address and reference. [URL] (25 May, 2015.)
Nguyen, Binh T. T. 2002. The diversity of language socialization, gender and social stratum in a northern Vietnamese village. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Nguyen, Hanh T. 2015. Source marking in represented talk and thought in Vietnamese narratives. Text & Talk 35 (6). 731–757. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, Thuyet M. 1988. Vài nhận xét về đại từ và đại từ xưng hô, tiếng Việt [Some remarks on Vietnamese pronouns and pronouns of address]. Ngôn ngữ [Language] 1. 29–30.Google Scholar
Norrby, Catrin, Camilla Wide, Jan Lindström & Jenny Nilsson. 2015. Interpersonal relationships in medical consultations. Comparing Sweden- Swedish and Finland- Swedish address practice. Journal of Pragmatics 84. 121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ostermann, Ana 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. 351–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ostör, Ákos. 1982. Terms of address and Hungarian society. Language Sciences 4 (1). 55–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otterbein, Keith F. 1964. Principles governing the usage of in-law terminology on Andros Island, Bahamas. Man 64. 54–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pham, Tinh V. 2003. Tỉnh lược đồng sở chỉ trong hội thọai [Ellipses of co-referential elements in conversations]. Ngôn ngữ [Language] 10. 18–26.Google Scholar
Placencia, María Elena, Catalina F. Rodríguez & María Palma-Fahey. 2015. Nominal address and rapport management in informal interactions among university students in Quito (Ecuador), Santiago (Chile) and Seville (Spain). Multilingua 34 (4). 547–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rendle-Short, Johanna. 2009. The address term mate in Australian English: Is it still a masculine term? Australian Journal of Linguistics 29 (2). 245–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1969. Hypersentences. Paper in Linguistics 1. 283–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salifu, Nantogma A. 2010. Signaling politeness, power and solidarity through terms of address in Dagbanli. Nordic Journal of African Studies 19 (4). 274–292.Google Scholar
Schneider, David M. & George C. Homans. 1955. Kinship terminology and the American kinship system. American Anthropology 57. 1194–1208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schusky, Ernest L. 1974. Variation in kinship. New York: Holt, Rineland & Winston.Google Scholar
Scotton, Carol M. & Zhu Wanjin. 1983. Tóngzhì in China: Language change and its conversational consequences. Language in Society 12. 477–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1958. Proper names. Mind 67. 166–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shanmugam, 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, 424–432. Trivandrium: Dravidian Linguistic Association of India, University of Kerala.Google Scholar
Shehab, Ekrema. 2005. The translatability of terms in Najib Mahfouz’s Zaqaq Al-Midaq into English. An-Najah University Research Journal 19 (1). 315–327. [URL] (28 June, 2015.)
Sidnell, Jack & Merav Shohet. 2013. The problem of peers in Vietnamese interaction. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 19 (3). 618–638. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1963. Some aspects of the use of pronouns of address in Yiddish. Word 19. 193–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I., Stephen H. Miller & Lyman W. Porter. 1968. Forms of address and social relations in a business organization. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 8 (3). 289–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Ho-min. 1981. Power and solidarity in the Korean language. Papers in Linguistics, International Journal of Human Communication 14 (3). 431–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Miranda. 2001. Pronouns of power and solidarity: The case of Spanish first person plural nosotros. Multilingua 20 (2). 155–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. ‘Pragmatic weight’ and face: Pronominal presence and the case of the Spanish second person singular subject pronoun tú. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2). 191–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stidston, Russell O. 1917. The use of Ye in the function of Thou: A study of grammar and social intercourse in fourteenth-century England. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Nick J. Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson. 2007. Person reference in interaction. In Nick J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds.), Person reference and interaction, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suomela-Härmä, Elina. 2015. Kun anopista tulee Mamma: Miten Italiaksi puhutellaan? [When mother-in-law becomes Mamma: How to address in Italian?]. In Johanna Isosävi & Hanna Lappalainen (eds.), Saako sinutella vai täytyykö teititellä? tutkimuksia Eurooppalaisten kielten puhuttelukäytännöistä [Addressing people with T or V? Studies on address practices in European languages] (Tietolipas 246), 347–372. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Szymańska-Matusiewiccz, Grażyna. 2012. The researcher as ‘older sister’, ‘younger sister’ and ‘niece’: Playing the roles defined by the Vietnamese pronominal reference system. Qualitative Research 14 (1). 95–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takao, Suzuki. 1976. Language and behavior in Japan: The conceptualization of personal relations. Japan Quarterly 23. 255–266.Google Scholar
Theodoropoulou, Irene. 2015. Politeness on Facebook: The case of Greek birthday wishes. Pragmatics 25 (1). 23–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Laurence. 1965. A Vietnamese reference grammar. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Ton, Thoai N. L. 2017. Vietnamese terms of address: Pragmatic connotations, translation and ESL/EFL pedagogy. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Armidale: University of New England. [URL] (15 December, 2018.)
2018. Ellipsis of terms of address and reference in casual communication events in Vietnamese. Language and Linguistics 19 (1). 196–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tran, Yen V. M. 2010. Vietnamese expressions of politeness. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication 3 (1). 12–21.Google Scholar
Ullrich, Helen. 1975. Etiquette among women in Karnataka: Forms of address in the village and the family. Social Action 25 (3). 235–48.Google Scholar
Vargas, Dengo C. 1975. El uso de los pronombres vos y usted en Costa Rica. Revista de Ciencias Sociales 8. 7–30.Google Scholar
Vatuk, Sylvia. 1969. Reference, address, and fictive kinship in urban north India. Ethnology 8 (3). 255–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1998. The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of differences. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul & Jean Darbelnet. 1958/1989. Translation procedures. In Andrew Chesterman (ed.), Readings in translation theory, 61–69. Loimaa: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.Google Scholar
Walker, Terry. 2000. The choice of second person singular pronouns in authentic and constructed dialogue in late 16th century. In Christian Mair & Marianne Hundt (Eds.), Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory. Papers from the 20th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME20) Freiburg im Breisgau 1999, 375-384. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1992. An introduction to sociolinguistics. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 2006. An introduction to sociolinguistics. (5th ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard. 1989. Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behaviour. Multilingua 8 (2–3). 131–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In Richard J. Watts, Sachiko Ide & Konrad Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice, 43–70. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winkler, Eva. 2015. Intimität in der Öffentlichkeit – Sprachliche Variation als kommunikative Strategie im Radiointerview. In Alexandra N. Lenz & Manfred M. Glauninger (eds.), Standarddeutsch im 21. Jahrhundert. Theoretische und empirische Ansätze mit einem Fokus auf Österreich, 81–109. Göttingen: V&R unipress/Vienna University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittermans, Elizabeth P. 1967. Indonesian terms of address in a situation of rapid social change. Social Forces 46. 48–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn A. 2003. We don’t speak Catalan because we are marginalized: Ethnic and class meanings of language in Barcelona. In Richard K. Blot (ed.), Language and social identity, 85–104. Westport & London: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Yang, Chunli. 2010. Translation of English and Chinese address terms from the cultural aspect. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 1 (5). 738–742. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yokotani, Kenji. 2015a. Japanese young adults’ disrespectful forms of address for fathers predict feelings of rejection and depression. Names 63 (2). 96–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015b. Links between impolite spousal forms of address and intimate partner violence against women. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 34 (2). 213–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zago, Raffaele. 2015. “That’s none of your business, Sy”: The pragmatics of vocatives in film dialogue. In Marta Dynel & Jan Chovanec (eds.), Participation in public and social media interactions, 183–207. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zhang, Hang. 2002. Bilingual creativity in Chinese English. Ha Jin’s In The Pond. World Englishes 21 (2). 305–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Guarin, Daniel & Larissa Oliveira Cardoso
2023. A Virtual Linguistic Landscape Analysis of Higher Education Institutions and Their Use of Pronouns of Address in the Hispanic and Lusophone World. In Transformation of Higher Education Through Institutional Online Spaces [Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development, ], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Larina, Tatiana & Neelakshi Suryanarayan
2023. Chapter 6. Address forms in academic discourse in Indian English. In It's different with you [Topics in Address Research, 5], ► pp. 142 ff. DOI logo
Vismans, Roel
2023. Chapter 16. Address and politeness. In It's different with you [Topics in Address Research, 5], ► pp. 397 ff. DOI logo
Guarin, Daniel
2022. El uso de pronombres de tratamiento en el departamento del Quindío (Colombia). Miradas 17:2 ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Rozumko, Agata
2022. Between V and T address: The translation of English address terms into Polish in serial storytelling (the case of Doc). Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies :38(3) ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.