Address Culture of Iranian EFL Students and Lecturers in Oral and Written Communication: A Semio-cultural Conceptualization Perspective

Document Type : Research article

Author
Professor Mohammad Hossein Keshavarz, Girne American University, North Cyprus
Abstract
Compared to non-academic contexts, the use of address forms in academic settings is insufficiently researched. To fill this gap, the present study investigated the address forms commonly used by students and lecturers in Iranian universities in their oral and written communication. The analytical framework of this study is semio-cultural conceptualization. A qualitative descriptive research design was adopted, which included six open-ended questions. Thirty Iranian EFL lecturers participated in this study, 20 males and 10 females, representing 14 different universities. The average age of the participants was 50. The thematic analysis of the data revealed that in addition to the conventional polite forms, some innovations have emerged in the academic address practice in Iran. While students always addressed their lecturers using respectful forms and honorifics, the lecturers’ address choices varied according to sociolinguistic factors such as the students’ age, gender, degree of intimacy and distance, and educational status. In the majority of cases, the lecturers employed title plus last name; nevertheless, some of them opted for more intimate forms. However, such forms were never reciprocated by students owing to the perceived power dynamics and elevated respect for teachers, which is deeply entrenched in the culturally-constructed conceptualization of the unique teacher-student relationship in Iran. The findings also suggest that the scope of address studies can be expanded to include semio-cultural conceptualizations, such as emotion schema, and symbolism.

Keywords

Subjects


Afful, Joseph B. A., & Nuokyaa-Ire, Mwinlaaru I. (2012). When Sir and Madam are
not: Address terms and reference terms students use for faculty in a
Ghanaian university. Sociolinguistic Studies, 6(3), 491–517.
Almasov, A. (1974). “Vos” and “Vosotros” as formal address in modern Spanish.
Hispania, 57(2), 304–310. https://doi.org/10.2307/339833
Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A
tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation?. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316654870
Brown, R., & Ford, M. (1961). Address in American English”. The Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 62(2), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042862
Bull, P., & Fetzer, A. (2006). Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of
forms of address in political interviews. Text and Talk, 26(1), 3–37.
Chejnová, P. (2013). Addressing in academic setting: Students’ preferences. Sapere Aude, 3,
87–93.
Dickey, E. (1997). Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics,
33(2), 255–274.
Edu-Buandoh, D. F. (1999). Politeness forms used in Ghanaian English verbal interaction: A
sociolinguistic analysis of spoken data in media panel discussions. [Unpublished MPhil thesis]. University of Cape Coast, Ghana.
Fang, H., & Heng, J. H. (1983). Social changes and changing address norms in
China. Language in Society, 12, 495–507.
Farese, G. M. (2018). The cultural semantics of forms of address: A contrastive
study between English and Italian. Lexington Books.
Formentelli, M., & Hajek J. (2015). Address in Italian academic interactions: The
power of distance and (non)-reciprocity. In C. Norrby & C. Wide (Eds.), Address Practice as Social Action: European Perspectives (pp.119–140). Hampshire.
Formentelli, M. & Hajek, J. (2016). Address practices in academic interactions in a
pluricentric language: Australian English, American English, and British
English. Pragmatics, 26(4), 631–652.
Hadi, A. (2017). Address terms in academic email communication: A study of
student-to-academic staff emails in Australia. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
Monash University, Australia.
Harzing, A. W. (2010). What's in a name? Country differences in preferred ways
of address for university teachers. AIB Insights, 10(3), 3–8.
Ilie, C. (2005). Politeness in Sweden: Parliamentary forms of address. In L. Hickey &
M. Stewart (Eds.), Politeness in Europe (pp. 174–188). Multilingual
Matters.
Ilie, C. (2010). Strategic uses of parliamentary forms of address: The case of the UK
Parliament and the Swedish Riksday. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(4), 885–911.
Jaworski, A., & Galasinski, D. (2000). Vocative address forms and ideological
legitimization in political debates. Discourse Studies, 2(1), 35–53.
Jonz, J. (1975). Situated address in the United States Marine Corps. Anthropological
Linguistics, 17(2), 68–77.
Keshavarz, M. H. (1988). Forms of address in post-revolutionary Iranian Persian: A
socio‌linguistic analysis. Language in Society, 17(4), 565–575.
Keshavarz, M. H. (1995). Correlation between language and society (in Persian). Iranian
Journal of Linguistics, 9(2), 40–50.
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, 148, 5–18.
Keshavarz, M. H. (2021). Self-abasement and other-elevating through Persian Address forms
and self-reference terms. In A. Korangy and F. Sharifian (Eds.), Persian Linguistics in Cultural Contexts (pp.25–43). Routledge.
Keshavarz, M. H. (2022). What’s in a word? The ubiquitous and multidimensional address
form hoca(m) in Turkish. WORD, 68(3), 239-252.
Keshavarz, M. H., & Noshadi, M. (in press). A New Analytical Model of Cultural Linguistics.
Cambridge Scholars.
Koutlaki, S. (2002). Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: ta’arof
in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1733‌–1756.
Lutz, C. (1988). Ethnographic Perspectives on the Emotion Lexicon. Cognitive Perspectives on Emotion and Motivation, 44, 399–419.
Lutz, C., & White, Geoffrey M. (1986). The Anthropology of Emotions. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15(1), 405–436.
McIntire, M. L. (1972). Terms of address in an academic setting. Anthropological
Linguistics, 14(7), 286–291.
Mehrorta, R. R. (1981). Non-kin forms of address in Hindi. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 32, 121–137.
Nishida, H. (1999). Cultural Schema Theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp.401-418). Sage Publications.
Ostor, A. (1982). Terms of address and Hungarian society. Language Sciences, 4(1),
55–69.
Rendle-Short, J. (2007). ‘Catherine, you’re wasting your time’: Address terms within
the Australian political interview. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(9), 1503–1525.
Salifu, N. A. (2010). Signaling politeness, power and solidarity through terms of
address in Dagbanli. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 19(4), 274–292.
Sequeira, D. L. (1993). Personal address as negotiated meaning in an American
church community. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 259–
285.
Sharifian, F. (2003). On cultural conceptualisations. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 3(3),
187–207.
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualizations and language: Theoretical framework
and applications. John Benjamins.
Sidnell, J., & Shohe, M. (2013). The problem of peers in Vietnamese interaction.
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 19(3), 618–638.
Tran, V. M. Y. (2010). Vietnamese expressions of politeness. Griffith Working Papers
in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, 3(1), 12–21.
Wilson, N. (2010). Bros, boys and guys: Address term function and communities of
practice in a New Zealand rugby team. The New Zealand English Journal, 24.
33–54.
Yang, C. (2010). Translation of English and Chinese address terms from the cultural
aspect. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(5), 738–742.