Embracing Cultural Diversity through Language

!@ll'.! ~ 6 ~:!!f~?~ 13

JAPANFOUNDATION~

•

Persidangan Antarabangsa Ke-6 Pembelajaran Bahasa 2015

'Embracing Cultural Diversity through Language Learning' 'Menyepadukan Kepelbagaian Budaya melalui Pembelajaran Bahasa'

PUSAT PENGAJIAN BAHASA, LITERASI DAN TERJEMAHAN SCHOOL OF LANGUAGES, LITERACIES AND TRANSLATION

6th ILLC 2015

Embracing Cultural Diversity through Language Learning

Sixth International Language Learning Conference 2015 (ILLC) 2-4 November 2015 School of Languages, Literacies and Translation Universiti Sains Malaysia Penang

6th ILLC

2015

Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data International Language Learning Conference (6thILLC2015) Embracing Cultural Diversity through Language Learning: Proceedings of the Sixth International Language Learning Conference, 2015. ISBN: 1. Language Teaching and Literacy Practices 2. Testing and Evaluation in Language Learning 3. Linguistics 4. Language and Culture 5. Sustainable Education

All Rights Reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission from the Dean, School of Languages, Literacies and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia.

6th ILLC 2015

Editor Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi Sub-editors Thomas Chow Voon Foo Malini Ganapathy Manjet Kaur

Committee Members Hossein Bahri Roya Monsefi Maryam Bijami Mohammad Mad Allh Bita Naghmeh Abbaspour Leong Jie Yu

The papers in the proceedings are reproduced as approved by authors and edited for layout, typographical error, and minor adjustments.

6th

ILLC 2015

CONTENTS PREFACE KEYNOTE Professor Ken Hyland English for Specific Purposes: why is specificity important? PLENARY Professor Emeritus Muhammad Haji Salleh Literacies and the genius ofpresent and the past: a Poet's Perspective Assistant Professor Dr. Soison Sakolrak The Application ofIntertextuality Theory to Thai Literature and Education Dr. Sbinji Sato Language Education for the Global Citizen: A Case ofJapanese

PAPERS

1.

Intertextuality and its Application to Enhance Creative Reading Soison Sakolrak

1

2.

Diversity, Multilingual Literacy and The Asean Author: A Personal Journey Muhammad Haji Salleh

10

3.

Corroborative Discourse Markers on Rhetorical Moves of the Essay Writing Maki Naeimi, Thomas Chow Voon Foo

22

4.

An Evaluation of Translation Quality Assessment: Academic Instructors and Professional Translators Perspectives Mozhgan Ghassemiazghandi, Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi

28

5.

Reliability Assessment: The Vocabulary Size Test and its Use in a Malaysian Context Debbita Tan Ai Lin, Ambigapathy Pandian, Paramaswari Jaganathan

33

6.

Immersion in ESL Culture: Oral Output through Acting Chamkaur Gill

43

7.

Student Preferences in Chinese Ebooks: Results of a Preliminary Survey Conducted on Secondary School Mother Tongue Students Tzemin Chung, Mun Kew Leong, (Joel Loo, Peing Ling, Richard Yan)

53

6th ILLC 2015

8.

Exploring the Influence of Intercultural Reading Programme (IRP) in Developing Intercultural Framework among Malaysian Secondary School Students Fatin Najwa Amelia Marsani, Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh, Paramaswari Jaganathan, Premalatha Karupiah, Ahmad Sofwan Nathan Abdullah

63

9.

Pragmalinguistic Aspects of Kinship Terms in English and Arabic Hashim Aliwy Mohammed Nakhilawi, Ghayth K Shaker Al-Shaibani, Ambigapathy Pandian

77

10.

Using Google Translate as a Supplementary Tool for International Students to Learn Bahasa Malaysia Hossein Bahri, Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi

91

11.

Effectiveness of OPS-English Programme in Improving English Language Speaking Ability among Secondary School Students Manesha Kaur Rajendra Singh, Lin Siew Eng, Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh

100

12.

An Analytical Study of Iraqi EFL Students' Difficulties in Writing Names Mayyada Mahdi Rauf Aladhami, Thomas Chow Voon Foo, Zainab AbboodiAli

115

13.

Teaching and Learning Language through Translation: A Case Study of Spanish Language Mohamed Abdou Moindjie, Ummu Salmah Rahamatullah

128

14.

A Comparative Analytical Study of Translation the Concept of Wisdom in some Selected Verses of Quran Muthana Hameed Khalaf, Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi, Mohamed Abdou M oindjie

140

15.

Understanding Students' Perceptions of Challenges with Academic Writing in English Naveeta Kaur Sukhbeer Singh, Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh

147

16.

Pragmatic Functions of Question Categories in Courtroom Discourse Roya Monsefi, Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi

156

17. A Genre Analysis of the Public Speeches of Former Leaders of alQaeda's bin Laden and Liberation Tiger Tamil Eelam's Prabhakaran Sawsan Kareem Zghayyir Al-Saaidi, Ghayth K. Shaker Al-Shaibani

167

18.

181

Integrating Grammar and Speaking in an ESL Classroom Kho-Yar Ai Siok, Tan Bee Hoon

6th

ILLC 2015

19.

Written by Kids for Kids. What can Online Reading Stories Inform Us? A Text Mining Approach Mohammad Mad Allh Mohammad, Omer Hassan Ali Mahfoodh, Ambigapathy Pandian

189

20.

Rhetorical Inimitability and Semantic Complexity in Selected Translated Excerpts from the Holy Quran Abeer Hameed Monawer Albashtawi, Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi

198

21.

Enhancing Novice Research Writers' Capacity for Critical SelfAssessment Azlina Murad Sani

207

22.

Professional Translator's Needs: Implications for Translator Training Mohammad Reza Esfandiari, Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi

214

23.

L2 Learners' Proficiency Development through Noticing Feedback Seyed Saber Alavi, Thomas Chow Voon Foo, Mansour Amini

236

24.

Web-based and Oral Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback: Students' Autonomy in L2 Writing Hossein Vafadar Samian, Thomas Chow Voon Foo

255

25.

Connecting to the World - The Community Engagement Experience Azril Ali, Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi

278

26.

The Role of Literature in the Language Learning Process Saad Mohammed Mustafa, Thomas Chow Voon Foo

284

27.

Translation of Rumi's Poetry from an Orientalism Perspective Bita Naghmehabbaspour, Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi

291

28.

An Analysis of a New Proposed Programme: A Glimpse into MEB 2015-2025 for Higher Education Adi Idham Jailani, Ahmad Harith Syah Bin Md Yusuf, Jean Hoo Fang Jing, Norazlina Mohamad Ayob, Sumarni Maulan, Roslina Mohd Jani

297

29.

Conscious Learning among L2 Learners of English Maryam Orang, Thomas Chow Voon Foo, Ghayth KShaker Al-Shaibani

308

30.

Creating Lifelong Learning through Open Educational Resource (OER) Fatemeh Habibian Naeini, Merza Abbas, Mahta Khaksari

318

6th ILLC 2015 PRAGMALINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF KINSHIP TERMS IN ENGLISH AND ARABIC Hashim Aliwy Mohammed Al-Husseini 1 Ghayth K. Shaker Al-Shaibani2 Ambigapathy Pandian3 Abstract This study examines the relationship between kinship terms and aspects of pragmatics in English and Arabic. It attempts to depart the concept of kinship from its biogenetic and sociological meanings to its linguistic and pragmatic meanings. This is because kinship terms are one of the linguistic and functional perspectives that should be studied in terms of everyday usage by which pragmatics is concerned with. Generally, different pragmatic studies have investigated the nature and aspects of pragmatics such as speech acts, felicity conditions, politeness, discourse structure, and deixis. Thus, it is essential to study the meanings of these pragmatic aspects within situational contexts and how they are expressed by the speaker and interpreted by the hearer in these contexts. The researchers attempt to combine between the social aspects of language related to kinship and the pragmalinguistic ones. This is because pragmatics is not only a linguistic field of study that focuses on the structural aspects of language, but also a social and pedagogical way of analysing and understanding language-in-use. Thus, some recent studies, such as Zeitlyn (2005) and Agha (2007) attempted to relate linguistic aspects, particularly pragmatics with the meanings of kin terms due to their importance in everyday language. Data comprises a selection of everyday usage of these terms in both American English culture and Iraqi Arabic culture. Based on Levinson’s (1983; 2004), Brown and Levinson’s (1987), Austin’s (1962), and Searle’s (1969; 1979) views, the researchers focus on the aspects of pragmatics that are highly relevant to kin terms by examining deixis, politeness, performativity, and speech acts. Keywords: Pragmalinguistics; Kinship terms; politeness; performativity; deixis 1. Introduction

This paper discusses the relationship between kinship terms (henceforth KTs) and the pragmalinguistic aspects. It attempts to depart the concept of kinship from its biogenetic and sociological meaning into its linguistic and pragmatic meanings. This is because KTs are one of the linguistic and functional perspectives studied in terms of everyday usage by which pragmatics is concerned with. Generally, different pragmatic studies have investigated the nature and aspects of pragmatics such as speech acts, felicity conditions, ___________________________________ 1. Ph.D. Candidate, School of Languages, Literacies and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia. Email: [email protected] 2. School of Languages, Literacies and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia. Email: [email protected] 3. School of Languages, Literacies and Translation, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Penang, Malaysia. Email: [email protected] 77

6th ILLC 2015 politeness, discourse structure, and deixis. Thus, scholars, such as Levinson (1983), Leech (1983; 2005), Yule (1996), Crystal (2008), and Trosborg (2010) emphasized the fact that pragmatics is an important field of language that studies the meanings of words, clauses, and utterance within a situational context, and how such meanings are expressed by the speaker and interpreted by the listener in that context. In this regard, Leech (1983) and Trosborg (2010) stated that without studying and understanding pragmatics, one cannot fully understand the nature of language and how people use language in various situations. Hence, to communicate with other users of a language appropriately and effectively, it is not enough to acquire the linguistic form of the language, but one should also have some knowledge on the pragmatic aspects of an utterance. In this context, Crystal (2008) distinguished different approaches of pragmatics such as pragmalinguistics, sociopramatics, general pragmatics, and applied pragmatics. He stated that such proposed approaches of pragmatics are essential to analyse and classify the variety of topics involved, such as speech acts, deixis, presuppositions, conversational implicatures, and discourse structure. Crystal (2008) clarified these approaches as highlighted below. Pragmalinguistics has been used by some to refer to the more linguistic ‘end’ of pragmatics, wherein one studies these matters from the viewpoint of the structural resources available in a language. Sociopramatics, by contrast, studies the way conditions on language use derive from the social situation. General pragmatics is the study of the principles governing the communicative use of language, especially as encountered in conversations – principles which may be studied as putative universals, or restricted to the study of specific languages (p. 379-80). With regard to the abovementioned, one can conclude that pragmatics is not only a linguistic field of study that focuses on the structural aspects of language, but also a social and pedagogical way of analysing and understanding language-in-use. Thus, Zeitlyn (2005) stated that in pragmatics, one should focus on situational, inherent, and negotiated features of language use. As far as KTs are concerned, some modern studies, such as Casson (1975), Zeitlyn (1993; 2005), Agha (2007) attempted to relate linguistic studies, particularly pragmatics with the meanings of kin terms as being an important aspect of language-in-use. These studies confirmed that kin terms could convey interactive meaning with different aspects of pragmatics such as speech acts, performative verbs, politeness, deixis, and discourse structure. The researchers will discuss aspects of pragmatics that are highly relevant to kin terms represented by deixis (terms of address and reference, honorfics), politeness, performativity, and speech acts in both English and Arabic. 2. DEIXIS Generally, most pragmatic studies focus on how individuals or groups of people use and understand language appropriately in a particular context. However, using and understanding an utterance require not only knowing the meanings of lexical and grammatical relations, but also how to connect and distinguish between what is said and what is meant. Levinson (1983), thus, pointed out that understanding the relationship between language and context may be done through the phenomenon of deixis. He said, “the single most obvious way in which the 78

6th ILLC 2015 relationship between language and context is reflected in the structure of languages themselves is through the phenomenon of deixis” (p. 54). The concept of deixis includes a set of linguistic terms that are used to encode the context of situation or speech events, including the participants of the speech event as well as its place and time. In this regard, Lyons (1977) mentioned that deixis may cover “the functions of personal and demonstrative pronouns of tense and of a variety of other grammatical and lexical features which relate utterances to the spatiotemporal coordinates of the utterance” (p. 636). Scholars such as Fillmore (1975; 1997), Brown and Yule (1983), and Levinson (1983; 2004) identified different types of deixis including personal deixis, temporal deixis, discourse deixis, and social deixis. Among these types of deixis, the researchers focus on the social deixis due to its relevance and its close relationship to the KTs. Social deixis, which includes terms of address and reference and honorifics, refers to the social role relationship played by the participants in a particular speech event. To build an intimate and social relationship among each other, attract the attention of other people, and show aspects of politeness, people of any language may use different ways of communication when talking to and about each other. Each language has its own forms, or expressions to do so, and these forms are different from each other from various sociocultural, sociopragmatic, sociolinguistic, and anthropological viewpoints. 2.1 Forms of address and reference in English Generally, forms of address and reference that are used for addressing and when talking to each other are of different kinds, such as personal names, pronouns, nicknames, honorifics and KTs (Levinson, 1983; Dickey, 1997). The study of such forms in any language is very important to avoid some situations of misunderstanding when using such terms inappropriately, particularly in English and Arab cultures. Holmes (1992) added another point of importance when he said that “examining the way people use language in different social contexts provides a wealth of information about the way language works, as well as about the social relationships in a community” (p.1). As people utilise different styles in different social contexts, this has attracted sociolinguists to conduct research in order to find the relationship between context and the nature of language used in that context. Thus, scholars attempted to discover the social and anthropological features of language in order to develop empirical methods on how to use language in its social, communicative, and interactional settings. Moreover, sociolinguists have been interested in investigating how language users utilize language in everyday situations, and how to address, designate, or refer to each other in order to classify and categorize the suitable forms of utterance. One of the reliable ways that can help categorize and understand the nature of language use in relation to culture is through the use of forms of address. With regard to this view, Daher (1987) affirmed that "terms of address are the best example of the interaction between language and society and the more we understand them, the more we understand language” (p. 144). Generally, forms of address are of different types, such as personal names and pronouns, titles, terms of formality, teknonyms, honorific terms, and KTs. The choice of any form of these address terms is different from culture to culture; and the use of these terms is determined by three distinctive components: the speaker, the addressee, and the nature of relationship between the speaker and the addressee within the social context of an utterance. The 79

6th ILLC 2015 relationship between the participants of an utterance is determined by some socio-cultural factors such as age, gender, social status, family relationship, occupational hierarchy, power, and solidarity (Dickey, 1997; Ofulue, 2004; Wardhaugh, 2006). Due to space constraints, the researchers focus on the use of kinship terms (KTs) within the context of the family members and in other social contexts. Because of their main role within the social deixis, many researchers, such as Levinson (1983; 2004), Braun (1988), Dickey (1996; 1997), and Ofulue (2004) attempted to study the terms of Kinship with regard to different theoretical views, including socio-linguistic, pragmatic, and cultural perspectives. Dickey (1996; 1997), for example, stated that, in many languages, the use of KTs could be regarded as one of the main categories of address terms that can be used to maintain, identify, and reinforce the social relationships among the family members as well as other participants. Dickey (1997) conducted a pragmatic study that investigated the actual relationship between forms of reference and forms of address among family members in English language, American and British. He found that age or generational lines of the participants can govern addressing relatives within American family members. Hence, he divided the procedures in kinship address terms into three lines of generation: younger (or descending) generations, same generations, and ascending generations. As for addressing and referring to the younger generations, Dickey (1997) stated that “family members of a younger generation than the speaker were almost always addressed by first name (FN), a nickname, or a term of endearment. Reference to younger family members was also by FN (or nicknames)” (p. 261). This means that among American English speakers, parents tend to address their children with their first names or terms of endearment rather than KTs. This matter of address is used to reflect the close relationship between the members of the family, particularly parents and their descending generations. As for the family relatives of the same generation, such as between brothers, sisters, and spouses, they also address each other by their first names, or terms of endearment. Dickey (1997) added that family members of the same generation typically referred to each other by their first names, but never with terms of endearment. With regard to the relatives of ascending generations such as parents and grandparents, Dickey mentioned that “Family members of ascending generations were normally addressed with kinship terms” (p. 261). Generally, the kinship address terms used to address the ascending relatives mainly include the primitive kin terms, such as father and mother, as well as terms of endearments such as Mum, Dad, Mommy, and Granny. Moreover, speakers would also use these kin terms when referring to their parents. Concerning the terms of reference, these terms are the ones that individuals may use to refer to other persons in their absence. For example, if somebody asks his/her friend about the kind of kin relationship with X or Y, he/she will answer that X is, for example, my father; whereas Y is my father’s father (grandfather). The relationship between terms of address and terms of reference can be clarified by what Braun (1988) stated by saying that the concept of address refers to an individual’s linguistic reference to his/her participant. Sometimes, it is usual to use the same kin address terms for reference particularly with some primitive KTs such as father, mother, and son. Nevertheless, rules of addressing and referring to other persons may sometimes be different in the use of some KTs. This can be seen in some English and Arabic kin terms, such as nephew, niece, grandson, and granddaughter, that are commonly used as forms of reference, but may rarely be employed as forms of address. Therefore, speakers may use other nominal terms, such as endearment terms or first names instead of these kin terms (Braun, 1988). 80

6th ILLC 2015 However, terms of address and reference in English are of two types: consanguineal and affinal or marriage terms. Consanguineal KTs include father (F), mother (M), brother (B), sister (Z), son (S), daughter (D), grandfather (FF, MF), grandmother (MM, FM), uncle (FB, MB), aunt (FZ, MZ), cousin (FBS, FBD, FZS, FZD, MBS, MBD, MZS, MZD, nephew (BS, ZS), niece (BD, ZD), grandson (SS, DS), and granddaughter (SD, DD). Affinal KTs are composed of husband (H), wife (W), father-in-law (HF, WF), mother-in-law (HM, WM), brother-in-law (HB, WB, ZH), sister-in-law (HZ, WZ, BW), son-in-law (DH), daughter-in-law (SW), uncle (FZH, MZH), aunt (FBW, MBW), cousin-in-law (FBSW, FBDH, FZSW, FZDH, MBSW, MBDH, MZSW, MZDH), nephew (HBS, WBS, HZS, WZS), and niece (HBD, WBD, HZD, WZD). 2.2 Forms of address and reference in Arabic As far as Arabic kinship address terms are concerned, some researchers attempted to investigate these terms as part of other forms of address within different Arabic language varieties. Thus, Braun (1988) and Farghal and Shakir (1994) investigated terms of address in Jordanian Arabic variety. Parkinson (1985; 2010) also conducted a study about terms of address in Egyptian Arabic. Braun (1988) investigated the use of terms of address in Jordanian Arabic language, in addition to other languages, in which KTs are the basic ones of these terms. He maintained that the choice of suitable variant terms of address was mainly related to a particular conversational situation as well as other social features related to the speaker and listener such as their religion, age, education, and class. Braun stated that, in most languages, forms of address could be identified as three word classes: verbs, nouns, and pronouns. As far as this study is concerned, KTs are one of the nouns of address, in addition to other nominal terms of address, which include personal names, titles, abstract nouns, occupational terms, terms of endearment, and teknonyms. In his analysis of family kinship address terms, Braun (1988) identified the phenomenon of address inversion, particularly in KTs. He stated that “inversion consists of the reciprocation of a term suiting one of the collocutors, mostly a variant expressing seniority or superiority. Thus, Arabic xa:li ‘my (maternal) uncle’ can be used for both uncle and (by reciprocation) sister’s child” (p. 33). This means that both relatives, uncle and his/her niece or nephew, use the same kin term though it is commonly used by a child when addressing each other in order to emphasize the social relationship between the interlocutors. Farghal and Shakir (1994) examined Jordanian relational social deixis by identifying “three categories: addressee honorifics, referent honorifics, and bystander honorifics” (p. 242). They mainly focused on the socio-pragmatic aspects of the category of addressee honorifics, and their social role in maintaining and developing social contact among family members, from one hand, and other individuals who are outside the family, on the other hand. In this regard, they divided honorific KTs into two types: affectionate kin vocatives (used among relatives) and distant kin vocatives (utilized among strangers). Therefore, they maintained that the use of such honorific KTs outside the range of family members may be regarded as the suitable polite way to attract the attention of a stranger; whereas among relatives to increase social intimacy. The researchers assume that each society has its forms of address that are used to minimize the social distance and express solidarity among individuals. However, Arab Muslim society tends to extensively use KTs to achieve such a goal to maintain an intimate relationship with other people (Griffin, 2010). 81

6th ILLC 2015 3. Politeness and honorifics in English One of the sociolinguistic and pragmatic fields of study that have attracted the attention of the new modern linguistics scholars is the phenomenon of politeness. Thus, scholars such as Brown and Levinson (1987), Leech (1983), Watts (2003), Lakoff and Ide (2005), and Brown (2011) investigated politeness from different linguistic, social, religious, and educational viewpoints. This is because politeness is a behavioural linguistic action done by members of a society to “achieve social coordination and sustain communication” (Janney and Arndt, 1992, p. 23). Therefore, people may use various linguistic and metalinguistic ways and strategies to express politeness and soften utterance that may threaten the addressee’s face. The use of such strategies and ways of politeness is determined by various factors such as gender, age, social status, context, and familiarity. Leech (2005) mentioned that there are different linguistic markers (morphological, syntactic, and lexical) that can encode the values of politeness. One of these markers is the use of honorific forms. Brown and Levinson (1987) stated that one could regard honorific forms as the cornerstone of politeness strategies that are explicitly or implicitly used by the speakers to show aspects of respect and reveal difference to the listeners. Richards and Schmidt (2010) defined honorifics as “politeness formulas in a particular language which may be specific affixes, words, or sentence structures” (p. 264). They thought that some languages, such as Arabic and Japanese, have a complex system of honorific forms; whereas some other languages, such as English, have a simple system of honorifics. Generally, in all languages, people may use different forms and ways to signal relative social status or to encode the social relationship between parents and their children or between the elder generation and the younger generation. In this regard, Brown and Levinson (1987) mentioned that honorifics are one of these forms that can be viewed as “direct grammatical encodings of relative social status.” (p. 179). Hence, to dignify and distinguish the social status of the addressed person, the speakers mainly use these honorific forms. Thus, Brown and Levinson (1987) characterized forms of honorifics as one of the negative politeness strategies that are "typically strategically used to soften FTAs [Face Threatening Acts], by indexing the absence of risk to the addressee" (p. 182). Foley (1997) and Crystal (2008) stated that honorifics are a class of lexical words or syntactic morphemes that are used to indicate various social relationships among the participants or between the interlocutor and referents in the utterance, and to convey points of polite behaviour or respect among the interlocutors. Consequently, one can conclude that honorifics are morphological or syntactic forms that have a pragmatic functional meaning of politeness. Therefore, Irvine (1995) affirmed that a distinction should be made between politeness and honorification. He thought that politeness is mainly related to utterance or pragmatic meaning and has a communicative outcome; whereas honorification is a linguistic form that is related to the morphological or sentence meaning. To clarify this distinction, Irvine (1995) stated that “linguistic honorifics are forms of speech that signal social deference, through conventionalized understandings of some aspects, of the formmeaning relationship” (p. 1). Levinson (1983) differentiated two types of honorifics: relational and absolute. The relational honorifics are concerned with encoding social relationships in terms of relative rank or respect in any language. With regard to the relationship between the speaker, from one hand, and referent, addressee, and the audience or bystander, on the other hand, this type is subdivided into three categories: referent honorifics, addressee honorifics, and bystander honorifics. Thus, for social 82

6th ILLC 2015 reasons, one can say that in relational honorific forms, the addressee may not be addressed by his real name, quality, or title, but by another polite honorific form. Here, Farghal and Shakir (1994) pointed out that “relational social honorifics drift from denotational signification, which involves an absolute parameter, such as kin terms and titles of address, toward connotational signification, which dis-plays a relational parameter, such as using kin terms and titles of address nondenotationally (i.e., exclusively for social purposes” (p. 242). As for the absolute honorifics, this type is mainly related to encoding the relationship between the speaker (or other participants) and the kind of setting or social activity in relation to the formality levels of the setting. Moreover, absolute honorifics distinguish between the formal and informal relationships between the addressers and the addressees, or what Levinson (1983) called authorized speakers and authorized recipients (p. 91) in which specific forms are only reserved for these two kinds of participants. Hence, in absolute honorific forms, the addressee has the real and the correct form of honorification at the time of utterance. Under the heading of relational and absolute honorific forms in the English language, a number of honorific forms are included; that may be used to address different kinds of participants in different settings. These may include common titles such as, Mr. and Mrs., formal titles as in sir and madam, academic titles as in Prof. and Dr, religious titles as in Father (Fr) for priests and Sister (Sr) in the Catholic Church, and kinship relations as in father and mother (Brown, 2011). 4. Politeness and honorifics in Arabic As far as Arabic honorifics are concerned, Matti (2011) mentioned that “in Arabic, honorifics are coined either morphologically (by pronouns, nouns, and verbs) or lexically (by conventionalized honorific titles)” (p. 113). Standard Arabic language uses various honorific forms to address people in different human interactions. According to the sociolinguistic point of view, Farghal and Shakir (1994) stated that honorifics are social forms that could be examined in terms of power-solidarity relationships in which such relations are different from one speech community to another. Relying on Levinson’s (1983) division of honorifics, i.e., absolute and relational, Farghal and Shakir (1994) asserted that in Arabic language, people might use different absolute and relational social honorifics. With regard to absolute Arab social honorifics, Standard Arabic includes various forms of honorifics such as politeness forms (i.e. ‫ عذرا‬excuse me, ‫ لطفا‬please), titles of address (i.e. ‫ حضرتكم‬your honor, ‫ سموكم‬your highness), and greeting forms (i.e. ‫السالم عليكم‬ peace be upon you, ‫‘ صباح الخير‬good morning’). In general, the distinction between absolute and relational honorifics may be relatively different from one culture to another. This is because what is considered as an absolute form in one culture may be regarded as a relational form in another. For example, the honorific form professor is an absolute form in English culture that is confined to authorized recipients, i.e. university academic scholars. In Arab culture, the same term professor that is equivalent to the social honorific form ‫استاذ‬, can be used relationally as a sign of politeness and respect to address various kinds of persons, such as a student to his primary or secondary teacher, a vendor to a shopper, a banker to the client (Shehab, 2005). Farghal and Shakir (1994) provided another example when they mentioned that the Arabic honorific form “hajji is a title of address reserved as an absolute social honorific for a man who has gone on pilgrimage to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, while it is used relationally as a social honorific in addressing any old man, whether he be a pilgrim or not” (p. 247). As for relational Arab social honorifics, Farghal and Shakir (1994) proclaimed that, in Arabic language, KTs are one of the important relational honorific forms that are used denotationally 83

6th ILLC 2015 and honorifically. They added that “Denotationally, kin terms are used to designate family relations among relatives (e.g., father-daughter, mother-son, brother-sister, etc.). Honorifically, however, kin terms are used connotationally to maintain and enrich social interaction among both related and unrelated participants” (p. 242). Because of their cultural variance, Horton (1999) confirmed that these social honorifics might cause difficulty to the translators if they lack knowledge about the cultural aspects of these honorifics. Farghal and Shakir (1994) proposed two ways of classification of kinship forms of honorifics. The first one is called distant kin vocatives which are mainly employed among people who are not relatives (strangers) to show deference and to consolidate solidarity among people. These forms may be preceded by the Arabic vocative article ‫ يا‬ya O or oh as in ‫ ياعم‬O uncle, ‫يااختي‬ O sister. Thus, in Arab culture, males tend to address strangers young female in public places as ‫ يااختي‬O sister to show aspects of politeness and respect. Furthermore, it is also common for a young male or female to address an old man who is a stranger to the speaker as ‫ ياعم‬O uncle instead of his first name or any other address that may have impolite connotation. The other form of this type that is used in reference to a stranger, male or female, is by using the kin term plus the first name of the addressed person such as ‫ العم علي‬uncle Ali, ‫ االخ مھدي‬brother Mahdi, and ‫ االخت فاطمة‬sister Fatima (Al-Ni'aymi, 2007). The second form of Farghal and Shakir’s (1994) classification of honorifics is called affectionate kin vocatives which “are employed to enhance intimacy among relatives and acquaintances” (p. 246). Thus, to confirm feelings of affection, intimacy or closeness in Arabic culture, relatives or family members may use kin terms when addressing each other, particularly between elder relatives (parents, uncles and aunts) and younger ones (sons, daughters, nieces and nephews). Generally, these honorific kin terms are preceded by the vocative particle ‫ يا‬ya O when the relatives address each other, however, it is sometimes common to use these forms of kinship without this vocative particle. It is worthy to state that it is common in Arabic to use these honorific KTs reciprocally. For example, a mother can address her son or daughter in different ways of interaction (order, request and question) as ‫امي‬, ‫ماما‬, ‫ ياامي ياماما‬my Mom, my mother, O my mother, and O Mom. Similarly, children may address their mother using the same kin terms as ‫امي‬, ‫ماما‬, ‫ ياامي‬,‫ ياماما‬my Mom, my mother, O my mother, and O Mom. This kin term corresponds with other Arabic kin terms such as ، ‫ ابي‬، ‫جدي‬ ‫عمتي‬، ‫ خالي‬، ‫( عمي‬my paternal aunt, my maternal uncle, my paternal uncle, my father and my grandfather) and their derivative forms (Farghal & Shakir, 1994; Abuamsha, 2010). Another polite form that is related to KTs and used in Arab culture is the use of teknonyms or what is called in Arabic as ‫ كنية‬kunyah. To avoid using the addressee’s first name, which is regarded as impolite among senior Arab people, teknonyms are commonly used as forms of address among Arab people in many Arab countries when they interact with each other. For a man or a woman to obtain a taknonym or to identify him/her as father, mother, son, wife, and sister in relation to another person, he/ she should have a child, particularly the first or the elder male child, a brother, or a sister (Farghal & Shakir, 1994; Ryding, 2005). Teknonyms are generally expressed by the use of the kin terms ‫ ابو‬Abu (father of X), ‫ ام‬Um (mother of X), ‫ ابن‬Ibn (son of X), ‫ بنت‬Bint (daughter of X), ‫ اخت‬Ukht (sister of X) and followed by the proper name, i.e., Abu Ali (father of Ali), Umm Zahraa (mother of Zahraa), Ukht Haroon (sister of Haroon), Bint Omran (daughter of Omran), Ibn Maryam (son of Maryam).

84

6th ILLC 2015 To sum up, all the abovementioned forms of social honorifics have a close relationship to the theory of politeness. This is because such forms tend to build social and intimate relationships between the addressers and addressees. The use of these forms may be different from one culture to another because one cannot generalize the use of such forms to be applied in other cultures. Hence, the use of some forms may be acceptable and polite in one culture; whereas in other cultures, it may never be used or considered impolite. For example, forms of teknonymy are extensively utilized by Arabs in their daily exchange, but they have no place in English (Haugh, 2006; Al-Ni'aymi, 2007).Thus, people in various cultures have different forms, expressions, and norms to express politeness and the use of such forms is controlled by the social and cultural norms of these societies. 5. Performative Speech Acts and kinship terms in English and Arabic Generally, KTs have been studied with regard to different forms of relations such as blood or consanguineal, affinal, and fictive or metaphorical (Parkin, 1997). Therefore, each form of these kinship relations may have its own features, criteria and terms. In this paper, the researchers focus on the affinal relationship because it has a close relationship with pragmalinguistic aspects, particularly with performative speech act. Here, it is Austin (1962), a British philosopher of language, who connected between the social aspects of kinship, specifically marriage relations, and the pragmalinguistic ones, specifically the performative speech acts. Austin (1962) mentioned that by uttering a certain utterance that contains an explicit or implicit performative verb, one might perform an action or a speech act. One of these performative speech acts is the speech act of marriage. As for the relationship between performative speech acts and the act of marrying someone, seemingly there is a close relationship between marriage – which is one of the basic concepts of establishing kinship relations – and performative speech acts in both English Christian and Islamic Arabic cultures. Thus, in English, scholars such as Austin (1962), Searle (1969), Agha (2007), Crystal (2008) considered marriage as one of the speech acts that may be classified under the taxonomy of Searle’s declaration of speech acts because in declarations “the speaker’s utterance brings about a new external situation” (p. 446). Moreover, declarations are similar to commissives because both of them include acts that can “commit the speaker to carry out a certain future course of action in the world of the utterance” (Searle et al., 1980, p. 253). Vanderveken (1990) affirmed that declarations include different declarative verbs, such as pronounce, declare, approve, sentence, authorize, and baptize; most of these “declarative illocutionary verbs name declarations that require a position of authority of the speaker in an extra-linguistic institution” (p. 198). In this context, Agha (2007, p.59) stated that during a marriage ceremony held in a church, the following performative utterances of marriage speech act are normally used: Example 1: Marriage ceremony utterances in a church Priest: Do you take this woman as your lawfully wedded wife? [Seeking consent] Man: I1 do. Priest: Do you take this man as your lawfully wedded husband? [Seeking consent] Woman: I2 do. Priest: I3 now pronounce you husband and wife. [Establishing marriage] 85

6th ILLC 2015 In uttering such utterances or words, the priest (the speaker herein) and other participants (the hearers), a man and a woman, do not merely make a statement, describe an event, or state that something is true or false, but also they intend to perform an action of marriage. Moreover, it is only these words and such a syntactic form, particular persons, and the authorized official, (the priest) who has the religious power to help perform such an action of marriage. Here, in pronouncing the two words husband and wife by the celebrant, Weatherall (2002) stated that the priest “does not describe marriage; rather, the statement constitutes an entry into that institutional state” (p. 104). Therefore, by applying the Felicity Conditions (FCs) of these utterances, one can conclude that such consecutive utterances are felicitous because they have been performed appropriately and they correspond with the conventional procedures of the FCs. Consequently, in order to achieve a marriage ceremony, the above utterances reflect conventional procedures that have a conventional effect of performing a wedding in a church and that this wedding is performed by an authorized official (the priest) in the presence of a male (husband) and a female (wife) and in a specific place (a church). The linguistic structure of the utterance involves three speakers using the singular subject pronoun I (I1 refers to the man or the potential husband; I2 refers to the woman or the potential wife; and I3 refers to the authorized speaker, the priest in this context). The first person singular pronouns I1 and I2 are followed by an indicative, declarative, active, positive and simple present performative verb do to substitute the two relevant structures, take this woman as my lawfully wedded wife and take this man as your lawfully wedded husband, respectively. The third person singular pronoun I3 refers to an authorized person the priest or judge that has a religious or formal and official authority to declare the act of marriage. Thus, the performative verb pronounce uttered by the priest or judge functions as a powerful acknowledgement and endorsement to conclude the emphatic declarative verb do. Furthermore, the ordering of these utterances is arbitrary in that seeking commitment and consent from the potential husband first then from the potential wife; this implicitly underscores that normally a man proposes to a woman that is similar to the Arabic culture. As for the speech act of marriage in the Islamic and Arab culture, which is called ‫عقد النكاح‬ Aqd Al-nika’h (marriage contract), this act could be listed under Searle’s (1989) classification of commissives illocutionary speech acts or what are called in Arabic as ‫( أفعال العھود‬acts of covenants). This fact is in contrast with what has been discussed in English speech acts that have considered marriage as a declarative speech act. Generally, these commissives are subgroups of illocutionary acts that obligate a person to do something specified in the propositional content and to commit the speaker to do a future action (Al-Ameedi & Al-Husseini, 2012). Therefore, in Arabic and Islamic culture, the act of marriage is regarded as a contract between a man and a woman, and can be initiated under the availability of certain conditions and requirements. Without such conditions and requirements, the speech act of marriage or marriage contract is void and thus it cannot be performed appropriately and legally. The researchers believe that these requirements are considered as part of FCs that have to be applied to perform the speech act of marriage appropriately and legally. Al-Tuwaijiry (2000) and Doi (2002) mentioned that although these requirements and conditions of marriage contract slightly vary from one Islamic school of jurisprudence (Fiqh) to another, as in Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanafi, and Ja’fary. However, most of these scholars agree upon the following conditions, and without whom the act of marriage is invalid. One of the pragmalinguistic aspects of these requirements include uttering the marriage formula (Sighah) by the fiancé and the fiancée or what is called the 86

6th ILLC 2015 offer and acceptance of the fiancé and the fiancée (‫ ) لفظ صيغة االيجاب والقبول من المخطوبة والخاطب‬in order to perform the marriage ceremony. Thus, the act of marriage (marriage contract) cannot be performed without pronouncing ‫ صيغة االيجاب والقبول‬Sighah (words of offer and acceptance) by both the man and the woman. Sometimes, the act of marriage can be performed by another party when the groom and the bride or one of them appoint a representative on their behalf or on behalf of one of them to perform and pronounce the act of marriage (Shirazi, 2013). Consequently, the following performative utterances of performing the marriage speech act are usually pronounced: Example 2: Utterances uttered by the man (groom) and woman (bride) themselves Woman: ‫زوجتك نفسي على الصداق المعلوم‬ myself to you on the agreed dowry)

‘Zawajtukah Nafsi a’lasadaq Alma’loom’ (I marry [OFFER]

Man: ‫‘ قبلت التزويج‬Qabiltu al-tazweej’ (I agree on the marriage)

[ACCEPTANCE]

In sum, the discussion above about the relationship between the performative speech acts and KTs shows the importance of uttering certain words in certain situations; the pronouncement of these words is not a matter of pronouncing words, but one can produce various ritualistic, social, and religious acts. The researchers believe that certain words may have powerful effects, and thus, there is a close relationship between the words uttered and the resulted action. Hence, one can conclude that the relationship between an utterance and its meaning cannot be defined in terms of arbitrariness because there is an intentional meaning behind uttering such words. 6. Conclusions The findings drawn from the above discussion indicate that there is a close relationship between the study of KTs and pragmalinguistic aspects such as deixis, politeness, and performativity in both English and Arabic languages. It was found that KTs are regarded as one of the honorific terms that are used to mitigate and reinforce the social relationships among people in both English and Arabic. However, these terms are extensively used in Arab culture to show polite aspects to the addressees whether they are relatives or not; whereas such terms are used only within the family members in English culture. Thus, to show their respect and politeness, Arabs tend to address any old man or old woman in the street, for example, whether he/she is from his/her relatives or not, as either ‫ ياعم‬ya ’amm (O uncle), or ‫ ياخالة‬ya khaalah (O aunt) respectively. It is also concluded that in Arab culture it is usual to use the same KTs inversely by both the addresser and addressee; whereas in English, such address inversion is not existed. Last but not least, the study of honorifics within certain societies is of great importance for the translators in order to provide a convenient translation for their readers. This is because the failure to understand the cultural aspects or the meanings of these honorifics will cause difficulty to the translators in their way of translation. The other point is that unlike English culture, Arabs use ‫ كنية‬kunyah teknonyms when addressing each other to avoid using the addressee’s first name that may be regarded as impolite among senior Arab people. Therefore, they use one of the primary KTs such as ‫ ابو‬Abu (father of) and ‫ام‬ 87

6th ILLC 2015 Um (mother of) plus the first name of the addressee’s son or daughter. The purpose of using such forms is to initiate suitable and polite atmosphere for the interaction to continue and to show more respect and politeness for the persons who are senior or having a different social status than the addresser. Because the marriage relation is one aspect of KTs, the researchers have proved that the speech act of marriage in both English and Arabic cannot be performed without uttering certain linguistic formula. Moreover, certain felicity conditions should be available in order to perform the speech act of marriage, and without which the act of marriage will be void or invalid. This supports the researchers’ theoretical affirmation that KTs have pragmalinguistic features. References Abu Musa, M. (1976). Min Asr’ar At-Ta’abeer Al-Qura’ni: Dirasah Tahleelya lisurat Al-ahzab. Qairo: Dar Alfiker Alarabi. Abuamsha, D. (2010). Terms of Address in Palestinian Arabic.Unpublished Thesis. Ball State University: Muncie, Indiana Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20). Agha, A. (2007). Language and social Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Al-Ameedi, R. T. K. and Al-Husseini, H. A. M. (2012). Promise and Threat in English and Arabic Religious Texts: a Pragmatic Study. Al-Ameed: Quarterly Adjudicated Journal for Research and Humanist Studies: 1-2 issue / Ramadhan1433 / August 2012, pp.9-104. Al Khayat, M. H. (2003). Woman in Islam and her role in human development. Cairo: World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. Al-Ni'aymi, H. S. S. (2007). Honorific Expressions in Arabic and English with Reference to other Languages. Tikrit University Journal for Humanities. Vol. (14) No. (3). Al-Tuwaijiry, M. B. I. (2000). The book of Nikah.Riyadh: Cooperative Office for Call and Guidance at Buraidah. King Fahd National Library Cataloglng-ln-Publlcation Data. Austin, J., (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Braun, F. (1988). Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Mouton De Gruyter. Berlin. Brown, p., and Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: CUP.

Some Universals in Language Usage.

Brown, G, Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Brown, L. (2011). Korean Honorifics and Politeness in Second Language Learning. AmsterdamPhiladelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Casson, R. W. (1975). The Semantics of Kin Term Usage. American Ethnologist, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 229-238. 88

6th ILLC 2015 Crystal, D. 2008. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 6th edition. Blackwell. Daher, N. (1987). Arabic Sociolinguistics: State of the Art. Al-Arabiyya 19 (1 & 2). 125-159. Dickey, E. (1997). Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of linguistics 33, 255-74. Doi, A. R. I. (2002). Shari’ah: The Islamic Law. 6th print. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Zafar Sdn. Bhd. Farghal, M. and Abdullah, Sh. (1994). Kin Terms and Titles of Address as Relational Social Honorifics in Jordanian Arabic. Anthropological Linguistics 36. 240-253. Fillmore, G. J. (1975).Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis. Indiana Linguistic Club. Griffin, Z. M. (2010). Retrieving Personal Names, Referring Expressions, and Terms of Address. In Brian H. Ross editor: The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 53, Burlington: Academic Press, 2010, pp.345-387. Elsevier Inc. Academic Press. Haugh, M. (2006). Emic perspectives on the positive‐negative politeness distinction, Culture, Language and Representation, 3: 17‐26. Holmes, J. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman. Horton, D. (1999). Social deixis in the translation of dramatic discourse. Babel 45:1, 53–73. Irvine, J. T. (1995): Honorifics. In: J. Verschueren et al. (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp 1-22. Janney, R. W. and Arndt, H. (1992). Intracultural tact versus intercultural tact. In Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory, and Practice. eds. R.J. Watt, S. Ide, and E. Konrad. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Lakoff, R. and Ide, S. eds, (2005). Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam & Philadelphia : John Benjamins Leech, G.N (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Longman. ________. (2005). Politeness: Is there an East-West Divide?. Journal of Foreign Language. No.6, November 2005. General Serial No.1_60, pp. 1-30. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ________. (2004). Deixis. In L. Horn (Ed.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 97-121). Oxford: Blackwell. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matti, A. A. (2011) Honorifics in Iraqi Arabic with Special Reference to English: A Sociopragmatic Study. Language, Communication, Information: Koutny, P. Nowak (eds.) pp: 111–121.

89

6th ILLC 2015 Ofulue, C. I. (2004). Kinship Address Terms in Nigerian English: Some Socio-Cultural Dilemmas. Journal of the Nigeria English Studies Association (JNESA) 14:1 127. Parkinson, Dilworh. B. (1985). Constructing the Social Context of Communication: Terms of Address in Egyptian Arabic. Berlin. New York. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied linguistics. 4th ed. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited. Ryding, K. C. (2005). A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. New York: CUP. Searle, J.R.(1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: CUP. ______ (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: CUP. _______ (1980). Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Searle, J., Kiefer, F., Bierwisch, M. (1985). Speech act theory and pragmatics. London: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Shehab, E. (2005). The Translatability of Terms of Address in Najib Mahfouz’s Ziqaq Al-Midaq into English. An-Najah Univ. J. Res. (H. Sc.), Vol. 19(1), 2005. Shirazi, G. A. S. S. H. (2013). Islamic Law: Handbook of Islamic Rulings on Muslim’s Duties and Practices. Washington: Fountain Books, in Association with Imam Shirazi World Foundation. English edition, 2013. Trosborg, T. (2010). Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and Speech Acts: Vol.1, Principles of Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wardhaugh, R. (2006): An introduction to sociolinguistics. 5th ed. Oxford: OUP. Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weatherall, A. (2002). Gender, Language and Discourse. New York: Routledge Inc. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Hong Kong: OUP. Zeitlyn, D. (2005). Words and Processes in Mambila Kinship: the Theoretical Importance of the Complexity of Everyday Life. USA: Lexington Books. Zeitlyn, Z. (1993). Reconstructing Kinship or, the Pragmatics of Kin Talk. Man, New Series, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 199-224.

90