International Journal of Basic Sciences & Applied Research. Vol., 3 (SP), 16-24, 2014
Available online at http://www.isicenter.org
ISSN 2147-3749 ©2014
A Contrastive Analysis of Address Terms in Farsi and English
(Based on Theory of Politeness)
Samaneh Dadmehr1*, Azadeh Sharifi Moghaddam2
1Faculty
of Literature and Humanities, Department of Foreign Languages, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran
Prof. Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Department of Foreign Languages, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman,
Kerman, Iran
2Associated
*Corresponding
Author Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Address terms are valuable data for sociolinguists, because these terms are used as the
starting elements of conversation in any society. Contrastive analysis of address terms
among languages are worthy of study, because different cultures use various address terms.
This study is aimed at investigating differences and similarities between address terms used
in English and Farsi, based on the theory of politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson
(1987). Data were gathered from 12 English and Persian movie films to better mirror the social
and cultural realities. Address terms within the theory of politeness were divided into two sets
of positive and negative address terms; the results showed that generally the positive
politeness terms were used more frequently than the negative politeness terms in both
languages. However, such different frequencies of positive and negative address terms were
found to be more in English than in Farsi. Conversely, the negative address terms were more
common in Farsi than in English. This suggests that formality and distance are shown more
frequently among interlocutors of Farsi, while intimacy is more common among English
interlocutors.
Key words: Address terms, Positive politeness, Negative politeness, Contrastive analysis.
Introduction
Language is the conveyer of culture. Language was just considered a tool in literature for a long time and linguistics was only c
oncerned with sentences in isolation. However since 1970s, linguists have been seriously involved in context evaluation and the inte
rpretation of sentences. Morford (1977) claims that from sociologic point of view, the address terms study is beneficial; because it sh
ows how the interpersonal relationships can be constructed socially and strategically. As a result, the choice of a particular address t
erm could represent the expression of feelings and attitudes. One part of the language which is closely tied to culture is "address ter
ms". Address term systems that compare the available forms and their interactions in one particular language, are cultured bound ac
cording to Brown (1988).
Context has been the center of attention for linguists, as Levinson (1983) asserted, “the single most obvious way in which the
relationship between language and context is reflected in the structure of language themselves is through the phenomenon of diexis.
Keshavarz (2001) believed that social diexis, a category of diexis consists of address terms and honorifics. Language is a social eve
nt and the address terms are very important initiating elements of any social relationships. Halliday (1978) proposed three distinguis
hed functions of language, ideational, textual and interpersonal. He then established social relationships between people in speech c
ommunity. Fasefold (1990) indicated that the address terms are more highlighted in sociolinguistics than any other elements when w
e consider the language functions. Address forms are very important for sociolinguists, anthropologists, and Psycholinguists, becaus
e they clearly mirror the complex relations of individuals in speech community; also they represent the people’s attitudes towards ea
ch other and completely show the relationship between language and society.
Definitions and functions of address terms
Definitions of address terms
Address terms or address forms, refer to the words used to address somebody in speech or writing (Dai, 2002). Afful (2006)
defined address terms as linguistic expressions by which the speaker designates an addressee in a face to face encounter.
According to Oyetade (1995) address terms are referred to as words or expressions used in face-to-face interactions and situations
16
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 3 (SP), 16-24, 2014
to designate the person whom being talked to. Keshavarz (2001) also referred to address terms as linguistic forms that are used in
addressing others to attract their attention or for referring to them in the course of conversation.
Braun’s (1988) point of view refers to address terms as the means of starting elements in conversation, and he refers to the
linguistic forms which a speaker uses to address his/her interlocutors. Braun argued that often address terms designate the
Interlocutors, but not necessarily so, since their literal lexical meaning can differ from or even contradict the characteristics of
addressees.It should also be mentioned that the address terms may have two functions; one is “referential” by which one refers to
people; the other is vocative by which one calls someone directly. Each of these functions covers a vast area of knowledge and
require separate studies (Paulstone, 1976; Tradgill , 1983; Chaika 1982).
Functions of address terms
Address terms as starting forms have been in the center of attention of sociolinguistis in all conversations. Because different la
nguages have different linguistic resources to state what culturally is acceptable or unacceptable. Therefore different languages hav
e different address terms. A study to compare the application of address terms in two different languages such as English and Farsi
could have significant values. Keshavarz (2001) investigated and proposed that culture is a determining factor in choosing the mood
s of address terms, because every individual in a particular society uses different address terms based on his/her social culture. The
refore contrastive analysis of address terms in two different languages with two separate cultures should clearly reflect substantial dif
ferences in usage of address terms. The results of this study subsequently could manifest the cultural variations.
The address term systems are cultured bound according to Brown (1988), that compare the totality of available forms and their
interactions in one language. In cross cultures situations, choices of address terms represent the cultural differences. In fact, every l
anguage has its own rules supporting the choice of address terms that are appropriate for any individual engaged in a conversation.
This means that language expression is closely tied to the culture of its speakers. Address terms, as kind of special language syste
m, can demonstrate the relationship between speakers and their cultures. The study of address terms as the main part of a communi
cative device, in different languages can manifest some significant differences and similarities in different societies. One of the integr
ated factors which influence people’s choice of address terms is politeness.
According to Braun and Levinson (1987) the mostconspicuous intrusion of social factors into language structure is deference.
They observed that deference is realized under the general theory of politeness. Braun and Levinson (1987) politeness theory is bas
ed on the recognition of positive and negative politeness, and to prove this theory, they used the appropriate address terms to show
both. Politeness is an interaction that could be defined as the means employed to show awareness of another person’s face. To Bra
un and Levinon positive politeness is solidarity oriented and negative politeness is power and distance oriented. The use of address
terms in a conversation can manifest either positive or negative politeness. Positive politenessintends to support or increase the add
ressee’s positive face by using intimate forms of address through closeness. Intimate address terms are among typical cases of posi
tive politeness. Negative politeness is served to protect the speaker from the impact on the addresses ‘freedom of action or impositio
n. Honorifics and titles are applied to achieve negative face through distance (Braun & Levinson).
Types of address term in Persian and English
According to Braun (1988) the different types of address terms generally are included in three main categories: pronoun, noun,
and verb, each including some parts. Based on the gathered data, different types of address terms which may be used in
conversations by interlocutors are:
Pronoun
A function word that is used in place of noun or noun phrase to refer or address another person in different context. It should
be mentioned that there is a major difference regarding pronoun in Farsi and English. pronoun in Persian language has two
subcategories which are :
 / which indicates intimacy and solidarity between interlocutors.
 // which shows formality and power of addressee.
However, ‘you’ is the only pronoun which is used to address someone in English.
Noun
A word or phrase that can be used to refer or address a particular person; it has different types which are:
 personal name: a personal name is a proper name identifying an individual person and is the most common form of addressing a
person. It consists of:
 Nickname: a word with similar origin and pronunciation to the original name. It also can be the familiar or truncated form of the
person’s name to address with affection and familiarity .e.g \\ in Persian and ‘ ’ in English.
 First name: This address term is the complete form of name that specifies each individual, especially in his/her family where all
members share the same surname, e.g. \ in Persian and ‘David’ in English.
 Last name: an address term which is part of a person’s name; It is common in almost all cultures around the world, and most of the
times is used along with first name. e.g. \, \\ in Persian and ‘swift’, ‘Mr. swift’, ‘Jack
swift’ in English.
 Kinship terms: address terms which indicate family relationship or blood relations, e.g. \\ in Persian and ‘mother’ in English.
17
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 3 (SP), 16-24, 2014
 Occupational terms: terms that are related to the occupation of the addressed person, and they are used when the occupation of
addressee is more important than other his/her characteristic, e.g. ‘doctor’ in English // in Farsi.
General title
Terms which are used as usual forms without considering the personal name or other factors that affect the use of address
terms. Based on the gathered data it has two types:
 Honorifics: these terms are used when the speaker wants to express some respect to the addressee and represents that the
addressee belongs to the higher rank, e.g. in Persian \\ (lord)) and \\ ( sir) and in English ‘sir’ and ‘mom’
 Common terms: terms indicating intimacy and solidarity; they are commonly used in these languages, e.g. \\ (girl) in Farsi
and ‘boy’ in English.
Descriptive terms
Address terms used when the address or wants to describe addressee according to his/her appearance or characteristic, e.g.,
\ (big head) in Persian and ‘fat boy’ in English.
Non respectable terms
Terms that are taboos and usually used in colloquial or informal speaking and also show solidarity ,e.g. \
and “ damn” in English
\ (idiot) in Persian
Greeting terms
Terms used by the speaker in order to indirectly call the addressee, e.g.\\ (hello) in Persian and “hi” in English.
Verbs
Some verbs in English and Persian act as address terms to make addressee pay attention to addressor, e.g. \ (look)
in Persian and “look” in English.
Statement of problem and research questions
Address terms have been also viewed as valuable sources that may represent different cultures, although many studies have
been conducted to investigate the use of address terms in different languages, no contrastive study has been conducted to compare
address terms in English and Persian language. Most studies in this area have focused on the comparative translations of address t
erms in Persian and the other languages. The present study focuses on address terms in real contexts and spontaneous speeches t
o investigate the significant differences and similarities between English and Persian in regard to the politeness theory.
Therefore, the questions to be answered in this study are as follow:
 What are the positive and negative address terms in Persian and English?
 Is there any similarity based on the theory of politeness between Persian and English address terms?
 Is there any differences based on the theory of politeness between Persian and English address terms?
Review of the related literature
Studies on the history of address terms
For the first time, Brown and Gilman (1960) focused on address terms by their classic study which represented an universal for
m based on comparison between two second person pronouns which called ( T pronoun ) that is used for familiar or equal situation
and (v pronoun) which shows the inequality and politeness . In this major study, Brown and Gilman elaborated on two main axes of i
ntimacy and power related to address forms. The distinction between using first name (FN), title and last name (TLN) has been show
n to exist in the American address system.
Brown and Ford (1961) investigated that the distinction between addressing others by title and their first names “Mr. John” or b
y title and last name “Mr. Smith” exactly acted like the distinction between T pronouns and V pronouns (called T/V distinction) in Eur
opean languages. According to Brown and Fred (1961) the address terms usage is not predictable only by considering the character
of speaker or addressee alone; but it is important to recognize both characters. They found three main patterns revealed in the anal
ysis and they are: mutual exchange of first name, mutual title + last name, and non-reciprocal use of first name where speaker call a
ddressee by FN and gets title+ last name in return. This study revealed that two kinds of relation governed the non-reciprocal pattern
s, namely differences in age and occupational or social statues, where the latter outranks the former.
Studies done in west
Wood and Kroger (1991) studied over the politeness of English address forms. They found that negative politeness outweighs
positive politeness. Furthermore, the result showed that negative politeness is more polite than positive politeness. Dicky (1997) con
ducted a study on address system in ancient Greek. She concluded that address form in Greek violated the tendencies exist in other
18
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 3 (SP), 16-24, 2014
languages: 1) the tendency toward T/V distinction; and 2) the principle that “what is new in polite”. Finally she determined that ancie
nt language is able to contribute to sociolinguistics. The changes in address system of three languages, French, Germany, Australia,
Sweden, and Finland were studied by Clyne et al (2003). They focused on pronouns, first name and first name vs. titles/last name/fi
rst and last names. The results showed that recent sociopolitical events and developments could affect the way people address eac
h other. They provided a new conceptual framework to study the address terms by conducting comparative research study on Italian
, Dutch, and Portuguese languages. Nyblom (2006) investigated the differences and similarities between the choices made by Finnis
h and Finland-Swedish students in using address pronouns. The article was based on a questionnaire given to the university student
s in the city of Vassa in Finland. The result of this study showed that the Finland-Swedish students use V pronoun somewhat less th
an Finish students. The Finland-Swedish use V in fewer contexts, primarily in service situations to strangers and public authorities. T
he Finish students use V, the same way as the Finland-Swedish, but they also use V to address old people.
Studies in east
Zhou (1998) conducted a study to find out the difference between Chinese and American in addressing non-family members u
sing questionnaire. His finding revealed the great differences exist between these two languages, because of distant cultural traditio
n and social background. Iragiliati (2006) analyzed the use of address forms as expressions of politeness in Indonesian medical disc
ourse. It was found that the positive face is achieved through closeness and establishing solidarity through kinship system by using I
ndonesian version of “you”, “sister”. In addition, the result showed that negative face is achieved through distance by using imperson
al address forms through deference by using the “surname” or “title.” Hao et al (2008) investigated common forms of address terms i
n Chinese and American cultures. The results indicated that the most American respondents used either first name or no name in m
ost informal settings or status conscious settings, while Chinese respondents used more diversified choices. Furthermore, acculturati
on played a role in Chinese respondents’ language change concerned with their choices of address terms. Qin (2008) carried out a s
ociolinguistic study on Chinese and Americans choice of address terms.
Data were collected from movies for better mirroring of social reality. The result revealed that besides the determinant factors o
f interpersonal relationship, factors in a context including who, when, where, to whom address terms are used and the type of interac
tions also plays an essential role in deciding the choice of address forms, in both Chinese and English. Yui (2009) investigated addre
ss terms in English and Japanese by using movies and TV drama scenario as database. Address terms were considered as vocativ
es and pronouns in this paper and the Yui (2009) discussed the function of vocatives and the way address terms are used as pronou
ns. The result showed the address terms concerning politeness works quiet differently in the two languages. Vocatives were realized
positive politeness in English, while at the same time, they can be negative politeness; pronouns on the other hand, are positive in J
apanese. Chen (2010) compared Chinese and English address terms. The findings revealed that the Chinese address terms were m
ore complex with more terms and a wider range of application. Furthermore, they were deeply associated with the culture and the cu
ltural differences. The value concepts such as, sense of hierarchy, sense of equality and their different attitudes toward the role of fa
mily could have great affects on how the Chinese and English address terms are used.
Studies done in Iran
Keshavarz (2001) investigated the impact of social context as well as intimacy and distance on the choice of address forms in
Persian. The results indicated that the use of intimate terms is inversely proportional to social distance and the formality of context. i.
e.; as social distance and degree of formality increase, the frequency of familiar terms of address decreases. In another study condu
cted by khani (2010), the researcher tried to clarify the complexity of the address systems in Persian and English languages to offer t
he translation strategies used by Newmark’s procedures for translation of cultural words. It was noted that culture is the most import
ant factor involved in the use of address terms and it dictates the choice of appropriate or equivalent terms in translation. Nanbakhsh
(2008) studied address terms in Tehrani dialect considering gender, politeness, and language attitudes. She argued that the addres
s terms are categorized as familiar and deferential in idiosyncratic ways based on individuals’ habits and identity. The results illumina
te the impact of local social change on language variation and revitalize the study of address terms and politeness by considering no
vel data from Persian. Aghagolzadeh and Asadpour (2010) scrutinized a selected Persian corpus to describe how they usually work
by the two variables: power and intimacy. The results revealed that the use of address terms in Farsi is affected by age, sex, occupa
tion, ideology, political and social status of the interlocutors. The results indicated a strong relationship between social structure and t
he address terms in Farsi. In a study conducted by Keshavarz (1988) on the address forms in post Islamic revolution, they showed t
hat in post- revolutionary Iran, plain speech and address forms of solidarity have gained popularity, whereas asymmetrical forms refl
ecting the complex social class structure of pre-revolutionary have gradually declined.
Methodology
This chapter allocated to three sections, the first section is concerned with data source and data analysis of our study. The the
oretical framework and the rational for selecting this subject are presented in the second section. The significance of conducting this
study is provided in the third section.
Data source and data analysis
To investigate the differences and similarities between the address terms in two different languages, Farsi and English, 12
movies were thoroughly observed. The 6 Persian movies were:
19
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 3 (SP), 16-24, 2014
 /Wednesday ceremony)
 life with closed eyes)
 bloody orange
 separation
 rush hours
 /seven minutes to autumn
The 6 English movies were
 Shao sheng redemption
 Requiem for a dream
 One million dollar baby
 Stay
 Lincoln
 Life of pie
The rationale for selecting these movies as the database for this study was that the address terms used in movie dialogues,
were identical to the ones used in colloquial speech in our everyday life. In addition, they properly mirror the social and cultural
reality due to their usage in the real context.This research tends to investigate the address terms in these two languages by
considering spontaneous speeches to show the use of address terms in different occasions. The movies are selected cautiously; the
movies had to be social genres because they would be able to represent the real life situation between the speakers and the
listeners; furthermore movies should be up-to-date in order to show contemporary time. The address terms were extracted and
counted throughout watching these movies. Five hundred and sixty eight address terms were counted, 302 Farsi and 284 English
address terms. After identifying Farsi and English address terms, the data were analyzed descriptively. A descriptive method which is
consisted of frequency tables, frequency percentage and column graphs with their analysis and discussions will be presented in the
following chapter.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework of this study was based the theory of Politeness proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) In this stu
dy, a contrastive analysis of address terms regarding politeness theory of Brown and Levinson (1987) was performed. Brown and Le
vinson (1987) believe that every member of a society has face, which is one’s public self-image and when the speaker decides to co
mmit an act which potentially causes the listener (or speaker) to lose face, the speaker will tend to use a politeness strategy to minim
ize the risk. According to Brown and Levinson, there are two types of faces; one is negative face, which is related to claim to one’s te
rritory, personal preserves and rights to non-distraction such as freedom of action and freedom from imposition. The other is positive
face, relates to the desire to be appreciated or approved by other members of a society. In this study, the address terms in English
and Farsi will be analyzed regarding positive and negative politeness in order to observe any significant differences or similarities tha
t may exist. Brown and Levinson‘s strategies of positive and negative politeness allow us to study not only the variation in the overall
use of address terms, but also variation that occurs within the terms themselves.
The significance of the study
The differences and similarities of address terms between these two languages are highly significant. Recognizing differences
regarding address terms between two languages may help students learn the second language more efficiently. Furthermore, being
aware of address terms similarities in two languages will facilitate attaining linguistic universals. Address terms has been of great im
portance in Iran. Many studies have been conducted regarding address terms. However, few studies have been done in the area of
contrastive analysis. The comparison of address terms in English and Persian languages reflects the direct cultural effects on choosi
ng linguistic elements. In addition, politeness imposes an effective role on the choice of address terms and their negative or positive
nature as well. The collected data were divided into two categories of positive and negative address terms to find the significant syst
ematic similarities and differences according to the politeness theory between the two languages.
Results and Discussion
Politeness of address terms in Farsi and English
The collected data from this study show, 284 address terms in English and 302 in Farsi that are analyzed based on the
politeness theory. The comparative analysis should help us to show if there are any significant differences or similarities between the
address terms of Farsi and English.
Positive and negative address terms in Farsi and English
Address terms used in English and Farsi can be divided in two sets of positive and negative politeness based on the theory of
politeness. They are compared to observe the differences or similarities that may exist within this classification.
20
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 3 (SP), 16-24, 2014
Positive address terms
Analyzing the address terms under the corpus of study in these two languages has revealed the types of positive address
terms to be:
 Shortened form of first name: including truncated form of first name by or without adding “y” at the end of the shortened name such
as // shifted to / in Farsi , and /converted to /in English.
 First names: including First names without intimacy or honorific titles before them such / in Persian and /Tom/ in English.
kinship terms: including close family names without intimacy terms like // and / (dear uncle) or
honorific titles like // (Mr. Uncle).
 Descriptive terms: including the phrases that describe the addressee such as // (beautiful hair) in Farsi, and ‘Mr.
Speaker’ in English.
 Common terms: including the ordinary terms that are preferred by speaker instead of all other address terms such as ‘boy’ and
‘man’ in English and // (boy) and // (girl) in Farsi.
 Non-respectable terms: These terms are forbidden terms that are used in informal situation such as ‘idiot’ in English and /
(idiot) in Farsi.
 Intimacy terms: including pet names such as // (my dear), address terms with endearment titles like / and
/ (dear) in Farsi, and ‘honey’ and ‘baby’ in English.
 Pronoun including second –singular pronouns applied between interlocutors. In English just one pronoun exists but in Farsi
there is two form of pronoun, one is // (second-singular pronoun) which manifested solidarity and intimacy, and the other
// (second-plural pronoun). Second-singular pronoun in Persian is used when the interlocutors are at the same level of
intimacy or when the speaker is superior and the addressee is inferior like when a boss address his/her worker by pronoun of //
( second-singular person).
Verb (a): verbs in this category are almost applied in informal situation and represent solidarity such as // (listen) in Persian
and ‘look’ in English
Negative politeness address terms
Based on our collected data, negative types of address terms in Farsi and English are as following:
 Last name and first and first and last name: including the last names with or without titles of  (Mr.) and // (Mrs.),
and (Mr.) and (Mrs.) in English, and also using first and last name in both languages.
 Honorific titles: Including general and formal titles such as // (lord), / (sir), and / (lady) and ‘sir’ and
‘madam’ in English, and other address terms with formal titles such as / (Mr. Doctor) and // (Mr.
Reza) in Farsi.
 Greeting: including words that are used in order to call or address somebody not by other address terms, but indirectly and by
manipulating greeting words such as  (good evening) and // (hi) in Farsi and ‘good morning’ and ‘hi’ in
English.
 Pronoun /: category of pronoun in Persian has two subcategories; this part belongs to pronouns in Farsi. The second-plural
pronoun/ is not only used for addressing more than one person, but it can be also used when the addressee is superior of
or older than the addressor, such as calling the teacher or the older member of the family by ( second-plural pronoun)
instead of using  (second-singular person).
The similarities between Persian and English address terms regarding politeness theory
37%
positive politeness
negative politeness
63%
Figure 1. The Frequency of Positive and Negative Address Terms In Farsi.
21
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 3 (SP), 16-24, 2014
Categorization of address terms based on the theory of politeness into positive and negative terms is shown in Figure 1. From 302
address terms used in Farsi, 191 (p=63%) terms were positive politeness and 111(p=37%) were negative politeness. The result
indicates that in Farsi, positive politeness is used more frequently than negative politeness.
17%
positive politeness
negative politeness
83%
Figure 2. The Frequency of Positive and Negative Politeness in English.
The total number of address terms in English was 284 from which 237 (83%) were positive and 47 (17%) negative politeness. The
result in Figure 2 demonstrates significant differences between negative and positive politeness frequencies. Based on this result,
the address terms in English are much more positive (83%) than negative politeness (17%). The differences between the address
terms in English and Farsi according to the Theory of Politeness.
237
250
191
200
111
150
100
positive
negative
47
50
0
english
persian
Figure 3. The Differences between Negative and Positive Politeness in English and Farsi.
Figure 3 shows that the differences between negative and positive address terms are more significant in English than Farsi. This
indicates that positive politeness is used with much higher frequency than negative politeness in English.
300
237
191
200
111
47
100
english
persian
0
positive
negative
Figure 4. Comparing the frequencies of positive Politeness terms in English and Farsi as well as The Negative Politeness terms in these two
languages, side by side.
Figure 4 shows, positive politeness terms are more frequently used in English compare to Farsi, while negative terms are used more
22
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 3 (SP), 16-24, 2014
often in Farsi than English. This may suggest more intimacy and solidarity among interlocutors in English, meanwhile more distance
and formality among Farsi interlocutors.
Discussion and Conclusion
Following investigation of the gathered data under the corpus studied, the following results have been found data were analyzed
based on the theory of politeness and the meaningful similarities and differences of Persian and English were provided as follow:
 by dividing address terms in two categories of negative and positive politeness , the result revealed that positive politeness is more
frequent than negative politeness in Persian language, but the number of negative politeness is considerably high in Farsi than
English.
 Among 302 samples of address terms, 191 samples belong to positive and 111 samples belong to negative politeness.
 In English the numbers of positive politeness samples are much more than negative politeness. Among 248 gathered samples of
address terms in English, 237 samples belong to positive and 47 samples belong to negative politeness.
 The high discrepancy between positive politeness in Persian and English revealed that positive politeness is more frequent in
English than in Persian.
 The high discrepancy between negative politeness in Persian and English showed that, negative politeness is more frequent in
Persian language,
 The last but not the least result demonstrated that intimacy and solidarity is more frequent among interlocutors in English language,
while the formality and distance is more frequent between addressee and addressor in Persian language.
References
Aghagolzadeh F, Sadpour H, 2011. A critical discourse analysis on terms of address in Persian. Intl J Humanities. 18: 135-160.
Braun F, 1988. Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. NY: Mouton de Gruyter
Publications.
Brown P, Levinson SC, 1987. Politeness. Some universalsin language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Publications.
Brown R, Ford M, 1961. Address in American English. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 62: 375-385.
Brown R, Gilman A, 1960. The pronouns of power and Solidarity. Cambridge: MIT Publications.
Brown R, Gilman A, 1960.The pronouns of power and solidarity. Cambridge. MA: MIT Publications.
Chen Q, 2010. Cultural differences in Chinese and English addresterms. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 1: 898-900.
Clyne M, Kretzenbacher H, Norrby C, Warren J, 2003. Address in some western European language. Melbourne: University of
Melbourne Publications.
Dickey E, 1997. The ancient Greek address system and some proposed sociolinguistic universals. Language in Society. 26: 1-13.
Ferguson Charles A, 1968. Contrastive Analysis and language Development. In: Alatis JE. (Edn.), Contrastive Linguistics and Its
Pedagogical Implications. Washington: Georgetown University Publications.
Hao S, Zhang S, Zhu F, 2008. A comparative study of Chinese and American address terms. Journal of praxis inmulticultural
education. 3: 39-58.
Iragiliati E, 2006. Verbal utterance patterns and politeness strategies in Indonesian medical discourse. Unpublished PhD Thesis,
Malang State University.
Keshavarz MH, 1988. Forms of address in post-revolutionary Iranian Persian: A sociolinguistic analysis. Language in society. 17:
565-575.
Keshavarz MH, 2001. The role of social context, intimacy and distance in the choice of forms of address. Int J Soc Lang. 148: 5-18.
Leech G, 1999. The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. Studies in honor of Stig
Johansson. 14: 107-118.
Morford J, 1997. Social indexicality in French pronominaladdress. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 7: 3-37.
Nyblom H, 2006. The use of address pronouns among Finnish and Finland-Swedish students. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics. 29: 1-19.
Oyetade SO, 1995. A sociolinguistic analysis of address forms in Yoruba. Language in Society. 24: 515-535.
Qin X, 2008. Choices in terms of address: a sociolinguistic Study of Chinese and American address terms. MA Thesis, Ohi State
University.
Wood LA, Kroger RO, 1991. Politeness and forms of address. Journal of language and social psychology. 1: 145-168.
Yui M, 2009. The function of address terms in English and Japanese: analysis using scenarios. Canada: University of Victoria
Publications.
Zhou X, 1998.The comparison of terms of address between Chinese and American English. Journal of Guangdong Education
College. 1: 88-92
23
Intl. J. Basic. Sci. Appl. Res. Vol., 3 (SP), 16-24, 2014
24