English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper attempts to show different terms of address in Lori and how the non-existence of deferential  ʃomɑ  (V) compared to Persian leads to some misunderstandings. Deferential V substitutes with other terms of address such as fictive kinship terms, formal titles, religious terms, address inversion and indirect address. For this purpose, the data were collected via two methods: (i) interviews (18 informants); (ii) direct observations (27 different contexts). The results obtained from direct observations were collected to check the reliability of interviews. The results demonstrate that politeness is not always a matter of ‘non-solidarity’ and ‘power’, but sometimes solidarity plays an essential role in making terms of address politer. Furthermore, social factors such as gender, age and social roles are crucial in determining appropriate terms of address. Lastly, men and women used fictive kinship terms differently. While women addressed their older cousins and affinal relatives by means of fictive kinship terms, men used them for addressing total strangers. This behaviour means that women tend to make a distance from the addressee whereas men try to create solidarity.

Terms of address and fictive kinship politeness in Lori