<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<title>Department of English</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/1510" rel="alternate"/>
<subtitle/>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/1510</id>
<updated>2026-04-14T23:28:13Z</updated>
<dc:date>2026-04-14T23:28:13Z</dc:date>
<entry>
<title>When ‘Sir’ and ‘Madam’ are not: address terms and reference terms students use for faculty in a Ghanaian University</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/6578" rel="alternate"/>
<author>
<name>Afful, Joseph Benjamin Archibald</name>
</author>
<author>
<name>Mwinlaaru, Isaac Nuokyaa-Ire</name>
</author>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/6578</id>
<updated>2021-11-29T12:25:51Z</updated>
<published>2012-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
<summary type="text">When ‘Sir’ and ‘Madam’ are not: address terms and reference terms students use for faculty in a Ghanaian University
Afful, Joseph Benjamin Archibald; Mwinlaaru, Isaac Nuokyaa-Ire
Address terms and reference terms are common but key naming behaviours that are enacted in various social interactions. Thus, unsurprisingly, they have received much attention in sociolinguistic research since the 1960s. The use of these two communicative acts in the academic setting, however, seems under-researched. This study, therefore, investigated address terms and reference terms students used for faculty in a public university in Ghana, utilizing Scott’s (1990) sociological theory on resistance to domination. An ethnographic as well as a triangulated approach, comprising participant and non-participant observations, semi-structured interview, and introspection, was used in the study. Analysis of the data revealed three major findings. First, students used three principal forms of address, namely titles, kinship terms, and nicknames for faculty. Second, students used titles, personal names, and nicknames as the major reference terms for faculty. Finally, address terms and reference terms functioned as symbols of domination and resistance to domination as well as markers of identities which were coconstructed by students. The study has implications for theory, intercultural communication, and further research
22p:, ill.
</summary>
<dc:date>2012-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Ways of refusing invitations in English among members of a college of education community in Ghana</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/6577" rel="alternate"/>
<author>
<name>Sarfo, Emmanuel</name>
</author>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/6577</id>
<updated>2021-11-29T12:19:40Z</updated>
<published>2002-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
<summary type="text">Ways of refusing invitations in English among members of a college of education community in Ghana
Sarfo, Emmanuel
Refusing an invitation from another person is potentially face-threatening and therefore with knowledge of such potential danger, interlocutors employ different ways of minimising such threats. This paper is an attempt to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the maintenance of face in the performance of face threatening acts such as refusals. By means of ethnography of communication and theories of face and politeness, the paper analyses and discusses some ways of refusing invitations among members of the Berekum College of Education. The paper identifies two main ways of saying no to invitations, direct and indirect, and tries to find out how these ways are influenced by sex differences as well as age and social status. The study concludes that the different ways of refusing invitations are largely influenced by the above mentioned variables. The paper has implications for social relations and cross-cultural understanding
18p:, ill.
</summary>
<dc:date>2002-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>War on terror: on re-reading Dracula and waiting for the barbarians</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/6576" rel="alternate"/>
<author>
<name>Asempasah, Rogers</name>
</author>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/6576</id>
<updated>2021-11-29T12:13:37Z</updated>
<published>2013-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
<summary type="text">War on terror: on re-reading Dracula and waiting for the barbarians
Asempasah, Rogers
Framed by the emerging emphasis in postcolonial studies on terror and narratives of terror, this paper argues that Waiting for Barbarians (1980; hereafter Barbarians) can be read as a counter discourse of resistance to Dracula’s (1898) representation of “war on terror” which revolves around the relationship between empire and its embattled subjects. To demonstrate this the paper examines how Barbarians deconstructs Dracula’s trope of barbarian invasion, resists the techniques of liquidating Dracula, and reimagines Dracula’s the notion of the end of history and the last man. The paper concludes that Dracula and Barbarians offer us radically different conceptualisations of the war on terror and contending visions of the future that cunningly reflect contemporary attitudes since the 9/11 attacks
12p:, ill.
</summary>
<dc:date>2013-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</entry>
<entry>
<title>Variations in ways of refusing requests in english among members of a College Community in Ghana</title>
<link href="http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/6575" rel="alternate"/>
<author>
<name>Sarf, Emmanuel</name>
</author>
<id>http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/6575</id>
<updated>2021-11-29T12:05:17Z</updated>
<published>2011-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
<summary type="text">Variations in ways of refusing requests in english among members of a College Community in Ghana
Sarf, Emmanuel
This paper discusses the ways by which members of the Berekum Training College, Ghana refuse requests in English, and how age and socio-economic status affect those refusal forms. Employing the ethnographic research design together with the theories of face and politeness, the study reveals that there are two major ways of making refusals in English among the group, namely: direct and, more frequently, indirect refusals. The direct refusals mostly come from elder and higher-status interlocutors to younger and lower-status interlocutors – direct refusals are vertical. On the other hand, indirect refusals are inter- and intra-age and status based – they are both vertical and horizontal. These findings have implications for understanding cross-, inter-, intra-, and socio-cultural communication
15p:, ill.
</summary>
<dc:date>2011-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</entry>
</feed>
