Your shopping cart is empty.
Log in

Categories of address forms in Pakistani English at a multilingual academic setting

Muhammad Arif Soomro, T.V. Larina

UDC 811.111(549.1)`24

https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.6s-22.050          

 

Muhammad Arif Soomro,

PhD student of the Foreign Languages Department

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia;

Associate Professor of the English Department

Quaid-e-Awam University of Engineering, Science and Technology

(Nawabshah-Sindh, Pakistan)

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1503-5375

e-mail: muhammadarif@quest.edu.pk

 

Larina Tatiana V.,

Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Foreign Languages Department

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6167-455X

e-mail: larina_tv@rudn.ru

 

The variations of address forms in multilingual and multicultural contexts create problems in their understanding, proper choice, and usage. The goal of this study is to identify the main categories of forms of address used by students and teachers in multilingual Pakistani universities and to highlight the socio-cultural factors that determine their choice and preference in various contexts, both formal and informal. An open-ended questionnaire was distributed for data collection in four public sector universities in the Sindh province of Pakistan. The material obtained from 252 participants was supplemented and verified through ethnographic observation and analyzed employing both quantitative and qualitative research paradigms. The preliminary results show that in multilingual academic settings, Pakistani interlocutors use a variety of categories of address forms with the domineering position of names and kinship terms. Speaking Pakistani English, they use both English and local terms of address borrowed from Sindhi, Urdu, and other local languages to express their cultural values, identity, and attitudes. The findings show that English forms of address are predominantly used in formal contexts while native terms are mostly observed in informal ones. The study provides some new linguistic facts about the impact of culture on address forms. Its results may contribute to further investigation of address forms from socio-pragmatic and cultural perspectives.

Keywords: address forms, multilinguals, cultural values, academic discourse, Pakistani English.

 

References

  1. Norrby C., Wide C. Introduction: address practice as social action across cultures and contexts // Address Practice as Social Action: European Perspectives / C. Norrby, C. Wide (eds.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. DOI: 10.1057/9781137529923
  2. Brown R., Gilman A. The pronouns of power and // Style in language solidarity / T.A. Sebeok (ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960. P. 253–276.
  3. Ervin-Tripp S. On sociolinguistic rules: alternation and co-occurrence. Directions in sociolinguistics // The Ethnography of Communication / J. Gumperz, D. Hymes (eds.). Oxford: Blackwell. 1986. P. 213–250.
  4. Labov W. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.
  5. Rahman T. Language policy, multilingualism and language vitality in Pakistan // Lesser-Known Languages of South Asia: Status and Policies, Case Studies and Applications of Information Technology / A. Saxena, L. Borin (eds.). Berlin; New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 2008. P. 73–106. URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197785.1.73.
  6. Eberhard D.M., Simons G.F., Fennig C.D. Ethnologue: languages of the world / SIL International. 23rd ed. 2020. URL: https://www.ethnologue.com/guides/most-spoken-languages
  7. Sharifian F. Cultural linguistics and world Englishes // World Englishes. 2015. Vol. 34. P. 515–532. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12156.
  8. Braun F. Terms of address: problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures (contributions to the sociology of language). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter ,1988. URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848113.
  9. Khalil A., Larina T. Arabic forms of address: sociolinguistic overview // The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences EpSBS, V. XXXIX — WUT 2018: Word, Utterance, Text: Cognitive, Pragmatic and Cultural Aspects. Future Academy. 2018. P. 299–309. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2018.04.02.44.
  10. Khalil A., Larina T. Terms of endearment in American English and Syrian Arabic family discourse // RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics. 2022. Vol. 13 (1). P. 27–44. URL: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2022-13-1-27-44.
  11. Suryanarayan N., Khalil A. Kinship terms as indicators of identity and social reality: a case study of Syrian Arabic and Hindi // Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2021. Vol. 25 (1). P. 125–146. URL: https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2021-25-1-125-146.
  12. Wierzbicka A. Kinship and social cognition in Australian languages: Kayardild and Pitjantjatjara // Australian Journal of Linguistics. 2013. Vol. 33. P. 302–321. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2013.846458.
  13. Wierzbicka A. Addressing God in European languages: different meanings, different cultural attitudes // Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2020. Vol. 24 (2). P. 259–293. URL: https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-2-259-293.
  14. Formentelli M., Hajek J. Address practices in academic interactions in a pluricentric language: Australian English, American English, and British English // Pragmatics. 2016. Vol. 26 (4). P. 631–652. URL: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.4.05for.
  15. Larina T.V., Suryanarayan N., Yuryeva Yu.B. Socio-cultural context, address forms and communicative styles: (a case study of British and Indian Englishes) // Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. 2019. Vol. 18 (3). P. 39–51. URL: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2019.3.3.
  16. Ozyumenko V. Addressing a judge in national varieties of English // Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2020. Vol. 24 (1). P. 137–157. URL: https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-1-137-157.
  17. Hofstede G. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Limburg at Maastricht, The Netherlands: The McGraw-Hills Companies, 1991.
  18. Yule G. The study of language. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
  19. Keshavarz M.H. The role of social context, intimacy, and distance in the choice of forms of address // International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2001. Vol. 148. P. 5–18. URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.2001.015.
  20. Kecskes I. Word, context and communicative meaning // Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2014. Vol. 1. P. 7–18.
  21. Larina T., Suryanarayan N. Address forms in academic discourse in Indian English // Forms of Address in Contrastive Contexts / N. Baumgarten, R. Vismans (eds.). John Benjamins Publ. [Forthcoming].
  22. Kamehkhosh N. Politeness strategies in British and Persian family discourse: forms of addressing // Philology. Theory & Practice. 2021. Vol. 14 (7). P. 2265–2271. URL: https://doi.org/10.30853/phil210360.
  23. Khalil A. American English and Syrian English forms of address: a contrastive analysis // Philology. Theory & Practice. 2021. Vol. 14 (12). P. 4032–4035. URL: https://doi.org/10.30853/phil20210622.
  24. Proshina Z.G., Nelson C.L. Varieties of English and Kachru’s expanding circle. DOI 10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-3-523-550// Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2020. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 523–550.

 

The work has been supported by the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Scientific Projects Grant System (project No. 050734-2-000 “Intercultural communication in the context of globalization, migration and language contacts”).

 

 

© Vestnik Vysshey Shkoly (High School Herald) 2008—2024