Cover not available
Part of
It's different with you: Contrastive perspectives on address research
Edited by Nicole Baumgarten and Roel Vismans
[Topics in Address Research 5] 2023
► pp. 142–170

Chapter 6
Address forms in academic discourse in Indian English

| Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)
| University of Delhi
This chapter explores the impact of culture and identity on discursive practices. It focuses on the use of address forms by Indian bilinguals (speakers of Indian English and Hindi) in a university setting. Our aims are to define the set of address forms used in an academic setting by Indian bilinguals and to find socio-cognitive reasons for their choice in different contexts. The data were collected through open-ended questionnaires supplemented by observations, and interviews. Our results show a strong impact of the cultural background of Indian speakers of English on forms of address and their usage and demonstrate exceptional linguistic creativity of Indian bilinguals in inventing hybrid terms combining English and Hindi. We attempt to explain our findings by using an interdisciplinary approach drawing on contrastive analysis, discourse analysis, politeness theory, translanguaging and cultural studies. Our findings provide evidence of the convergence of English and Hindi which results in Indianisation of English in the Indian context.
Keywords: address forms, identity, bilingual, translanguaging, Indian English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Acculturation and nativisation of English in the Indian context
    • 2.1Linguistic situation in India
    • 2.2Code-switching and code-mixing
    • 2.3Nativisation of English and translanguaging
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Results of the questionnaire
      • 4.1.1Students addressing classmates in class
      • 4.1.2Students addressing a teacher in class
      • 4.1.3Students addressing higher administrative staff
      • 4.1.4Students addressing junior administrative staff
      • 4.1.5Teachers addressing younger colleagues
      • 4.1.6Teachers addressing colleagues of same age
      • 4.1.7Teachers addressing older colleagues
      • 4.1.8Teachers addressing the Head of Department
      • 4.1.9Teachers addressing junior administrative staff
      • 4.1.10Students addressing the Head of Department in writing
      • 4.1.11Teachers addressing the Head of Department in writing
      • 4.1.12Teachers addressing the Vice Chancellor in writing
    • 4.2Results of interviews
      • 4.2.1The use of the English terms madam, ma’am and sir
      • 4.2.2Surname/first name  + sir/ma’am
      • 4.2.3The use of the Hindi kinship forms didi and bhaiya to address junior staff
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 6 September 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tar.5.06lar
References (68)
References
Afful, Joseph Benjamin A. 2006. Address terms among university students in Ghana: A case study. Language and Intercultural Communication 6(1). 76–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anchimbe, Eric A. & Janney, Richard W. 2011. Postcolonial pragmatics: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6). 1451–1459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bandyopadhyay, Sumana. 2010. Indianisation of English: Analysis of linguistic features in Selected post -1980 Indian English fiction. Concept: New Delhi.Google Scholar
Braun, Friederike. 1988. Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. (Contributions to the Sociology of Language 50) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen D. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruns, Hanna & Svenja Kranich. 2021. Terms of address: A contrastive investigation of ongoing changes in British, American and Indian English and in German. Contrastive Pragmatics 3(1). 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2009. Multilingual strategies of negotiating English: From conversation to writing. JAC 29(1/2). 17–48. Retrieved 1 November 2020, from [URL].Google Scholar
Canagarajah, Suresh A. 2013a. Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Oxford/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canagarajah, Suresh. 2013b. Negotiating translingual literacy. Research in the Teaching of English 48. 40–67.Google Scholar
Clyne, Michael. 2009. Address in intercultural communication across languages. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(3). 395–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, Michael, Catrin Norrby & Jane Warren. 2009. Language and human relations: Style of address in contemporary language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan, Daniel Kádár & Michael Haugh (eds.). 2017. The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, Annette. 2011. Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals: An introduction. New York: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Formentelli, Maicol. 2009. Address strategies in a British academic setting. Pragmatics 19(2). 179–196.Google Scholar
Formentelli, Maicol & John Hajek. 2016. Address practices in academic interactions in a pluricentric language: Australian English, American English, and British English. Pragmatics 26(4). 631–652.Google Scholar
Gargesh, Ravinder & Anamika Sharma. 2019. Indian English in political discussions. World Englishes 38. 90–104.Google Scholar
Hofstede, Geert. H. 1984. Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
1991. Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hughson, Jo-anne. 2009. Diversity and changing values in address: Spanish address pronoun usage in an intercultural immigrant context. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer Circle. In Randolph Quirk & Henry G. Widdowson (eds.), English in the world: Teaching and learning the language and literatures, 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1988. The sacred cows of English. English Today 16(4). 3–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Asian Englishes: Beyond the canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna and Cecil L. Nelson. 2006. World Englishes in Asian contexts. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, Yamuna & Larry E. Smith. 2008. Cultures, contexts and World Englishes. Routledge: New York and London. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Karpava, Sviatlana, Natalia Ringblom, & Anastassia Zabrodskaja. 2019. Translanguaging in the family context: Evidence from Cyprus, Sweden and Estonia. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23(3). 619–641. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2014. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Khalil, Amr A. & Tatiana Larina. 2022. Terms of endearment in American English and Syrian Arabic family discourse. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics 13(1). 27–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kluge, Bettina & María Irene Moyna (eds.). 2019. It’s not all about ‘you’: New perspectives on address research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 2012. Contrastive linguistics and language comparison. Languages in Contrast 12(1). 3–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotorova, Elizaveta. 2018. Analysis of kinship terms using Natural Semantic Metalanguage: Anna Wierzbicka’s approach. Russian Journal of Linguistics 22(4). 701–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kumar, Ashok. 1986. Certain aspects of the form and functions of Hindi-English code-switching. Anthropological Linguistics 28(2). 195–205.Google Scholar
Larina, Tatiana. 2015. Culture-specific communicative styles as a framework for interpreting linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies. International Review of Pragmatics 7(5). 195–215. Special Issue: Communicative Styles and Genres. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larina, Tatiana & Suryanarayan, Neelakshi. 2013. Madam or aunty ji: address forms in British and Indian English as a reflection of culture and cognition. In Monika Reif, Justyna A. Robinson & Martin Pütz (eds.), Variation in language and language use: Linguistic, socio-cultural and cognitive perspectives, 190–217. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Larina, Tatiana, Vladimir I. Ozyumenko & Svetlana Kurteš. 2017. I-identity vs we-identity in language and discourse: Anglo-Slavonic perspectives. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 13(1). 195–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larina, Tatiana & Amr Khalil. 2018. Arabic forms of address: Sociolinguistic overview. In Irina Vladimirovna Denisova (ed.), Word, Utterance, Text: Cognitive, Pragmatic and Cultural Aspects, 299–309. London: Published by the Future Academy.Google Scholar
Larina, Tatiana, Neelakshi Suryanarayan & Julia Yuryeva. 2019. Socio-cultural context, address forms and communicative styles: A case study of British and Indian Englishes. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie [Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Series 2. Linguistics] 18(3). 39–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1999. The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In Hilde Hasselgard & Signe Oksefjell (eds.). Out of corpora: Studies in honor of Stig Johansson, 107–118. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Tatiana Larina. 2014. Politeness: West and East. Russian Journal of Linguistics 4. 9–34.Google Scholar
Lewis, Gwyn, Bryn Jones & Colin Baker. 2012. Translanguaging: Developing its conceptualisation and contextualisation. Educational Research and Evaluation 18. 655–670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. & Richard J. Watts 2005. Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of politeness research 1(1). 9–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A. and Tatiana V. Larina. 2019. Introduction to politeness and impoliteness research in global contexts. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23(4). 873–903. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, Min-Zhan & Bruce Horner. 2016. Introduction: Translingual Work. College English 78(3). 207–218.Google Scholar
Mehrotra, Raja R. 1985. Sociolinguistics in Hindi context. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH publishing company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992. Verbalization of polite behaviour in Indian English. Accessed online: February 2020. [URL].Google Scholar
Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Sociocultural approach to (im)politeness. In Jonathan Culpeper, Daniel Kádár & Michael Haugh (eds.), 287–323. The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mugford, Gerrard. 2020. Mexican politeness: An empirical study on the reasons underlying/motivating practices to construct local interpersonal relationships. Russian Journal of Linguistics 24(1). 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mühleisen, Susanne. 2011. Forms of address and ambiguity in Caribbean English-lexicon creoles: Strategic interactions in a postcolonial language setting. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 1460–1471. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulo Farenkia, Bernard 2019. Nominal address strategies in Cameroon French: Between lexical creativity and pragmatics. In Bettina Kluge & María Irene Moyna (eds.). 2019. It’s not all about ‘you’: New perspectives on address research, 335–354. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrby, Catrin & Camilla Wide (eds.). 2015. Address practice as social action: European perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Norrby, Catrin, Doris Schüpbach, John Hajek & Heinz L. Kretzenbacher. 2019. Introductions at international academic conferences: Address and naming in three national varieties of English. In Bettina Kluge & María Irene Moyna (eds.). 2019. It’s not all about ‘you’: New perspectives on address research, 375–396. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo, Ofelia García & Wallis Reid. 2015. Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6. 281–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parasher S. V. 1988. Certain stylistic features in Indian English and their relationship to degrees of formality. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 14(2). 95–122. Google Scholar
Pavlenko, Aneta. 2014. The bilingual mind and what it tells us about language and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rhee, Seongha. 2019. Politeness pressure on grammar: The case of first and second person pro-nouns and address terms in Korean. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23(4). 950–974. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1995. Bilingualism (Second revised edition). Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sedlatschek, Andreas. 2009. Contemporary Indian English: Variation and change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smit, Ute. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in higher education: A longitudinal study of classroom discourse. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suryanarayan, Neelakshi & Amr Khalil. 2021. Kinship terms as indicators of identity and social reality: A case study of Syrian Arabic and Hindi. Russian Journal of Linguistics 25(1). 125–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ton, Thoai N. L. 2019. A literature review of address studies from pragmatic and sociolinguistic perspectives. In Bettina Kluge & María Irene Moyna (eds.). 2019. It’s not all about ‘you’: New perspectives on address research, 23–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Triandis, Harry. 1994. Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2006. An introduction to sociolinguistics, 5th ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard. 2003. Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2003. Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. 2nd edition, Berlin, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Kinship and social cognition in Australian languages: Kayardild and Pitjantjatjara. Australian Journal of Linguistics. 33(3). 302–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Back to ‘Mother ’and ‘Father’: Overcoming the Eurocentrism of kinship studies through eight lexical universals. Current Anthropology 57(4). 408–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Addressing God in European languages: Different meanings, different cultural attitudes. Russian Journal of Linguistics. 24(2). 259–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, Jock O. 2006. Contextualizing aunty in Singaporean English. World Englishes 25(3–4). 451–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Soomro, Muhammad Arif
2023. Sociocultural Values and Pragmatics of Caste Address Form in Multilingual Pakistani Student and Teacher Discourse. Integration of Education 4:27 ► pp. 694 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.