Representation of social class and hierarchy in Bangla address terms A Sociolinguistic Study
List of Authors
  • Snigdha, Shayla Sharmin

Keyword
  • social interaction,Bangla address terms,kinship terms, power relation, social structure,

Abstract
  • Address terms are important language components that represent the existing norms and practices of behaviour, holding specific contextual meanings in society and adding meanings beyond linguistic codes. This paper explores the connection of Bangla address terms with various parameters like age, religious identity, power position, social relationship, ratio of intimacy, and geo-spatial cultural variation through a close analysis of selected discourses. Based on these parameters, it is found that Bangla speakers use a wide range of address terms, which is a special feature of this language, in contrast to English or other languages. In Bangladeshi societies, kinship terms reflect the relationships among the addresser and the addressee, which vary based on paternal and maternal sides, and in different religious and cultural contexts. By employing a qualitative approach to explore the social interaction process, this paper sheds light on the use of Bangla address terms in a culturally diverse context from a sociolinguistic perspective.

Reference
  • 1. Afful, J. B. A. (2006). Non-kinship address terms in Akan: A sociolinguistic study of language use in Ghana. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 27(4), 275-289.
    2. Ahmed, H. (2017, June 15).Chaitro Diner Gan[Video].Nuhash Chalachitro. Laser Vision. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAa0O7SFBao
    3. Aijmer, K., & Andersen, G. (2011). Introducing the pragmatics of society.InPragmatics of Society(pp. 1-28), De Gruyter Mouton.
    4. Aliakbari, M., & Toni, A. (2008). The realization of address terms in modern Persian in Iran: A sociolinguistic study. Linguistik Online, 35(3), 5.
    5. Al-Rawi, S. S., & Al-Assam, D. A. A. (2018). A pragmatic study of English honorific forms. Journal of the College of Languages, 38,1-27.
    6. Awoonor-Aziaku, L. (2021). Address terms in classroom discourse: Acase of university of Cape Coast students in Ghana. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 11, 497-510.https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2021.113037
    7. Barke, A., & Uehara, S. (2005). Japanese pronouns of address.InBroadening the horizon of linguistic politeness(pp. 301-313). http://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.139.25bar
    8. Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics. John Benjamins.
    9. Benwell, B. & Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh University Press.http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780748626533.
    10. Braun, F. (1988). Terms of Address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110848113
    11. Brown, R., & Ford, M. (1961). Address in American English. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/h004286
    12. Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity. In T. A. Sebeoki (Ed.), Style in Language. pp. 253-276. MIT Press.
    13. Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity in interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4-5),585–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407
    14. Bruns , H & Kranich, S. (2021). Terms of address: A contrastive investigation of ongoing changes in British, American and Indian English and in German. Contrastive Pragmatics, 3, 112–143. https://doi.org/10.1163/26660393-BJA10025
    15. Chen, X., & Ren, J. (2020). A memetic cultural practice: The use of generalized kinship terms in a researchseminar attended by Chinese graduate students.Lingua, 245(1).http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102942
    16. Damico, J.S., Simmons-Mackie, N. &Hawley, H. (2005). Language and power. InM.J. Ball (Ed.).Clinical Sociolinguistics.https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754856.ch6.
    17. Das, S. K. (1968). Forms of address and terms of reference in Bengali. Anthropological Linguistics, 10,19-31.
    18. Davies, P. (1990). The use of drama in English language teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 8(1),pp.10-13. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v8i1.581
    19. Dickey, E. (1997). Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics, 33(2),255-274.
    20. Djenar, D. N. (2006). Patterns and variation of address terms in colloquial Indonesian. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29(2),22.
    21. Erling, E.J. (2014). The role of English in skills development in South Asia: Policies, interventions and existing evidence. British Council. http://www.britishcouncil.in/sites/britishcouncil.in2/files/role_of_english_in_skills_development_in_south_asia_inside.pdf
    22. Fasold, R.(1990). The sociolinguistics of language. Basil Blackwell.Gisle, A. & Aijmer, K. (2011). Pragmatics of society.InHandbooks of Pragmatics(Vol.5).Moutonde Gruyter.
    23. Hawkins, N. (n.d.). Common English honorifics. GitHub. Retrieved June 30, 2023, from https://gist.github.com/neilhawkins/c7bb94e5b7ae558e826989d330418938
    24. Griffin, Z. M. (2010). Retrieving personal names, referring expressions, and terms of address. In B.H. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation(Vol. 53, pp. 345-387). Academic Press.
    25. Hassall, T. (2013). Pragmatic development during short-term study abroad: The case of address terms in Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics,55, 1-17.
    26. Hogg, M. andAbrams, D. (1988). Social identification: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. Routledge.
    27. Hua, Z. (2010). Language socialization and interculturality: Address terms in intergenerational talk in Chinese diasporic families. Language and Intercultural Communication, 10(3),189-205.
    28. Jenkin, R. (2014). Social identity (4thEd.). Routledge. Kang, J. Y. (2014). A contrastive study in American and Japanese addressing strategies from the perspective of powerand solidarity. Studiesin Literature and Language, 9(3),161-165. http://.doi.org/10.3968/6150
    29. Karim, M. A. (Ed.). (2013). Technical challenges and design issues in Bangla language processing. IGI Global.
    30. Kasper, G. (1992) Pragmatictransfer. Second Language Research, 8(3),202–231.
    31. Keshavarz, M. (2001). The role of social context, intimacy and distance in the choiceof forms of Address. International Journal of the Sociology of Language,148,5–18. Kim, M. (2015). Women’s talk, mothers’ work: Korean mothers’ address terms, solidarity, and power. Discourse Studies, 17(5),551-582.
    32. Kirkpatrick, A., & Zhichang, X. (2002). Chinese pragmatic norms and ‘China English’. World Englishes, 21(2),269-279.
    33. Lamber, W & Richard, T. (1976). Tù, vous, used: A social psychological study of address patterns. Newbury. 223.
    34. Lazar, G. (2009). Literature and language teaching: A guide for teachers and trainers. Cambridge University Press.
    35. Lee, K., &Cho, Y. M. Y. (2013). Beyond ‘power and solidarity’: Indexing intimacy in Korean and Japanese terms of address. Korean Linguistics, 15(1),73-100.
    36. Leech, G. (1999). The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. Language and Computers, 26,107-120.
    37. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. Harper.Maynard, S.K. (1997). Japanese communication: Language and thought in context. University of Hawaii Press.
    38. Mensah, E. (2021). A sociolinguistic study of address terms in a Nigerian university’s staff club. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics,57(4), 677–707. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2021-0024
    39. Mogi, N. (2002). Japanese ways of addressing people. Investigationes Linguisticae, 8,14–22. https://doi.org/10.14746/il.2002.8.3
    40. Moles, J. A. (1978). The Influence of differential'power'and ‘solidarity’upon the predictability of behavior: A Peruvian example. Anthropological Linguistics, 20(1),38-51.
    41. Özcan, F. H. (2016). Choice of address terms in conversational setting. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(1),982-1002.
    42. Reid, S.A., & Ng, S.H. (2002). Language, power and intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 119-139.http://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00108
    43. Salifu, N. A. (2010). Signaling politeness, power and solidarity through terms of address in Dagbanli. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 19(4),19.
    44. Seongha, R. (2019). Politeness pressure on grammar: The case of first and second person pronouns and address terms in Korean. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23(4),950-974.
    45. Shu-xin, L. (2004). On two major principles of address terms. Journal of Inner Mongolia University(Humanities and Social Sciences), 5, 77-82.
    46. Sigurd, B. (1982). Changes in Swedish address terms described by power-solidarity diagrams. General Linguistics Phonetics, 24, 63 -78.Lund University.
    47. Situmorang, K. (2018). Indonesian students’ acquisition of English address terms: A case study in a university in the United Kingdom. Indonesian Research Journal in Education, 2(2).1-18.
    48. Sohn, Ho-min.(1981). Power and solidarity in the Korean language.Papers in Linguistics,14,431-52.
    49. Stets, J.E. & Burke, P.J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly,63(3),224–237.
    50. Suzuki, T. (1973). Kotoba to bunka. (Language and culture). Iwanami Shoten.
    51. Takubo, Y. (1997). Shiten to gengok (View points and language behaviour). Kuroshio.
    52. Tannen, D., & Kakava, C. (1992). Power and solidarity in Modern Greek conversation: Disagreeing to agree. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 10(1),11-34.Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2),91–112.https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91
    53. Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity andself-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content(pp. 6 –34).Blackwell.
    54. Turner, J. C., &Reynolds, K. J. (2001). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations: Theories, themes, and controversies. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology, 3,133-152.https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470693421.ch7
    55. Wardhaugh, R (2006). An introduction to sociolinguistics. 5th ed. Blackwell. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507210140
    56. Yusuf, Y. Q., Nasir, C., &Andib, N. (2019). Power and solidarity: The pronoun of address ke [ke] used in Indonesian by Acehnese speakers. International Journal of Language Studies, 13(1),77-98.
    57. Zhang, X. (2011). A comparative study of the Sino-American address forms from an intercultural communication perspective. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1),54. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v1n1p54