Abstract

The objective of present research is to investigate the English language variations due to code switching or code mixing between L1Urdu and L2 English. The present study demonstrates how language is different from culture to culture, religion to religion and how these changes help to promote Pakistani English an independent variety. The focus of researcher is to explore the role of Urdu language and culture in development of Pakistani English. The study is qualitative in nature. Comparative analysis has been employed. Two multinational companies Pepsi and Coke ads were selected for analysis. The comparison examined variations occurred between old (before 80s) and new(after 2000) ads’ slogans and taglines. The analysis showed that a clear shift of manifest advertising strategy from standardization towards adaptation. The researcher investigated various sociolinguistic factors. At the start of millennium the taglines were in English language, mostly standardized words over by the two companies. But later on, the value manifestation was quite opposite; it was based on culturally congruent values. As the time proceeded, the language of taglines gradually transformed to Urduized or bi-lingo (Urdish) instead of English.

Keywords:

Pakistani English, Language Varieties, Sociolinguistic Factors

References:

1) Baumgardner, R. J. (1998). Th English Language in Pakistan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2) Coleman, H. (2011). Dreams and realities: Developing countries and the English language: British council.

3) Cooper, R. L., & Cooper, R. L. C. (1989). Language planning and social change: Cambridge University Press

4) Gorter, D. (2006). Introduction: The study of the linguistic landscape as a new approach to multilingualism. International journal of multilingualism, 3(1), 1-6. Gorter, D. (2013). Linguistic landscapes in a multilingual world. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 190.

5) Hussain, Z., Mahmood. A. M. (2016). Linguistic variation across written registers of Pakistani English: A Multidimensional Study . Pakistan Journal of languages and translation studies. 4, 15-36.

6) Hoftede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.): McGraw-Hill.

7) Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in Academic Writing

8) Kachru, B. (1986). The Indianization of English: The English Language in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press

9) Mahboob, A. (2015). In D. Djenar , A. Mahboob , & K. Cruicks, Language and Identity across Modes of Communication. Berlin: DE GRUYTER MOUTON.

10) Rahman, T. (2014). Pakistani English. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies.

11) Rahman, T. (2020). Pakistani English. In B. Kingsley , B. Werner , & K. Andy , A Handbook of Asian Englishes. Islamabad: Wiley Online Library.

12) Tahir, M. (2018). Annual Report 2015-18. Retrieved from Islamabad: http://www.pemra.gov.pk/

13) Tahir, M. (2019). Directions for TV Channels [Press release]. Retrieved from \ https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2019/01/08/pemra-advises-tvchannels-to-stop-airing-objectionable-content-in-tv-dramas/

14) Talaat, M. (2002). Form and Functions of English in Pakistan. Multan: Bahaudin Zakriya University.

15) Talaat, M. (2003). Pakistani English: A Sociolinguistic Variety. Journal of Research, 4(1), 17-30.

16) Trudgill, P. (2003). A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

17) Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact: Feelings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.