Introduction

Terms of address are integral part of our daily communication since we address to a speaker we are talking to. Based on the context address terms might differ in form, use or tone since they are considered as an indicator of different factors like cultural norms, relationships between people or intensity and purpose of speech act. Wardhaugh (2010) noted that the address terms also serve as language encoders to indicate power, solidarity, formality, and politeness.

Terms of address are the words that are the inseparable part of our daily life discourse. Whether it is personal life or professional life once there is a communication discourse there is an inevitable need for these words.  According to the Webster dictionary form/term of address are the words, names or titles that are used when speaking or writing to someone. For example, anyone hears the words like dear, Sir, Ma’am, buddy, professor, mom etc. in every day conversations. Based on the role as an actor in communication form/term of address may change in terms of formality, purpose. This single word can indicate the social status of interlocutors, their relationships, gender, cultural identities or other social peculiarities.

In terms of the context the discourse in happening address terms (ATs) can be distinguished as formal and informal words. For example, when interlocutors are close relatives, friends in a family setting the informal ATs are used like mommy, honey, sis, …while samples of formal AT could be considered the words like Sir, Professor, Ma’am, Dr. etc.

Address terms differ from culture to culture or even among smaller communities. For examples, the way the words used by family members towards one another radically differ around the world. Moreover, it might differ within the certain age groups as well. For example, in traditional Uzbek culture elder people to address any younger ones as son or daughter even if they do know them personally while younger people use words like aunty, uncle or granny or grandpa in an informal situations regardless of their relationships. But in formal discourse they follow the protocol required by a certain agency in charge. Factors like age, gender, familiarity also determine the usage of different or appropriate terms of address. Specifically, woman have tendency to expect more polite address terms than male (Rubin, 1981; Mill, 2003).

Uzbek military setting

As for military address terms they are the clear indicator of hierarchical relationships within the military staff. They represent not only strict protocol rulesbut also rank and identity (Lande, 2007; Holmes & Stubbe, 2015).

If the address terms can be dependent on personally traits as well among civilians for military they are not negotiable. They represent clear command and control principles and hierarchical position. Although in smaller and closer group of friends or peers interlocutors might address one another in a bit informal way without mentioning rank, position or surname. In any military context throughout world formal way addressing among interlocutors are the words indicate the rank           of a person. Also surnames are used after                the rank mostly but not always. If Cos or NCO are familiar with each other or then address with their rank + surname like Lieutenant        Smith or Captain Norov. In western military services. Moreover, notion subordination              also matter a lot in military discourse. Throughout the conversation superior person will no repeat rank + surname all the time and use only the word of a rank insignia instead. Inferior officer on the other hand use the address term Sir/Ma’am which indicates respect and superiority of his/her            interlocutor. Sir/Ma’am directly note the gender of the interlocutors while rank           insignias do not refer to the gender of a holder. It can be notices that in formal military discourse ATs indicate status, directness and politeness.

However, in Uzbek military context both quite obvious differences and similarities          can be seen. Contemporarily, in any branch of the Uzbek Armed Forces   formal way of addressing is proceed by rank + surname pattern. However, inferior officers use the        AT like polkovnigim, kapitanim or serjantim     that is translated into English as my colonel,          my captain or my sergeant. The suffix –im         gives possessive meaning and it might sound         a bit odd in English since highly inflectional language like Uzbek might have different formations and structures than English. However, similar patterned words with possessives like my Lord, my Lady were used           in military context in western countries as well. Like any other AT, in Uzbek military             Possessive + rank pattern also indicates status, directness and politeness. In addition, it emphasizes loyalty as well since the sense of loyalty is one the key motives of military service. A decade ago Uzbek Armed Forces personnel used to exploit Comrade + rank pattern as a formal AT as a result of the influence of the former USSR military power. But recently this pattern has officially been changed into my + rank pattern. It is used under certain terms considering a social status. For example, only inferior ranked officer say My Captain or My Sergeant while higher ranked officer use rank + surname or rank only patterned ATs. That indicates centralized command and control system in military structures where the president is the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Dedication and loyalty to the country are both unique and bottom-up approaches in a military service.

Despite my + rank, rank + surname, rank only ATs are widely used in Uzbek military discourse and the word Comrade has been expelled from an official usage within process of “nativization” it is still used in some occasions.

Methods and Results

For data collections both qualitative and quantitative methods were applied. For qualitative data analysis a platoon of cadets were observed during lessons and self-study hours. Also, mild and friendly discussions were held during English classes simultaneously with formative assessment of cadets’ fluency. For quantitative analysis survey was held among 57 cadets and officers. Survey includes 7 questions related to the terms of address used by cadets and officers in different situations. What was found out is that 100 percent of the time they use rank + surname, rank only patterns in a formal context without any exception at all. That shows discipline and chain command clarity among military personnel. What stands out is even peer-to-peer communications 42 percent of respondents still follow the protocol using rank + surname, rank only patterns. However, address terms used for civilian female teachers or service people usually overlaps. According to protocol they are supposed to use Ma’am to civilian female teachers but the keep using both Ma’am and teacher or some other polite address terms. However, they never break the protocol when it comes to female non-commissioned or commissioned officers. That makes us to believe that within military personnel gender does not affect address terms since cadets strictly follow protocol while for civilians they may replace address terms with other informal ones. This does not mean that they show less respect to civilians personnel since replaces words are usually show closeness, respect and appreciation.

Conclusion

Address terms differ from culture to culture or even among smaller communities. This single word can indicate the social            status of interlocutors, their relationships, gender, cultural identities or other social peculiarities.

Contemporarily, in any branch of the Uzbek Armed Forces   formal way of addressing is proceed by rank + surname pattern. However, inferior officers use the AT like polkovnigim, kapitanim or serjantim that is translated into English as my colonel, my captain or my sergeant. The suffix –im gives possessive meaning and like any other AT, in Uzbek military Possessive + rank pattern also indicates status, directness, politeness and loyalty. Uzbek military personnel follow the protocol without any exceptions in all formal situations since address words reflect discipline, power, formality and hierarchical relationships. Whereas, formality might slightly be skipped in civilian + military interactions even if they are formal. That makes us to believe that within military personnel gender does not affect address terms since cadets/officers strictly follow protocol in an interaction with commissioned and non-commissioned female officers while for civilians they may replace address terms with other polite and informal ones.