Formal and Informal Language Dialects Use in Kashmiri and Urdu: A Comparative Linguistic Analysis

Authors

  • Maryam Sikandar BS Student, Department of English Language & Literature, University of Central Punjab, Pakistan
  • Sidra Aqeel BS Student, Department of English Language & Literature, University of Central Punjab, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47205/plhr.2026(10-I)05

Keywords:

Kashmiri, Urdu, Diglossia, Register Variation, Sociolinguistics, Language Contact, Vocabulary, Grammar, Code-switching

Abstract

This study aims to compare the formal and informal registers of Kashmiri and Urdu by specifying differences in vocabulary, grammar, and patterns of use across every day and literary-academic contexts. The sociolinguistic setting of Jammu and Kashmir provides a distinctive background in which Kashmiri operates as the indigenous language while Urdu holds official status, resulting in stratified language use. Previous scholarship has acknowledged diglossia in the region, but detailed register-based contrasts remain limited. Adopting a qualitative approach, the study analyzes data from spoken interactions, literary texts, academic materials, and policy documents to examine syntax, lexical choice, address forms, and code-switching practices. The findings show that informal Kashmiri relies on a largely Sanskrit-derived lexicon and flexible V2 syntax, supporting intimacy and local identity, whereas formal Urdu is marked by Persian–Arabic vocabulary, standardized SOV grammar, and high codification. A functional distribution persists, though increasing code-switching reflects shifting identities. It is recommended that language policy and education systems promote Kashmiri alongside Urdu to support linguistic balance and cultural preservat

Downloads

Published

2026-01-19

Details

    Abstract Views: 22
    PDF Downloads: 2

How to Cite

Sikandar, M., & Aqeel, S. (2026). Formal and Informal Language Dialects Use in Kashmiri and Urdu: A Comparative Linguistic Analysis. Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review, 10(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.47205/plhr.2026(10-I)05