Power dynamics and forms of address in Algerian and Russian academic discourses

This study examines the forms of address employed by teachers in Algeria and Russia, focusing on their cultural significance, student preferences, and the underlying power dynamics in educational settings. Drawing on sociolinguistic and pragmatic frameworks, the research investigates how teachers and students navigate authority, respect, and social hierarchy through language use. The study includes 143 participants from Algeria and Russia, encompassing teachers and students across various educational levels, allowing for a comparative analysis of cultural and contextual influences on classroom discourse. Data collected from classroom interactions reveals the significance of address forms—such as titles, pronouns, and honorifics–in constructing and negotiating power relationships. The findings highlight the dual role of politeness strategies: maintaining hierarchical structures while fostering a collaborative learning environment. It has been noticed that Algerian teachers predominantly use first names, last names, honorifics, and kinship terms, reflecting the societal emphasis on familial bonds and respect. Conversely, Russian teachers utilize first names, first names combined with patronymics, last names, and endearment terms, embodying a blend of formal respect and nurturing communication. However, the students' preference for informal address forms reveals a shift towards reducing power imbalances, promoting a more collaborative and inclusive classroom atmosphere. This paper contributes to understanding the sociocultural underpinnings of classroom discourse in multilingual and multicultural contexts, offering insights into the broader relationship between language, power, and education.

1. Fasold R. Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell; 1990:342 (in English).

2. Oyetade SO. A sociolinguistic analysis of address forms in Yoruba. Language in society. 1995;24(4):515-535 (in English).

3. Afful JBA. Address terms among university students in Ghana: A case study. Language and Intercultural Communication. 2006;6(1):76-91 (in English).

4. Keshavarz MH. The role of social context, intimacy, and distance in the choice of forms of address. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 2001;148:5-18 (in English).

5. Parkinson DB. Constructing the social context of communication. De Gruyter Brill; 1985:239 (in English).

6. Khalil A, Tatiana L. Arabic Forms of Address: Sociolinguistic Overview. In: Proceedings of the IX International Conference “Word, Utterance, Text: Cognitive, Pragmatic and Cultural Aspects. 2018;39:299-309 (in English). DOI: 10.15405/epsbs.2018.04.02.44

7. Morford J. Social indexicality in French pronominal address. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 1997;7(1):3-37 (in English).

8. Dittrich WH, Johansen T, Kulinskaya E. Norms and situational rules of address in English and Norwegian speakers. Journal of Pragmatics. 2011;43(15):3807-3821 (in English).

9. Khalil AA, Larina TV. Terms of Endearment in American English and Syrian Arabic Family Discource. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics. 2022;13(1):27-44 (in English).

10. Rifai DM, Prasetyaningrum ST. A sociolinguistic analysis of addressing terms used in tangled movie manuscript. Jurnal Penelitian Humaniora. 2016;17(2):123-134 (in English).

11. Holmes J. Women, men and politeness. Routledge; 2013:264 (in English).

12. Levinson SC. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1983:438 (in English).

13. Murphy GL. Personal reference in English. Language in society. 1988;17(3):317-349 (in English).

14. Paulston CB. Pronouns of address in Swedish: social class semantics and a changing system1. Language in Society. 1976;5(3):359-386 (in English).

15. Trudgill P. Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. Penguin UK; 2000:222 (in English).

16. Chaika E. Language, the social mirror. Rowley, Mass: Newbury Publishing House; 1982:276 (in English).

17. Talk O. Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. 2004:200 (in English).

18. Brown R, Gilman A. The pronouns of power and solidarity. Style in language. 1960:253-276 (in English).

19. Lyons J. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1977;1:897 (in English).

20. Brown P, Levinson SC. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987;(4):358 (in English).

21. Holmes J, Wilson N. An introduction to sociolinguistics. New York: Publishing House “Routledge; 2022:489 (in English).

22. Milroy L. Social networks and linguistic norms. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Wiley-Blackwell; 1992:549-572 (in English).

23. Wierzbicka A. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: “Mouton de Gruyter Publ.; 1991:501 (in English).

24. Baranova V. Cultural norms in Russian educational communication: the role of patronymics in address forms. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 2019;23(3):445-462 (in English).

25. Ochs E, Schieffelin BB. Language acquisition and socialization. Three developmental stories and their implications. Culture theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1984:276-320 (in English).