CC BY
23Training, Language and Culture Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 87-100
doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-87-100
Original Research
Power and solidarity in pronominal forms of address: A case study of Chinese and Russian teacher-student interactions
by Qing Zhou and Tatiana V. Larina
Qing Zhou
ORCID 0000-0001-5973-2204 h [email protected]
RUDN University, Russia; Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China
Tatiana V. Larina
ORCID 0000-0001-6167-455X SPIN 7317-7534 h [email protected] RUDN University, Russia
Article history Received August 10, 2023 | Revised February 11, 2024 | Accepted March 11, 2024 Conflicts of interest The authors declared no conflicts of interest
Research funding This publication has been supported by the RUDN University Strategic Academic Leadership Program doi 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-87-100
For citation Zhou, Q., & Larina, T. V (2024). Power and solidarity in pronominal forms of address: A case study of Chinese and Russian teacher-student interactions. Training, Language and Culture, 8(1), 87-100.
In the evolving landscape of global education, understanding the intricacies of interpersonal dynamics in academic settings across different linguacultures is paramount for building effective multicultural teaching environments. This study investigates the usage of T/V pronominal forms of address within teacher-student interactions in Chinese and Russian academic contexts. It aims to reveal similarities and differences in the usage of pronominal forms of address in the two linguacultural contexts and unveil the impact of sociocultural factors, namely power and solidarity, on their choice. The data were obtained from a parallel questionnaire survey with the participation of 360 students (260 Chinese mainland students and 100 Russian students) and an interview with 30 students from each country. Employing a comprehensive dual-methodology approach, this study combines quantitative analyses of T/V forms of address frequencies with qualitative insights on their pragmatics, appropriateness, and students' preferences from interviews. The findings revealed distinct T/V form usage strategies in Chinese and Russian academic discourse. They showed that Chinese teachers predominantly use the T form for students, while students use both V and T forms for teachers. Conversely, Russian settings show a prevalence of the reciprocal V form in teacher-student interactions, with some limited usage of the T form by teachers with students. The results underscore the significance of hierarchical relationships, the demonstration of power distance, and, at the same time, solidarity in the Chinese context, while Russian students and teachers emphasise reciprocal formality in relationships and maintain boundaries. We suggest that different types of interaction between teachers and students in two cultural contexts are due to differences in the sociocultural organisation of society and cultural values. The study provides insights for educators and researchers navigating linguistic and cultural diversity in academic contexts and contributes to effective interaction in a multicultural educational environment.
KEYWORDS: academic discourse, teacher-student interaction, pronominal forms of address, power, solidarity, Chinese linguaculture, Russian linguaculture
This is an open access article distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which allows its unrestricted use for non-commercial purposes, subject to attribution. The material can be shared/adapted for non-commercial purposes if you give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
1. INTRODUCTION
As academic environments experience greater internationalisation, it becomes increasingly important to give scholarly evaluation of interpersonal dynamics within these multicultural settings. Due to the growing academic mobility in higher education resulting in multicultural classes, research on university discourse from a socio-cultural perspective has become indispensable (Zbenovich et al., 2023). The divergence in cultural back-
grounds between teachers and students, coupled with adherence to distinct sociocultural communicative norms, poses challenges to mutual understanding and perception. This complexity introduces obstacles to the communication process (Rapanta & Trovâo, 2021; Voevoda, 2020; Zhou et al., 2023). To interact successfully and to avoid misunderstandings in multicultural educational environments, effective teachers must also be effective intercultural communicators (Le Roux, 2002, p. 38) and be
© Qing Zhou, Tatiana V. Larina 2024
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Training, Language and Culture Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 87-100
'The speech act of address is one of the most socially and emotionally sensitive acts, as forms of address show how interlocutors present discursively different aspects of their interpersonal relationships and regulate them. They may signal either closeness or distance, formality or informality, love, or hostility. Moreover, they vary across languages and cultures, encode sociocultural norms, cultural values of interlocutors, and their conceptualisations of polite and impolite behaviours, and signify an essential component of social and cultural identity'
aware of their students' cultural traditions. Cultural differences may relate to the levels of power and solidarity and, as a result, to the degree of formality and informality acceptable within specific cultures. They can be observed in any speech act of everyday classroom interaction, e.g., addressing, requesting, complimenting, providing arguments and critical remarks, etc., and can potentially cause communicative failures, interfering with the learning process and students' adjustment to a new cultural and academic environment (Zbenovich et al., 2023).
The speech act of address is one of the most socially and emotionally sensitive acts, as forms of address show how interlocutors present discursively different aspects of their interpersonal relationships and regulate them. They may signal either closeness or distance, formality or informality, love, or hostility (Larina et al., 2019, p. 40). Moreover, they vary across languages and cultures, encode sociocultural norms, cultural values of interlocutors, and their conceptualisations of polite and impolite behaviours, and signify an essential component of social and cultural identity (Bila et al., 2020; Clyne, 2009; Khalil & Larina, 2022; Raymond, 2016; Suryanarayan & Khalil, 2021; Wi-erzbicka, 2020, 2022; Yusra et al., 2023; Grishechko, 2021; Akopova, 2023). In many languages, including Russian and Chinese, a dichotomy exists in the use of second-person singular pronominal forms of address, commonly denoted as formal (henceforth referred to as V, derived from the Latin vos) and informal (T, derived from the Latin tu). The V form symbolises power or status, while the T form denotes solidarity or intimacy between interlocutors (Brown & Gilman, 1960; Pager-McCly-mont et al., 2024). Speakers of these languages are compelled to select one of these forms in communication drawing on communicative norms and conventions of their culture. Thus, T/V dichotomy encompasses not only linguistic formalities but also socio-cultural dynamics within these language communities.
Nonetheless, a substantial research gap exists, characterised by an absence of comprehensive and systematic inquiries into the pronominal usage patterns in cross-cultural perspective. In this study we explore pronominal forms of address in academic discourse, an area that has only received marginal attention in previous literature and lacks systematic, up-to-date investigation (cf. Al Abdely, 2016) and focus on Chinese and Russian contexts.
rudn.tlcjournal.org doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-87-100
Despite the increasing academic mobility between Chinese and Russian higher education institutions, the nuanced use of second-person pronominal forms of address (T/V forms) in teacher-student interactions remains underexplored from a soci-olinguistic, cultural, and pragmatic perspective. This study aims to elucidate the use of T/V forms within teacher-student interactions in Chinese and Russian academic discourse and unveil the impact of sociocultural dimensions, such as power and solidarity, on their choice. To achieve this goal, the following research questions will guide our study.
1. How often do teachers and students in Chinese and Russian universities employ the T and V forms in student-teacher interactions (when students address their teachers), and under what circumstances students might opt for the less commonly used form?
2. How often do teachers and students in Chinese and Russian universities employ the T and V forms in teacher-student interactions (when teachers address their students), and what pronominal address form do Chinese and Russian students typically prefer when being addressed by their teacher?
3. What similarities and differences can be identified between the two linguacultures regarding the use of T/V forms, and how can they be interpreted from a sociocultural and pragmatic perspective, particularly in terms of power and solidarity dimensions?
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. Address forms in academic discourse: power distance and social distance between teachers and students
This section will provide a concise overview of the research background concerning address forms in academic settings, with a specific focus on the relevant literature addressing the use of address pronouns, particularly the T and V forms.
Forms of address play a key role as the 'first step' in interpersonal communication, often entwined with various other speech acts that collectively constitute a crucial aspect of communicative interaction. Sociolinguists have dedicated significant attention to studying forms of address in human communication (Dickey, 1997; Fang & Heng, 1983; Kluge & Moyna, 2019; Nor-rby & Wide, 2015; Wood & Kroger, 1991). On the individual level, forms of address serve as tools for conveying attitudes toward the interlocutor and even emotional states, as they indicate the level of formality or intimacy, proximity or distance in their relations. On a broader social level, these forms reflect social relations, power dynamics, and solidarity within cultural and social frameworks. This exploration discusses human communication, emphasising the multifaceted nature of forms of address and their impact on both individual interactions and broader societal dynamics (Clyne et al., 2009; Leech, 1999; Ton, 2019).
As global cultural exchanges increase, sociolinguists have noted variations in forms of address across different languages and cultures (Braun, 1988; Clyne, 2009; Li, 2015; 0rsnes, 2016; Ozyumenko, 2020; Tazik & Aliakbari, 2023). These variations encompass the use of various categories of forms of address,
by Qing Zhou and Tatiana V. Larina
namely proper names, kinship terms, identity-related nominal forms of address, and pronoun forms of address. The distinctions in forms of address are often intertwined with the influence of social backgrounds, cultural norms, and values on linguistic practices (Leech & Larina, 2014, p. 11). In intercultural communication, these factors give rise to diverse linguistic behaviours, including address practices. Beyond these linguistic variations, Braun (1988, p. 66) emphasises that speakers' address practices are not solely linked to the social or cultural context of their interlocutors; they also reflect notions such as superiority/inferiority, formality/informality, distance/intimacy, etc. Thus, comprehending how speakers perceive and interpret their relationships with interlocutors is essential for intercultural understanding.
Since the late 1960s and 1970s, there has been a growing focus on address studies in specific social contexts (Ton, 2019). Within academic interactions, researchers have examined the forms of address used by both students and teaching staff (DeL-isle, 1993; Formentelli, 2009; Larina & Suryanarayan, 2023; Le-htimaja, 2011; McIntire, 1972; Nicodemus et al., 2021; Soomro & Larina, 2022, 2023). The exploration of address forms in academic interactions, akin to other specific social settings, is focusing on social hierarchy and power distance (Formentelli & Hajek, 2015, 2016). teacher-student interactions are shaped by occupational hierarchy, the social status of teachers (Hofstede, 1986, p. 303), the communication context, and the level of intimacy between teachers and students. These factors are considered pivotal in influencing address practices within academic settings. In intercultural academic settings, inappropriate address forms violating not only linguistic norms, but also social norms can elicit instinctive negative reactions.
2.2. T/V forms of address: power and solidarity
In Chinese and Russian, as in many other languages (e.g., Dutch, Italian, French, German, Spanish) there are two singular second pronouns of address: the informal T form (in Chinese ni, in Russian mw, hereafter for short T) and the formal V form (in Chinese nin, in Russian ew, V for short). However, the use of T/ V forms in interactions conveys more than the formality or informality; it also serves as a significant indicator of the identities belonging to specific social groups of interlocutors (Bilá et al., 2020; Brown & Gilman, 1960; Clyne, 2009; Shubina, 2023; Mahmud & Salehuddin, 2023). Second-person pronoun usage serves as a nuanced reflection of the social and linguistic backgrounds of interactants, bearing the imprint of various sociolin-guistic conventions. Friedrich (1972) summarises the significance of pronominal usage as follows: 'Just two words (the second-person pronoun pair), operating in all speech events that involve two interlocutors, signalled the relative position of each role in hundreds of dyadic relationships' (Friedrich, 1972, p. 270). In other words, pronominal usage is of unique theoretical significance because it can link the obligatory categories grammatically and se-mantically with the social culture, occupying a boundary zone between linguistic forms and the deep level of attitude and norm by which a society is organised (Friedrich, 1972).
Sociolinguists have connected the pronominal forms of address research, specifically T/V forms, intricately to power and solidarity dimensions (cf. Brown and Gilman, 1960) in various interaction dyads (Kuo, 2002; Lee & Cho, 2013; Stewart, 2001). According to Brown and Gilman (1960), the power dimension involves the vertical, asymmetrical relationship between speakers, determined by social status differences; solidarity in contrast emphasises similarities, a degree of closeness and intimacy between people. According to Tannen's (1990) framework, the dynamics of power and solidarity in the actual interaction between interlocutors are linked to nonreciprocal or reciprocal forms of address. Illustratively, in the Chinese language, the use of the V form signifies imbalances in power relations, with individuals of higher status being addressed with the V form by subordinates to show deference. Meanwhile, the non-reciprocal
V forms may denote a sense of alienation and estrangement. Conversely, the T form symbolises cordial and solidarity-based relations. The reciprocal use of the T form serves to express familiarity within identical social strata, such as between family members or friends, and may also be employed by superiors when addressing subordinates (Wang, 2022). In the Russian language, a similar dichotomy is observed, with the V and T forms serving as direct indicators of social distance, whereby the
V form conveys respect or emotional distance, and the T form expresses affection or, conversely, contempt (Friedrich, 1972).
In this conceptual framework, the pronominal forms of address employed by the speaker are contingent upon the objective relationship existing between speaker and addressee' (Brown & Gilman, 1960, p. 156, as cited in Villarreal, 2014, p. 3). Pronominal forms of address signal aspects of both the interlocutors' relationship and the nature of the interactional context. The selection between T/V pronominal forms by a speaker 'has a strong bearing on social identity, giving speakers a strong incentive to use address forms in a way that will project the identities that they desire' (Villarreal, 2014, p. 3). In teacher-student communication, the perception of social identity, status, and the communicative context significantly influence the choice between T/V pronominal forms. Cultural factors, inherent in these interactions, also warrant heightened consideration. Subsequently, the linguistic choices encompassed in pronominal forms of address operate as social deixis (Bila et al., 2020; Ahmed et al., 2023), offering insights into power dynamics, social hierarchies, and solidarity within interpersonal interactions. The pragmatic nuances and divergent interpretations of social roles contribute to deixis variations within distinct cultural contexts.
While there are some studies which explore Chinese and Russian forms of address in teacher-student interactions (Blach-er & Brehmer, 2024; Hu & Luo, 2017; You, 2014), they predominantly focus on the cultural and linguistic aspects within each context, such as the hierarchical Confucian influence in China or the blend of formal and informal linguistic expressions in Russian academic discourse. There is a noticeable gap in the literature that provides a direct comparative analysis between these two cultural and linguistic contexts. This study addresses
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 87-100 doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-87-100
the comparative perspective and explores the use of T/V forms within teacher-student interactions in Chinese and Russian academic discourse focusing on the impact of sociocultural dimensions, such as power and solidarity, on their choice.
3. MATERIAL AND METHODS
3.1. Research procedure
To ensure comprehensive and unbiased data collection, this study employed a parallel social survey methodology. The research encompassed the distribution of parallel questionnaires and conducted oral interviews in two countries, China and Russia (see Appendices 1 and 2). The quantitative section of the questionnaire involved participants indicating the frequency of their use of second-person pronouns (T/V forms) when interacting with their teachers in academic contexts. Using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 'never' (1) to 'always' (5), participants were also asked to articulate their preferred form of address (T/ V forms). Moreover, to further enhance our comprehension of the subject matter, an additional qualitative component was integrated into the study. This involved voluntary participation from 30 Chinese and 30 Russian students who took part in follow-up interviews. Participants shared their personal experiences, providing insights into the situations in which they choose to address their teachers using the T form, and expressed their preferences regarding T or V form they would like to be addressed by their teacher. Participants also offered their interpretations and perceptions of these two pronouns in interactions with university teachers and identified the factors influencing their choices. This additional qualitative component provided richer insights into the participants' perspectives, complementing the data obtained through the questionnaires.
Table 1
Demographic information of Chinese and Russian respondents
3.2. Participants
The study involved a representative sample of participants from both Chinese and Russian higher educational contexts, encompassing a total of 360 university students (260 respondents from mainland China and 100 respondents from Russia). For the quantitative aspect, a stratified random sampling method was employed to ensure a balanced representation of students across different academic levels, disciplines, and institutions in both countries. In China, participants were drawn from various universities and disciplines. In addition, to mitigate potential bias arising from geographic distribution, Chinese participants in the survey were diverse, spanning 30 various provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions (e.g., Guangdong, Zhejiang, Hunan, Beijing, Heilongjiang, Inner Mongolia, Shanxi, and others), ensuring a balanced representation by conscientiously collecting responses from different regions of China. In the Russian questionnaire segment, participants were invited from a range of educational institutions and academic programmes (RUDN University, MGIMO University, Moscow State University and Kazan Federal University) ensuring a broad range of perspectives. However, our focus was on cultural differences, with acknowledgment that regional variations might exist in address pronominal usage, though not within this study's scope. The student participants were undergraduate, graduate and PhD students, contributing to a cross-sectional understanding of address form preferences and usage patterns. The inclusion criteria comprised students with diverse cultural backgrounds and academic proficiency levels to capture a comprehensive overview of linguistic practices within the educational context. The more detailed demographic information (gender, age, education background) about participants can be seen in Table 1.
PARTICIPANTS INFORMATION GENDER AGE EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
Chinese participants Male (62.31%) Under 20 y.o. (12.31%) Undergraduate (77.31%)
(n=260) Female (37.69%) 20-25 y.o. (77.31%) Graduated (12.69%)
26-30 y.o. (8.46%) PhD students (10%) Over 30 y.o. (1.92%)
Russian participants Male (29%) Under 20 y.o. (12%) Undergraduate (70%)
(n=100) Female (71%) 20-25 y.o. (75%) Graduated (15%)
26-30 y.o. (9%) PhD students (15%) Over 30 y.o. (4%)
In the qualitative phase, students from both countries were purposively selected to participate in in-depth interviews. The criteria for interview selection considered varying levels of learning experience, academic disciplines, and institutions to ensure a diverse representation. This approach aimed to gather rich, context-specific insights into the factors influencing the use of address forms in teacher-student interactions.
3.3. Data analysis
The study employed a mixed-methods approach to gather insights into teacher-student interactions in both Chinese and Russian higher educational settings. Quantitative data were collected through structured surveys distributed to a representative sample of Chinese and Russian students, capturing their preferences and practices in addressing teachers. Additionally,
by Qing Zhou and Tatiana V. Larina
qualitative data was obtained through in-depth interviews with students from both cultures, allowing for a deeper exploration of the underlying dynamics. The surveys, available in both languages, included questions about preferred forms of address, frequency of usage, and contextual factors influencing linguistic choices.
The quantitative data was analysed using statistical software. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies and percentages, were employed to characterise the prevalence of specific address forms among Chinese and Russian students. The findings were visually represented through charts and graphs to enhance clarity and facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the quantitative results.
For the qualitative aspect, a systematic approach was taken to transcribe and code the interview data. Transcriptions of teacher-student interactions were undertaken, ensuring accurate representation of spoken language nuances. A coding scheme was developed based on recurring themes and patterns identified during the initial phases of data immersion. Thematic content analysis was then applied to extract meaningful insights from the qualitative data, exposing the underlying factors influencing language choices within teacher-student interactions.
By scrutinising both quantitative data on the frequency of pronoun usage and qualitative insights into students' preferences and explanations, this study provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of student-teacher and teacher-student interactions in Russian and Chinese linguacultural contexts, with a focus on the usage of T/V pronouns within the specific social contexts of power and solidarity that characterise academic environments.
The analysis of the data obtained from the questionnaires revealed that both T and V forms are employed by Chinese and Russian teachers and students within academic settings. Section 4.1. delineates the frequency of usage patterns of T and V forms
Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
■ V-form (Chinese students, n=260) ■ V-form (Russian students, n=100)
Figure 1. Frequency of V form usage in the student-teacher interaction
in Chinese and Russian student-teacher interactions, presenting the perspectives of respondents on situations where students would address their teacher using the T form. Section 4.2. looks into the frequency of T and V form usage in Chinese and Russian teacher-student interactions. Additionally, it presents the preferences of therespondents regarding pronominal address forms from their teachers and explores their perceptions of the use of T and V forms in teacher-student interactions.
4. STUDY RESULTS
4.1. Pronominal address terms usages in Chinese and Russian student-teacher interactions
This section entails a comparative analysis of the usage of T and V address forms in Chinese and Russian student-teacher interactions. The results assigned that Chinese and Russian students employ both T and V forms when addressing teachers. Yet, their frequency and usage scenarios demonstrate considerable differences.
4.1.1. T/V address forms by students to teachers
The quantitative analysis of the results from Chinese and Russian questionnaires, showed that the use of the V form in addressing teachers holds significant prominence. Notably, in the responses from Russian students, 96% explicitly indicated that they consistently use the V form when addressing teachers, with an additional 4% opting for frequent usage. In contrast, the frequency among Chinese students has shown a decrease overall, with only 52.3% consistently using the V form. Furthermore, 26.5% and 16.2% chose 'often' and 'sometimes,' respectively, while 3.5% and 1.5% of students indicated 'seldom' or 'never' addressing teachers with the V form (Figure 1). From this we can see that in the Chinese and Russian student-teacher interactions, the V form dominates, but is not used as often by Chinese students as by Russian students.
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 87-100 doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-87-100
Regarding the T form in student-teacher interactions, the Russian data reveals a distinct pattern, where a mere 3% of students reported using the T form sometimes, 15% - seldom, and a substantial 82.6% - never. Conversely, Chinese students demonstrated a more varied usage of the T form, with only
90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00%
Based on the analysis summarised in Table 2, a clear distinction emerges in the Russian and Chinese student-teacher interactions. Russian students overwhelmingly opt for the V form when addressing their teachers, demonstrating a robust commitment to this pronominal choice, while the T form is selected by only a small fraction of Russian students who participanted in the study. In contrast, Chinese students exhibit a more varied
26.9% stating they never use it. Meanwhile, 9.2% use it always, 17.7% - often, and 20% - sometimes (Figure 2). So, while the T form is relatively rare for Russian students, some of the respondents among Chinese students still use this form of addressing their teachers more often.
82%
pattern of pronominal choice in addressing teachers. While the V form remains the predominant choice among most respondents, it is not the sole preference.
Notably, a significant number of Chinese students (73.1%) also incorporate the T form into their communication with teachers, which suggests that the T form of address is not uncommon in the Chinese classroom setting.
Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
■ T-form (Chinese students, n=260) BT-form (Russian students, n=100)
Figure 2. Frequency of T form usage in the student-teacher interaction
Table 2
V/T pronominal address forms in student-teacher interaction: A comparison between Chinese and Russian
RUSSIAN CHINESE
PRONOMINAL FORMS -
OF ADDRESS Usage (with frequency variation) Non-usage Usage (with frequency variation) Non-usage
V form 100% 0% 98.5% 1.5%
T form 18% 82% 73.1% 26.9%
4.1.2. Situations of Tpronoun usage in Chinese and Russian student-teacher interactions
To gain further insights, we conducted additional interviews with a specific focus on students' use of the T form when addressing their teachers. The primary aim was to explore in depth the circumstances in which both Russian and Chinese students employ the T form and to identify the influencing factors
behind their choice. We asked students to describe situations when they choose to address their teacher using the T form, specify the teacher's age, gender, and context and choose a factor that impacts their choice of the T or V form (e.g., special permission from the teacher, age of the teacher, closeness to the teacher, formal or informal situations, or other factors). In their responses, the Russian interviewees predominantly emphasised
by Qing Zhou and Tatiana V. Larina
the importance of factors such as the teacher's preference, the teacher's age, and social relationships with the teacher, as well as the informality of circumstances, when opting for the T form. The following responses bear witness to these considerations.
(1) When the teacher explicitly requests to be addressed in this manner, such as in extra courses, where informal communication is encouraged.
(2) I use T when addressing the Spanish language teacher because she specifically asked to be addressed that way.
(3) Addressing teachers under 30, gender-neutral, in informal situations, often signifies a friendly relationship with the faculty member.
(4) Age is a significant factor, especially with master's students or PhD students, where mutual agreement fosters a switch to T for more comfortable and effective communication, extending beyond the subject matter.
(5) The only scenario where T forms are employed is when the teacher is a friend or a long-time acquaintance, strictly within an informal setting.
(6) While personally uncommon, there may be instances where individuals use T forms with lecturers they know personally, usually young candidates of sciences. However, even in such cases, formal settings demand adherence to 'V' forms to maintain respect for hierarchical structures.
Apparently, the primary determinants shaping the pronominal choices of Chinese students markedly differ from those observed among Russian students. The most frequently mentioned factor by Chinese students that encourages them to use the T form of address is the degree of intimacy in their personal relationship with the teacher and the informality of the usage scenario:
(7) Initial greetings typically employ the V form, contingent upon the evolving nature of subsequent conversations. If the teacher appears approachable, the T form is adopted; conversely, in instances of perceived strictness, the V form is utilized. Should the relationship evolve or involve heightened interaction, the formality may transit from V to T.
(8) I believe that the choice of pronouns primarily depends on the closeness of the relationship with the teacher. If the teacher is not close to me, I address them with the V form, regardless of the circumstances.
(9) I use T forms without explicit permission, but only in informal occasions and when I have a good relationship with the teacher.
When queried during the interview about whether teachers would mandate or permit a specific T/V form, the responses revealed that in Chinese university settings, teachers typically do not have specific requirements for students' T/V designations. One interviewee expressed this sentiment as follows:
(10) It seems like no teacher has explicitly instructed me not to use V form, so generally, regardless of the teacher's age, I tend to address them as 'nin' (V form) in most situations. However, we don't have a strict rule about using the V form, so occasionally in
casual conversation, I might use 'ni' (T form), if it feels more comfortable. But when it comes to written communication, I consistently use the V form.
(11) My supervisor is relatively young and has no special requirements in this regard, so I usually use T form to address my teacher when communicating in person.
In response to the question about the impact of the factor of teacher's age, Chinese respondents indicated that the age of the teacher has only a slight effect on their choice of pronouns address but it is not the dominant one. Generally, they tend to use V form more when their teachers are older, and conversely, they lean towards using T form when their teachers are younger. For instance, one respondent stated:
(12) The choice of pronouns does not depend much on the age difference between me and my teacher. However, I prefer to use T form if there is not much age difference between me and my teacher, whereas I prefer to use V form if my teacher is older. If my teacher is not much older than me, addressing them with V form would make me feel a bit accustomed.
What's more, one of the Chinese interviewees mentioned that she typically employs the T form only when addressing a teacher who perceives her as a daughter, even if the teacher is much older.
(13) I consistently use V form in all cases, except for one teacher who treated me like a daughter, even though she is much older than me.
Furthermore, there were interviewees who maintained a steadfast perspective of never using the T form to address teachers under any circumstances, regardless of the relationship's closeness or formality, they consistently opted for the V form, prioritising respect for the teacher's role. For instance (14), a female interviewee from Beijing (23 years old, postgraduate student) exemplified this stance by sharing her chat logs with her teacher. It was evident that she exclusively employed the V forms, while her teacher reciprocated with solely the T forms. She perceived this dynamic as a manifestation of respect towards her teacher, underscoring the significance of upholding hierarchical norms despite the amicable positive nature of their relationship.
Hence, the influencing factors on whether students will choose the T form to address their university teachers are various in Russian and Chinese settings. However, Russian students showed an evident reluctance to use the T form, only if several conditions are fulfilled at the same time: the teacher's request, not substantial age gap with the teachers, a very close relationship with the teacher, and in an informal setting (examples 1-6). Whereas for Chinese students, the main factors they consider are the relationships with their teachers (examples 7-13).
4.2. T and V pronoun usage in Chinese and Russian teacher-student interactions
This section presents a comparative analysis of the use of V and T address forms in Chinese and Russian teacher-student interactions. Section 4.2.1. provides a quantitative analysis of the
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 87-100 doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-87-100
usage of V and T forms by Russian and Chinese teachers when addressing students. Section 4.2.2. explores the perceptions of respondents regarding their preferred pronoun and offers detailed explanations for them.
4.2.1. T/V address forms by teachers to students
In the realm of teacher-student interactions within the academic contexts of Chinese and Russian, both the T and V forms are observed. However, discernible distinctions emerge in the respective frequencies and conventionality of their use. As elucidated by the outcomes delineated in Figure 3, Russian teachers notably exhibit a predilection for the V form in their interactions with students, whereas the frequency of V form usage in Chinese teacher-student interactions is considerably lower. In
the Russian dataset, only 1% of students informed that they never got addressed by teachers with the V form, and 6% are addressed by the V form 'seldom'. The majority indicated that Russian teachers 'often' (31%), 'always' (31%), 'sometimes' (23%) address students with V forms. In contrast, Chinese students rarely experienced being addressed by teachers with V forms: almost on average (40.4%) students were 'never' addressed by a teacher with a V form of address, 20% 'sometimes', and 21.2% 'seldom' being addressed in this manner (Figure 3). It can be seen that there are some differences in the use of the V form of address between Chinese and Russian teachers, with Russian teachers using this form with a high frequency, whereas the majority of Chinese teachers do not use this form of address with their students.
Always Often Sometimes Seldom Never
V-form (Chinese students, n=260) ■ V-form (Russian students, n=100)
Figure 3. Frequency of V form usage in the teacher-student interaction
As clarified by the findings presented in Figure 4, Chinese teachers exhibit a preference for employing the T form when communicating with students. In the analysis of the frequency of T form usage, variations emerge, with 49.6% of Chinese teachers 'always' opting for the T form, 26.6% 'often' using it, and 9.6% 'sometimes' employing it. Instances of T form usage are also observed in Russian teacher-student interactions, albeit at a lower frequency. Russian teachers predominantly use the T form 'sometimes' (38%), with 24% using it 'often', 16% using it 'seldom', 14% 'never' using it, and only 8% 'always' use it (Figure 4). Therefore, a notable distinction emerges between Chinese and Russian teachers in the use of the T form of address towards their students. Most Chinese teachers consistently employ this form of address when interacting with students. In contrast, Russian teachers exhibit a less frequent use of this form, deviating from the common practice observed among their Chinese counterparts.
Based on the outcomes delineated in Figures 3 and 4 and Table 3, Chinese teachers demonstrate a proclivity towards the application of the T form when addressing students. Conversely, Russian teachers notably exhibit a predilection for the V form in their interactions with students. Simultaneously, it is noteworthy that in Russian teacher-student interactions, instances of T form usage are also discernible.
4.2.2. Students' preferred form of teacher address
Both Chinese and Russian respondents were asked a similar question: 'Regarding the way your teacher addresses you, do you have a preference for either the T or V form? Could you provide more insight into your preference?' Three different opinions arose among both Chinese and Russian respondents: T form, V form, and 'whatever'. Figure 5 summarises the quantitative findings of these inquiries, which resulted in the following observations: There are substantial differences in the responses
by Qing Zhou and Tatiana V. Larina
50,0% 45,0% 40,0% 35,0% 30,0% 25,0% 20,0% 15,0% 10,0% 5,0% 0,0%
Always
Often
Sometimes
Seldom
Never
T-form (Chinese students, n=260) BT-form (Russian students, n=100)
Figure 4. Frequency of T form usage in the teacher-student interaction
Table 3
V/T pronominal address forms in teacher-student Interaction: A comparison between Chinese and Russian
PRONOMINAL FORMS OF ADDRESS RUSSIAN CHINESE
Usage (with frequency variation) Non-usage Usage (with frequency variation) Non-usage
V form 99% 1% 59.6% 40.4%
T form 86% 14% 97.3% 2.7%
elicited from the two student cohorts. A conspicuous majority, exceeding 90% of Chinese students, expressed a sentiment favouring the appropriateness of teachers employing the T form when addressing them. This sharply contrasts with the perspectives of Russian respondents. Only 16% of Russian students expressed a preference for teachers using T forms in pronominal addresses. 41% of Russian students believe the V form is more suitable for teachers to address them, while 43% believe both forms are acceptable. Thus, a notable and significant distinction is evident in the preferences of Chinese and Russian students regarding the use of address forms by teachers. The overwhelming majority of Chinese students preferred the T form when being addressed by their teachers, while almost half of the Russian students opted for the V form. Upon aggregating the comments, noteworthy disparities in the perspectives on pronominal address from teachers emerge between the two cohorts of students. The opinions of Chinese and Russian informants will be given separately. Most Chinese students supported the T form from teachers, the reasons why they find it inappropriate to be addressed with the V form are mainly rooted in the distinctions of status, age, and knowledge between them and their teachers:
(14) The use of the T form by teachers corresponds to our identities and adheres to appropriate boundaries. It is imperative for me to adopt a humble stance, considering my relative lack of experience in both age and qualifications compared to the teacher.
(15) I can't afford to be called V form by my teachers, neither in terms of age nor in terms of knowledge. Because teachers are older than me, they cannot use honorifics (V form) with me.
Several Chinese students supported their stance by invoking cultural values, such as emphasising a deep-seated, familial respect for their teachers, akin to the proverb 'once a teacher, always a father. Similarly, some of them highlighted the significance of maintaining order and hierarchy in relationships with teachers, acknowledging the elevated status and elder position of teachers: 'respect and hierarchy are integral; acknowledging distinctions between seniors and juniors'. The existence of status differentials, resembling father-son dynamics and notions of superiority, inferiority, seniority, and the like, renders it inappropriate for them to be addressed with the V form by their teachers.
In addition, some Chinese respondents express the belief that the use of the T form can foster a closer relationship with their teachers:
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 87-100 doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-87-100
(16) The T form makes us feel closer, more intimate, eliminating any sense of distance. It signifies a positive rapport, indicating our readiness for further interaction.
Furthermore, proponents of this perspective asserted that they would experience discomfort if addressed with the V form:
(17) Considering the teacher's seniority and role as an instructor, where I am not in a superior position, so I would feel uncomfortable if he/she addressed me with V form, teachers do not need to be so polite.
(18) It is customary for teachers to use the T form when addressing junior students. It would be disturbing if addressed with V.
In contrast to the homogeneity in agreement observed among Chinese students, Russian interviewees exhibited a tripartite divergence of opinions: preference of the V form, preference of the T form, acceptability of both.
Those who favored the V form (48%) believed that they were already adult, so they are equal and mutually respectful with their teachers, thereby asserting the appropriateness of being addressed with the V form:
(19) It is important for me to know that I am respected, as reflected in the use of the V form by the teacher. V form is a respectful address form, it feels like the instructor considers you an adult and not a child, establishing a sense of equality between us.
(20) I prefer to be addressed with V form as I think it shows politeness, courtesy, and respect towards the student.
(21) Reciprocal V form signifies equality and eliminates any perception of condescension from the teacher. There is no feeling that the teacher is looking down on you.
Furthermore, certain Russian students (4% from those 48%) highlighted the necessity of employing the V form to maintain a sense of distance between teachers and students:
(22) Our relationship does not equate to that of friends or family, warranting communication with the T form.
(23) The use of the V form when addressing the student underscores formality and preserves a necessary sense of distance between us.
Among those favouring the T form from teachers (22%), their opinions centre around the solidarity function attributed to the T forms:
(24) Because T form indicates a closer and trusting relationship with the teacher.
(25) As if we (teacher and student) know each other, shows a closer relationship. It (by using T form) means I can pass exams easier, for example, or I can ask questions more often, ask for help and advice.
Simultaneously, a minority of Russian students (4% from those 22%) shared analogous perspectives with Chinese students, asserting that the existing status disparity between teachers and students justifies the preference for the T form:
(26) I am not yet of the age or degree to be addressed with V form by teachers.
(27) Subordination. I am inferior to the teacher. Since the teachers are older, to me there is nothing rude about being addressed with T.
Moreover, Russian students who maintain an ambivalent stance on the acceptability of both forms (30 %) posit that it hinges on individual factors, such as the teacher's age, or situation, notably the formality of the occasion:
(28) I don't have a preference for T or V; if the teacher is much older, it is more pleasant to be addressed with T (you associate yourself with a granddaughter, a child, facilitating psychological ease). However, with teachers of the same age, it is more convenient to use V to maintain a certain distance.
(29) Both forms of address are interchangeable, but the T form is preferable in personal dialogues, whereas the V form is more suitable in a classroom setting.
Overall, there is a substantial disparity between Chinese and Russian respondents. Examining responses (examples 15-19), the Chinese informants emphasised the importance of a hierarchical relationship with their teachers. Being addressed with the V form was associated with stress or discomfort, while the T form conveyed a sense of intimacy from their teachers. In contrast, Russian students displayed diverse opinions. A minority supporting the T form shared perspectives similar to their Chinese counterparts (examples 20-23), while other groups of Russian students expressed entirely distinct views (examples 24-26). They emphasised that their relationships with teachers are more akin to those between adults, and teachers are not their relatives, asserting that there is no reason for university teachers to address them using the T form. Notably, this contradicts the perspective of Chinese students, who perceive the teacher-student relationship as resembling a father-son or family connection. The variation in perspectives can be attributed to the dual desire of Chinese students to show deference and reverence to their teachers while simultaneously maintaining a closer, familial bond.
5. DISCUSSION
When examining the results from a broader perspective, it is evident that there is a substantial disparity between Chinese and Russian respondents which can be viewed through the notions of power and solidarity as well as cultural values and identity. Based on the frequency of T and V pronominal usage, we have derived the primary trends in the deployment of pronominal forms of address in Chinese and Russian teacher-student interactions. As summarised in Table 4 below, Chinese and Russian university settings exhibit both reciprocal and non-reciprocal tendencies in address between teachers and students. However, notable distinctions become evident. In Chinese teacher-student interactions, the reciprocal form is the T form, while in Russian, it is the V form. Moreover, within Chinese university contexts, non-reciprocity is observed in the infrequent use of the V form by teachers when addressing students, juxtaposed with the students' regular adoption of this form. In contrast, in Russian teacher-student interactions, non-reciprocity manifests in the limited instances of students addressing their teachers with the T form, while teachers retain the option to employ the T form in addressing students.
by Qing Zhou and Tatiana V. Larina
Table 4
Reciprocal and non-reciprocal T/Vforms of address in Chinese and Russian universities
IN CHINESE UNIVERSITIES IN RUSSIAN UNIVERSITIES
Teacher Teacher
T i TV V i 4T
Student Student
Considering the power dimension, both quantitative and qualitative analyses illuminate the existence of power dynamics and inequalities within university environments in both Chinese and Russian contexts. For example, in Section 4.2.2., when discussing how students prefer to be addressed by teachers with which forms, Chinese students explicitly acknowledged the existence of inequality within the teacher-student relationship and emphasised the importance of a hierarchical relationships (examples 14-19). A prevailing opinion among Chinese students is that it is unnecessary for teachers to employ the more polite and honorific V form when addressing students. This research finding aligns with Wetzel's (1993) perspective, suggesting that power is typically associated negatively with authoritarianism, but in Asian contexts, it is often correlated positively with kindness and supportiveness. Our findings highlight that Chinese students recognise and respect the authority of their teachers, and inequality in the relations is perceived as expected and desirable. In contrast to the Chinese context, most Russian students did not explicitly convey similar sentiments in their responses. Only a small number of Russian students indicated that they perceive themselves as occupying a lower status than their teachers (examples 27-28). Moreover, they prefer to be addressed with the V form as it shows equality and respect (examples 20-22). This fact might suggest that Russian teachers are given less power than their Chinese colleagues, and they prefer equality in relations with teachers rather than hierarchy.
When considering the dimension of solidarity, it becomes evident that the reciprocal use of the T form is prevalent in Chinese teacher-student interactions, whereas this tendency is not as prominent in Russian interactions. Our study suggests that Chinese students articulated views portraying teachers as akin to family members or friends. For them, the use of the T form fosters a closer, more intimate relationship, eliminating a sense of distance and indicating a positive interaction (examples 7-9; 13). This finding is consistent with Chen and Ren's (2020) perspective, emphasising the impact of Chinese family culture as a cultural meme on addressing practices within the academic setting in China. Concurrently, the Russian teacher-student relationship is characterised by a sense of distance, attributed to the widespread use of the mutual V form. Russian respondents believe that maintaining a certain distance between them and the teacher is essential, as the teacher-student relationship is not equivalent to that of friends or family (examples 23-24). This
contradicts the perspective of Chinese students, who perceive the teacher-student relationship as resembling a father-son or family connection.
In summary, the findings underscore the pivotal role of the power and solidarity dimensions in guiding the choice of T/V forms in teacher-student interactions. In navigating power dynamics and social distances, speakers articulate a desire either to foster intimacy or to establish a degree of distance from their interlocutors (cf. Brown & Levinson, 1987) and to achieve a particular goal, they use appropriate politeness strategies. Based on the findings, the politeness strategies of Russian and Chinese students in addressing teachers exhibit ambivalence. Both negative politeness (demonstrating deference) and positive politeness (aimed at building rapport) are employed with an obvious preference for one or the other type.
Moreover, the results of the study confirm the idea that informality does not equate to impoliteness as politeness can be both formal and informal (Larina, 2020). The findings show that in academic discourse, Russian students tend to lean towards formal politeness in interaction with university teachers, while their Chinese counterparts, despite hierarchical relations, gravitate towards informal politeness which might be perceived as inappropriate familiarity and even impoliteness from the Russian perspective.
We suggest that, influenced by a pronounced we-culture (Larina et al., 2017), Chinese teachers and students might perceive the teacher-student relationships as akin to a familial connection, and by employing the T form they emphasise closeness rather than distance. The variation in perspectives can be attributed to the dual desire of Chinese students to show familial deference and reverence to their teachers while simultaneously maintaining a closer, familial bond. This is apparent not only in their use of pronominal forms of address but also in nominative forms of address, such as the usage of kinship terms in academic discourse (Barbalet, 2021; Ren & Chen, 2019), which needs additional study.
Additionally, the obtained results clearly highlight the influence of social and cultural contexts when making decisions about choosing T/V forms to express deference or intimacy (Al Abdely, 2016, p. 41). Due to the differences in teacher and student roles and status as well as socio-cultural factors and values, the strategies adopted by Chinese and Russian teachers and students in addressing practices differ significantly.
Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 87-100 doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-87-100
It is worth noting that the nature of the relationship between the interlocutors, the specific situational context, whether it is a formal classroom setting, a casual discussion, or an online platform, can also impact the choice of address forms. In addition to the level of formality required by the academic institutions, the overall cultural norms prevalent in the educational environment contribute to the complexity of pronominal choices. Understanding these contextual factors is crucial for appropriate choice of pronominal address forms and effective communication in academic settings. These factors extend beyond mere linguistic considerations and as, it has been shown, encompass broader socio-cultural dynamics.
6. CONCLUSION
This study explored the usage of pronominal forms of address in the interaction of teachers and students in Chinese and Russian academic discourse. It aimed to reveal similarities and differences and the impact of sociocultural factors on the choice of T/V pronominal address forms. The results underscore the significance of cultural and social factors in linguistic choices, particularly power, solidarity, and intimacy. In Chinese academic discourse, there is a tendency to emphasise power dynamics and hierarchical order between teachers and students, concurrently favouring solidarity to facilitate teacher-student interaction. As a result, the teachers' power gives them the right to demonstrate it and address students using T form; at the same time, solidarity allows for closer family-like relationships to be established
between students and teachers, resulting in a T form of address to the teacher. These addressing practices might be perceived as inappropriate and impolite in Russian context where the emphasis is placed on mutual respect and formality, with a clear perception of boundaries between teachers and students. Thus, the findings suggest that the teacher's power, i.e., vertical distance in Chinese culture seems to be more pronounced than in Russian culture, while the social distance is shorter, and these so-ciocultural differences predetermine the choice and pragmatics of T/V forms.
The results of the study contribute to the theory of address terms by providing new data on the use of pronominal forms of address in the two linguistic and cultural academic contexts. They reveal the influence of sociocultural factors on their choices and provide pragmatic insights that can be directly applied to the interpretation of linguistic and strategic communication complexities. Recognising the divergent strategies employed by teachers and students in these distinct cultural contexts is essential for fostering effective communication. Given the increasing academic mobility between Chinese and Russian academic and research institutions, an awareness of these linguistic subtleties becomes crucial for promoting mutual understanding and successful intercultural interactions in educational environments. The study can contribute to a better understanding of teacher-student interactions from a sociocultural and soci-olinguistic perspective and provide some guidelines for intercultural communication in academic settings.
Appendix 1. Questionnaire (distributed in Russian and Chinese)
Dear Student, this questionnaire is aimed at collecting data on address forms. The survey is anonymous, and the results will be used for research purposes only. Please fill in the form and answer the questions.
University _ Year of study_ Age _ Gender_
1. How frequently do you use T and V forms to address your teachers? [T: Tbi/ni] Always / Often / Sometimes / Seldom / Never. [V: Bbi/nin] Always / Often / Sometimes / Seldom / Never.
2. How frequently do your teachers use T or V form addressing you? [T: Tbi/ni] Always / Often / Sometimes / Seldom / Never. [V: Bbi/nin] Always / Often / Sometimes / Seldom / Never.
3. Which address form (T/V) would you prefer from teachers? [T: Tbi/ni] / [V: Bbi/nin] / Whatever
Appendix 2. Interview questions
1. Do you typically use the T or V form when addressing your teacher?
2. In what situations do you choose to address your teacher using the T form? Specify the teacher's age, gender, and the context.
3. What factors play a role in influencing your choice of the T or V form when addressing your teacher? (e.g., special permission from the teacher, age of the teacher, closeness to the teacher, formal or informal situations, or other factors).
4. Regarding the way your teacher addresses you, do you prefer either the T or V form? Please elaborate.
5. How do you perceive and feel about the use of these two address forms in your interactions with university teachers?
by Qing Zhou and Tatiana V. Larina
References
Ahmed, W. K., Bakar, K. A., & Alkhawaja, H. W. (2023). 'Yeah, absolutely and totally': Boosters and gender differences in student-supervisor consultations. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 23(3), 247-264. https://dx.doi.org/10.17576/ gema-2023-2303-14 Akopova, A. S. (2023). Euphemism construction in English: Thematic classification and statistical analysis. Issues of Applied Linguistics, 50, 28-51. https://dx.doi.org/10.25076/vpl.50.02 Al Abdely, A. A. W. (2016). Power and solidarity in social interactions: A review of selected studies. Language & Communication, 3(1), 33-44. https://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3510.5689 Barbalet, J. (2021). Tripartite guanxi: Resolving kin and non-kin discontinuities in Chinese connections. Theory and Society, 50, 151-173. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11186-020-09399-w Bilá, M., Kacmárová, A., & Vañková, I. (2020). The encounter of two cultural identities: The case of social deixis. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 344-365. https://dx.doi.org/10.22363/ 2687-0088-2020-24-2-344-365 Blacher, O., & Brehmer, B. (2024). Forms of address in heritage Russian in Germany: Something to address in the classroom. In O. Kisselev, O. Laleko, & I. Dubinina (Eds.), Russian as a heritage language: From research to classroom applications (pp. 72-98). Routledge. Braun, F. (1988). Terms of address: Problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures (Vol. 50). Walter de Gruyter. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity.
In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253-276). Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chen, X., & Ren, J. (2020). A memetic cultural practice: The use of generalized kinship terms in a research seminar attended by Chinese graduate students. Lingua, 245, 102942. Clyne, M. (2009). Address in intercultural communication across languages. Linguistik Online, 6(3), 395-409. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1515/IPRG.2009.020 Clyne, M. G., Norrby, C., & Warren, J. (2009). Language and human relations: Styles of address in contemporary language. Cambridge University Press. DeLisle, H. H. (1993). Forms of address in academic settings: A con-trastive analysis. Die Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 26(1), 22-26. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3531785 Dickey, E. (1997). Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics, 33(2), 255-274. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S002 2226797006488
Fang, H., & Heng, J. H. (1983). Social changes and changing address norms in China. Language in Society, 12(4), 495-507. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010216 Formentelli, M. (2009). Address strategies in a British academic setting.
Pragmatics, 19(2), 179-196. Formentelli, M., & Hajek, J. (2015). Address in Italian academic interactions: The power of distance and (non)-reciprocity. In C. Norrby & C. Wide (Eds.), Address practice as social action: European perspectives (pp. 119-140). Palgrave Pivot. Formentelli, M., & Hajek, J. (2016). Address practices in academic interactions in a pluricentric language: Australian English, American English, and British English. Pragmatics, 26(4), 631-652. https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.405for
Friedrich, P. (1972). Social context and semantic feature: The Russian pronominal usage. In J. J. Gumperz & H. Dell (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 270-300). Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Grishechko, E. G. (2021). Communicative strategy of politeness in modern English: Multi-level means of implementation. RUDN University. EDN: EHERPQ Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(3), 301-320. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(86)90015-5 Hu, X., & Luo, S. (2017). Laoshi, zao shang hao! Good morning, teacher? Respecting cultural differences when greeting a teacher. English Today, 33(3), 2-7. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S026607841600016X Khalil, A. A. A., & Larina, T. V. (2022). Terms of endearment in American English and Syrian Arabic family discourse. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 13(1), 27-44.
Kluge, B., & Moyna, M. I. (Eds.). (2019). It's not all about you: Newper-
spectives on address research. John Benjamins. Kuo, S. H. (2002). From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second-person singular pronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text & Talk, 22(1), 29-55. https://doi.org/10.1515/ text.2002.004
Larina, T. V. (2020). Correlation of formality, informality, politeness, impoliteness and rudeness: Discourse-pragmatic perspective. Cuadernos de Rusística Española, 16, 99-114. https://dx.doi.org/10.30827/cre.v16i0.15424 Larina, T. V., Ozyumenko, V. I., Kurtes, S. (2017). I-identity vs we-iden-tity in language and discourse: Anglo-Slavonic perspectives. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 13(1), 195-215. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/lpp-2017-0006 Larina, T., & Suryanarayan, N. (2023). Address forms in academic discourse in Indian English. In N. Baumgarten & R. Vismans (Eds.), It's different with you: Contrastiveperspectives on address research (pp. 142-170). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/ 10.1075/tar.5.06lar Larina, T., Suryanarayan, N., & Yuryeva, J. (2019). Socio-cultural context, address forms and communicative styles: A case study of British and Indian Englishes. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics, 18(3), 39-51. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.15688/jvolsu2.2019.3.3 Le Roux, J. (2002). Effective educators are culturally competent communicators. Intercultural Education, 13(1), 37-48. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/14675980120112922 Lee, K., & Cho, Y. Y. (2013). Beyond 'power and solidarity': Indexing intimacy in Korean and Japanese terms of address. Korean Linguistics, 15, 73-100. https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/kl.15.!. 04lee
Leech, G. (1999). The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In H. Hasselgárd & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora (pp. 107-118). Brill. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004653689_013 Leech, G., & Larina, T. (2014). Politeness: West and east. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 4, 9-34. Lehtimaja, I. (2011). Teacher-oriented address terms in students' reproach turns. Linguistics and Education, 22(4), 348-363. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.02.008
Training, Language and Culture Volume 8 Issue 1, 2024, pp. 87-100
Li, C. (2015). Aspects of address forms in Chinese and English: A comparative study. Cross-Cultural Communication, 11, 79-86.
Mahmud, F. N., & Salehuddin, K. (2023). How bilingual are Malaysian undergraduates? A snapshot of the different bilingual categories in Malaysia. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 23(2), 144-164.
Malyuga, E. N., & McCarthy, M. (2020). Non-minimal response tokens in English and Russian professional discourse: A comparative study. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 4, 70-86. https://doi.org/ 10.31857/0373-658X.2020.4.70-86
McIntire, M. L. (1972). Terms of address in an academic setting. Anthropological Linguistics, 14(7), 286-291.
Nicodemus, B., Formentelli, M., Cagle, K. M., & Pittman, J. (2021). Address practices of deaf undergraduate students and faculty: A study of language, identity, and community. Journal of Pragmatics, 176, 110-123. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prag ma.2021.01.024
Norrby, C., & Wide, C. (Eds.). (2015). Address practice as social action: European perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.
0rsnes, B. (2016). Forms of address as cross-cultural code-switching: The case of German and Danish in higher education. Linguistik Online, 79(5), 179-198. https://dx.doi.org/10.13092/ lo.79.3342
Ozyumenko, V. I. (2020). Addressing a judge in national varieties of English. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24(1), 137-157. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-2020-24-1 -137-157
Pager-McClymont, K., Eichhorn, S., & Doche, A. (2024). T/V in the 21st century. In L. Paterson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of pronouns (pp. 243-257). Routledge.
Rapanta, C., & Trovao, S. (2021). Intercultural education for the twenty-first century: A comparative review of research. In F. Maine & M. Vrikki (Eds.), Dialogue for intercultural understanding (pp. 9-26). Springer.
Raymond, C. W. (2016). Reconceptualizing identity and context in the deployment of forms of address. In M. I. Moyna & S. Rivera-Mills (Eds.), Forms of address in the Spanish of the Americas (pp. 267-288). John Benjamins.
Ren, J., & Chen, X. (2019). Kinship term generalization as a cultural pragmatic strategy among Chinese graduate students. Pragmatics and Society, 10(4), 613-638.
Shubina E. L. (2023). Variability in journalistic discourse in the German language. Issues of Applied Linguistics, 51, 60-87.
Soomro, M. A., & Larina, T. (2022). Categories of address forms in Pakistani English at a multilingual academic setting. Scientific Essays of Higher Education, 6, 50-55. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.20339/PhS.6s-22.050
Soomro, M. A., & Larina, T. (2023). Mister, bro, or ada? Styles of addressing among multilingual Pakistani students. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 23(2), 241-257. https://doi. org/10.17576/gema-2023-2302-13
Stewart, M. (2001). Pronouns of power and solidarity. Multilingua, 20(2), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1515/MULTI.2001.007
rudn.tlcjournal.org doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2024-8-1-87-100
Suryanarayan, N., & Khalil, A. (2021). Kinship terms as indicators of identity and social reality: A case study of Syrian Arabic and Hindi. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1), 125-146. Tannen, D. (1990). Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 16(1), 519-529. Tazik, K., & Aliakbari, M. (2023). Kinship terms variation among speakers of Bahmaie dialect in Khuzestan Province of Iran. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 27(1), 194-215. https:// dx.doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30135 Ton, T. N. (2019). A literature review of address studies from pragmatic and sociolinguistic perspectives. In B. Kluge & M. I. Moyna (Eds.), It's not all about you: New perspectives on address research (pp. 23-46). John Benjamins. Villarreal, D. (2014). Connecting production to judgments: T/V address forms and the L2 identities of intermediate Spanish learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 1-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.-pragma.2014.02.005 Voevoda, E. V. (2020). Intercultural communication in multicultural education space. Training, Language and Culture, 4(2), 11-20.
Wang, Y. (2022). Politeness and pragmatic transfer in L2 pronominal address usage: Variation of T/V pronouns in Spanish by Chinese learners. Spanish in Context, 19(1), 25-47. Wetzel, P. J. (1993). The language of vertical relationships and linguistic analysis. Multilingua, 12(4), 387-406. Wierzbicka, A. (2020). Addressing God in European languages: Different meanings, different cultural attitudes. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 24(2), 259-293. https://dx.doi.org/10.22363/268
7-0088-2020-24-2-259-293
Wierzbicka, A. (2022). I and Thou: Universal human concepts present as words in all human languages. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 26(4), 908-936. https://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2687-008
8-31361
Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (1991). Politeness and forms of address.Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10(3), 145-168. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X91103001 You, C. (2014). Analysis on the generalization of the address term 'teacher' in Chinese from the perspective of sociolinguistics. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(3), 575-580. Yusra, K., Lestari, Y. B., & Simpson, J. (2023). Borrowing of address forms for dimensions of social relation in a contact-induced multilingual community. Journal of Politeness Research, 19(1), 217-248. https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/pr-2021-002 Zbenovich, C., Larina, T., & Ozyumenko, V. (2023). Culture and identity in critical remarks: A case study of Russian and Israeli academic classroom discourse. Pragmatics and Society. https://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ps.20064.zbe Zhou, Q., Laiche, S., & Larina, T. V. (2023). Emotional effect of teachers' discourse in a multicultural classroom. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics, 22(1), 123-137. https:// dx.doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2023.1.10
Qing Zhou
ORCID 0000-0001-5973-2204 h [email protected] RUDN University, Russia; Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China
Tatiana V. Larina
ORCID 0000-0001-6167-455X SPIN 7317-7534 h [email protected]
RUDN University, Russia
