Souhila Laiche

Postgraduate Student of the Department of Foreign Languages

Peoples' Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba

(Mosсow, Russia)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22405/2712-8407-2025-2-196-206

Abstract. Communication is the way through which individuals interact, as well as a basic element of cultural and social life. Communication takes place in different contexts and circumstances, including in the classroom. The classroom atmosphere implies different communication styles between teachers and students. The study objective is to unveil the most common communicative styles in Algerian and Russian classrooms. The Discourse Completion, in which 143 students participated, is a source of data for the study. The author focuses on the communicative styles that Algerian and Russian teachers use when interacting with their students in the classroom and applies the qualitative method. The results obtained show that Algerian teachers tend to use two communicative styles, which are direct and contextual. As for the Russian teachers, they tend to use indirect and contextual styles, showing politeness and a high-power distance index.
Keywords: communicative styles, classroom interactions, Algerian classrooms, Russian classrooms, direct style, indirect style, contextual style, communication, cultural studies, speech acts, politeness.

Полный текст статьи (PDF)

Для цитирования: Laiche, S 2025, ‘Communicative Styles in Teacher’s Discourse in Algerian and Russian Classrooms’, Tula Scientific Bulletin. History. Linguistics, issue 2 (22), pp. 196–206, http://doi.org/10.22405/2712-8407-2025-2-196-206 (in Russ.)

References

1. Adams Becker, S 2017, NMC horizon report: 2017 Higher Education Edition, The New Media Consortium publ, Austin, Texas.
2. Ahmetoğlu, E & Acar, IH 2016, ‘The correlates of Turkish preschool preservice teachers’ social competence, empathy and communication skills’, European Journal of Contemporary Education, vol. 16, is. 2, pp. 188–197.
3. Austin, JL 1962 Speech acts / Sense and Sensibilia, Oxford University Press publ, London, pp. 98–109.
4. Ateş, B &Sağar, ME 2022, ‘Öyretmen adaylarında psikolojik esnekliyin, oz-yeterliyin veiletişim becerilerinin yaşam doyumu uzerindeki yordayıcı rolu’ (The predictive role of psychological flexibility, self-efficacy and communication skills on life satisfaction in teacher candidates), Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, vol. 11, is. 1, pp. 219–227. (In Turk.)
5. Benrabah, M 2007, ‘Language-in-Education Planning in Algeria: Historical Development and Current Issues’, Language Policy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 225–252.
6. Blum-Kulka, S, House, J & Kasper, G 1989, ‘Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview’, Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, Ablex Publishing Corporation publ, New York, pp. 1–34.
7. Brown, P & Levinson, SC 1987, Politeness: Some universals in language usage, Cambridge University Press publ.
8. Cochran, LM & Parker Peters, M 2023, ‘Mindful preparation: An exploration of the effects of mindfulness and SEL training on pre-service teacher efficacy and empathy’, Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 12, is. 2, pp. 103–118.
9. Collins, J 1997, ‘Barriers to Communication in Schools (Presentation paper)’, British Educational research Association Annual Conference, September 11-14, University of York, York, England, pp. 3–14.
10. Dörnyei, Z & Scott, ML 1997, ‘Communication strategies in a second language: Definitions and taxonomies’, Language learning, vol. 47, is. 1, pp. 173–210.
11. Grice, HP 1990, ‘Logic and Conversation’, The Philosophy of Language, ed. A. P. Martinich, Oxford University Press publ, pp. 43–58.
12. Gudykunst, WB, Ting-Toomey, S & Chua, E 1988, Culture and interpersonal communication, Sage Publications publ.
13. Günönü-Kurt, S 2019, Sinif Oğretmeni Adaylarinin İletişim Becerileri İle Empatik Eyilim Duzeyleri Arasindaki İlişki (The relationship between primary school teacher candidates’ communication skills and empathetic tendency levels), Pamukkale University publ, Denizli. (In Turkish).
14. Hall, ET 1976, Beyond Culture, Anchor Books publ, Garden City, New York, pp. 35–45.
15. Hofstede, G 2011, ‘Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context’, Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, vol. 2, is. 1, article 8, viewed 1 May 2025, https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8/.
16. Hua, TK, Mohd Nor, NF& Jaradat, MN 2012, ‘Communication Strategies Among EFL Students-An Examination of Frequency Of Use And Types Of Strategies Used’, GEMA Online: journal of language studies, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 831–848, viewed 1 May 2025, https://ejournal.ukm.my/gema/article/view/1058.
17. Johnson, MB 1999, ‘Communication in the Classroom’, ERIC – Educational Resources Information Center, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED436802
18. Larina, T 2015, ‘Culture-specific communicative styles as a framework for interpreting linguistic and cultural idiosyncrasies’, International Review of Pragmatics, vol. 7, is. 2, pp. 195–215.
19. Leech, G 2007, ‘Politeness: is there an East-West divide?’, Journal of Politeness Resear, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 167–206.
20. Leech, G & Tatiana, L 2014, ‘Politeness: West and east’, Russian Journal of Linguistics, no. 4, pp. 9–34.
21. Morreale, SP & Pearson, JC 2008, ‘Why communication education is important: The centrality of the discipline in the 21st century’, Communication Education, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 224–240.
22. Pizziconi, B 2003, ‘Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language’, Journal of pragmatics, vol. 35, is. 10-11, pp. 1471–1506.
23. Searle, JR 1969, Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language, Cambridge University publ, London.
24. Sifianou, M 1999, Politeness phenomena in England and Greece: A cross-cultural perspective, Oxford University Press publ, Oxford.
25. Somsai, S & Intaraprasert, C 2011, ‘Strategies for coping with face-to-face oral communication problems employed by Thai university students majoring in English’, GEMA Online : journal of language studies, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 83–96, viewed 1 May 2025, https://ejournal.ukm.my/gema/article/view/43.
26. Watts, RJ 2003, Politeness, Cambridge University Press publ.
27. Wilson, A 2020, A study of empathy and teacher self-efficacy among preservice early childhood educators, master’s thesis, East Tennessee State University.
28. Zajda, J 2003, Education in the New Russia: Challenges and Prospects, Nova Science Publishers publ, New York, pp. 83–102.
29. Zaretsky, VK 2016, ‘The Development of Critical Thinking in Russian Education: Trends and Challenges’, Russian Education and Society, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 1–17.