ADDRESS TERMS IN DIPLOMATIC INTERACTION: A SOCIOLINGUISTIC STUDY OF TRUMP-ZELENSKYY CONFRONTATION
Abstract
This study examined the use of address terms in high-stakes diplomatic interaction, focusing on the meeting between President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on February 28, 2025. The research was important because address terms in diplomacy are not only markers of etiquette but also strategies that shape perceptions of authority, politeness, and legitimacy. The purpose of the study was to analyze how address terms shifted between formal and confrontational segments of the interaction and to explore the implications of these shifts for understanding power dynamics in political communication. A qualitative research design was employed, utilizing discourse analysis of transcripts and recordings from the event. Data were segmented into formal introductions and confrontational exchanges, coded according to the type of address term used, and interpreted through the lens of sociolinguistic variation. The findings revealed that formal address terms dominated the opening exchanges, reflecting ritualized respect and protocol. However, during confrontational moments, speakers increasingly employed direct pronouns and informal references, though formal titles did not disappear entirely. Instead, alternation between formal and direct address was observed, indicating strategic language use under rhetorical pressure. The study concluded that address terms in diplomatic contexts functioned as dynamic rhetorical tools rather than static markers of formality. This demonstrated that shifts in address terms were not merely linguistic preferences but deliberate strategies employed to negotiate authority, face, and legitimacy in international diplomacy.
Keywords: address terms, diplomatic interaction, sociolinguistics, political communication, variation theory
References
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Coupland, N. (2007). Style: Language variation and identity. Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (3rd editio). SAGE Publications.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books.
Ilie, C. (2001). Semi-institutional discourse: The case of talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 209–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00032-0
Ilie, C. (2010). Strategic uses of parliamentary forms of address. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(4), 885–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.008
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lasan, T. (2021). Salience in EFL speakers’ perceptions of formality: (In)formal greetings and address forms combined with (in)formal nouns, verbs, and adjective. Pragmatics, 31(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20046.las
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). Academic Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th editio). SAGE Publications.
Silverman, D. (2020). Interpreting qualitative data (6th editio). SAGE Publications.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2008). Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (2nd editio). Continuum.
The White House. (2025, February 28). Remarks by President Donald J. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine before bilateral meeting [Press release]. https://www.whitehouse.gov/
van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as social interaction. SAGE Publications.
Vázquez Laslop, M. E. (2019). Pragmatic and grammatical categories for the analysis of forms of address in presidential election debates. Pragmática Sociocultural / Sociocultural Pragmatics, 7(3), 305–332. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/soprag-2019-001
