Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin
RU EN






Today: 24.02.2026
Home Search
  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Bulletin Archive
    • 2026 Year
      • Issue №1
    • 2025 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2024 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2023 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2022 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2021 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2020 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 2019 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
    • 2018 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
    • 2017 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2016 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2015 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2014 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2013 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
      • Issue №13
    • 2012 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
      • Issue №13
    • 2011 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
      • Issue №13
    • 2010 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2009 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2008 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2007 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
    • 2006 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
      • Issue №10
      • Issue №11
      • Issue №12
    • 2005 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
    • 2004 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
    • 2003 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
    • 2002 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
    • 2001 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
    • 2000 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
      • Issue №8
      • Issue №9
    • 1999 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
      • Issue №7
    • 1998 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
      • Issue №4
      • Issue №5
      • Issue №6
    • 1997 Year
      • Issue №1
      • Issue №2
      • Issue №3
  • Search
  • Rating
  • News
  • Editorial Board
  • Information for Authors
  • Review Procedure
  • Information for Readers
  • Editor’s Publisher Ethics
  • Contacts
  • Manuscript submission
  • Received articles
  • Accepted articles
  • Subscribe
  • Service Entrance
vestnik.tspu.ru
praxema.tspu.ru
ling.tspu.ru
npo.tspu.ru
edujournal.tspu.ru

TSPU Bulletin is a peer-reviewed open-access scientific journal.

E-LIBRARY (РИНЦ)
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory
Google Scholar
European reference index for the humanities and the social sciences (erih plus)
Search by Author
- Not selected -
  • - Not selected -
Яндекс.Метрика

Search

- Not selected -
  • - Not selected -
  • - Not selected -

#SearchDownloads
1

THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL AND PRAGMATIC FACTORS ON AMERICAN AND RUSSIAN SPEAKERS’ CHOICE OF MEANS EXPRESSING PRE-SEQUENCED ADVICE // Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2011. Issue 3 (105). P. 124-129

The article сontains the analysis of advisory verbal means used by the representatives of Russian and American socio-cultures through the social pragmatic factors of social status, age and social distance between communicators. The results of the research show that Russian speakers use imperatives when there are null, official or inofficial relationships between the interlocutors who may have any social status and be of any age. In contrast to that American speakers use imperatives if they give advice to a person who is of the same or lower status and is of the same age or younger. In case the advice is given to a person who is of higher status and older, American speakers prefer assertives.

Keywords: contrastive pragmatics, socio-pragmatic factors, directive speech acts, pre-sequenced advice, performative utterances

1440
2

PECULIARITIES OF THE PRAGMATIC CATEGORY OF POLITENESS IMPLEMENTED IN PRE-SEQUENCED ADVICE (DATA OF RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN SOCIO-CULTURES) // Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2012. Issue 10 (125). P. 35-39

The article deals with the peculiarities of implementing politeness as a pragmatic category in pre-sequenced advice, depending on the age of communicators, their social status and relationships between them. The results of investigating Russian and American socio-cultures show that in Russian socio-culture explicit performatives are the most polite if there are offi cial relationships between interlocutors; interrogatives and assertives are the most polite if there are unoffi cial relationships between interlocutors. In American socio-culture when there are null and offi cial relationships between interlocutors, assertives with the modal verbs could and might are the most polite, and when there are unoffi cial relationships between interlocutors assertives in the subjunctive mood are the most polite.

Keywords: contrastive pragmatics, politeness, directive speech acts, pre-sequenced advice, socio-pragmatic factors

1509
3

INDIRECT MEANS OF EXPRESSING PRE-SEQUENCED ADVICE (DATA: RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN SOCIO-CULTURES) // Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2013. Issue 10 (138). P. 47-53

The article contains the analysis of means used by American and Russian students to express pre-sequenced advice indirectly. The results of the research with the use of questionaries show that American students use indirect means of expressing pre-sequenced advice more often than Russian students. American students use assertives more often than commissives and expressives, especially at official and inofficial relationships between communicators. In contrast to that, Russian students tend to use expressives amd commisives along with assertives, especially at inofficial relationships.

Keywords: contrastive pragmatics, directive speech acts, pre-sequenced advice, indirect communication

1349
4

ESSENTIAL RESOURCES OF VERBAL MANIPULATION IN THE DISCOURSE OF ENGLISH OUTDOOR ADVERTISEMENTS // Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2015. Issue 4 (157). P. 165-173

The article discusses resources of verbal manipulation that are most often used in English advertising discourse. The most essential resources of verbal manipulation in outdoor advertisements seem to include language resources proper, resources of verbal manipulation through changing the structure of advertising discourse and cognitive resources of verbal manipulation. The results of the research of English outdoor advertisements show that all the resources of verbal manipulation are closely connected with each other in advertising discourse. The most effective resources of verbal manipulation in the discourse of English outdoor advertisements are reframing, the Imperative Mood, parallel constructions, rhyming, play of words and allusions.

Keywords: verbal manipulation, advertising discourse, advertising text, outdoor advertising

1381
5

STRUCTURAL AND SEMANTIC PECULIARITIES OF ENGLISH SNOWBOARD TERMS // Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2016. Issue 10 (175). P. 18-23

The article contains the analysis of English sport snowboard terms the selection of which is made from English terminological dictionaries and thematic Internet resources in the English language. The results of the research show that more than half of the English sport snowboard lexicon consists structurally of two-component, three-component and four-component phrases. Semantically two thirds of the English sport snowboard terms denote different types of the board for snowboard, body armour for snowboard, binding and its parts. One third of the English snowboard terminology comprises terms that express parts of the board for snowboard, clothes and boots for snowboard as well as their parts.

Keywords: sport terminology, snowboard terms, morphological models, semantics of terms, the English language

1539
6

PRAGMALINGUISTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF INTERROGATIVE SPEECH ACTS (ON DATA OF AMERICAN ENGLISH) // Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2018. Issue 4 (193). P. 65-69

The article discusses pragmalinguistic peculiarities of interrogatives. These characteristics are analyzed at comparing interrogatives to other speech acts. Interrogatives as speech acts have an illocutionary force and a perlocutionary effect similar to those of directive speech acts. The illocutionary force of interrogatives is connected with communicative manipulation when asking for or checking information by referring to another person. The perlocutionary effect of interrogatives is either this person agrees or does not agree to share information. Directive speech acts are also connected with communicative manipulation and the perlocutionary effect of directive speech acts is either the other person agrees or does not agree to fulfill the action. However, interrogatives differ from other speech acts (directive speech acts including) by their locutionary and propositional characteristics. Interrogatives are constructed in a special way and do not contain reference to the answer. At least these locutionary and propositional characteristics of interrogatives makes it possible to consider interrogatives as a separate group of speech acts. Analysis of interrogative speech acts in contemporary American films show that 70 % of interrogatives are used as direct speech acts, i.e. to ask for information or to check information. One fourth of interrogatives contains second illocutions, in most cases these are reproach, indignation and pleading. Interrogatives as indirect speech acts are used in 20 % of utterances mainly to express suggestions. Rhetorical (false) questions are used only in 10 % of interrogative utterances.

Keywords: pragmalinguistics, speech acts, interrogatives, American English

1672

2026 Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin

Development and support: Network Project Laboratory TSPU