INDIRECT MEANS OF EXPRESSING PRE-SEQUENCED ADVICE (DATA: RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN SOCIO-CULTURES)
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
References:
1. Searle J. R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. 203 p.
2. Searle J. R. Indirect Speech Acts // Syntax and Semantics / ed. by P. Cole & J. L. Morgan. Oxford: Academic Press, 1975. Vol. 3: Speech Acts, pp. 59–82.
3. Wunderlich D. On Problems of Speech Act Theory // Basic Problems in Methodology and Linguistics / ed. by R. E. Butts & J. Hintikka. London, Ontario, Boston, etc.: D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, 1977. Part Three of the Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, pp. 243–258.
4. Vorobyeva E. N. The interrogative sentence and the context. Kostroma State University Bulletin, 2009, no. 1, pp. 49–52 (in Russian).
5. Izotov A. I. Imperativeness as a pragmatic phenomenon. Data of Czech. Moscow: URSS Publ., 2008. 256 p. (in Russian).
6. Kilmukhametova E. U. Rhetorical questions as indirect speech acts (data of French). Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2006, no. 4 (55), pp. 77–82 (in Russian).
7. Dmitriyeva L. V. Pragmatic functions of sarcastic speech acts. Proceedings of the IV International Scientifi c Conference “Language, Culture, Society”. Moscow: Journal “Questions of Philology” Publ., 2007, pp. 114–115 (in Russian).
8. Maslova A. Yu. Semantic and communicative category of imperativeness and its implementation in Slavonic languages (data of Serbian and Bulgarian with comparison to Russian). Doct. Dis. of phil. sci. St. Petersburg, 2009. 554 p. (in Russian).
9. Tsvetkov O. Yu. The communicative context of the imperative sentence: data of English. Dis cand. of phil. sci. Cherepovets, 2002. 181 p. (in Russian).
10. Simonova S. O. Communicative and cognitive peculiarities of the realization of indirect and implicit speech acts of refusal in dialogue discourse. Dis cand. of phil. sci. Tambov, 2011. 207 p. (in Russian).
11. Searle J. R. Classifi cation of illocutionary acts // New in foreign linguistics. Issue XVII. The theory of speech acts. Moscow: Progress Publ., 1986, pp. 170–187 (in Russian).
12. Larina T. V. The category of politeness in the aspect of intercultural communication (data of English and Russian communicative cultures). Doct. dis. of phil. sci. Moscow, 2005. 495 p. (in Russian).
13. Formanovskaya N. I. The Russian speech etiquette: Linguistic and methodological aspects. Moscow: KomKniga Publ., 2006. 160 p. (in Russian).
14. Hybels S., Weaver R. L. Communicating Effectively. Boston: McGraw-Hill Publ., 2007. 418 p.
15. Strawson P. F. Intention and convention. New in foreign linguistics. Issue XVII. The theory of speech acts. Translated from English and compiled by I. M. Kobozeva and V. E. Demyankov. Ed. by B. Yu. Gorodetsky. Moscow: Progress Publ., 1986, pp. 130–150 (in Russian).
16. Wierzbicka A. A. Semantic metalanguage for a crosscultural comparison of speech acts and speech genres. Language Society. USA, 1985, № 14, pp. 491–514.
( 449.58 kB ) 
( 442.17 kB )
Issue: 10, 2013
Series of issue: Issue 10
Rubric: GERMANIC AND ROMAN LANGUAGES
Pages: 47 — 53
Downloads: 1337