Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

INSTITUTE OF LINGUISTICS

Monograph

Pragmatics of the discourse of small forms

S.E. Noskova

Moscow, 2006

Noskova S.E.

Pragmatics of the discourse of small forms. Monograph. - M.: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Tver: TVGU, TGSHA, 2006. - 194 p. - ISBN 5-227-00587-2

Scientific editor:

A.A. Romanov, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Head. Department of General and Classical Linguistics, TVGU, Honored Worker of Science of the Russian Federation.

Reviewers: dialogic communication emotive discourse

HE. Morozova, Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Department of Theory of Language and Intercultural Communication, TSAAA;

G.G. Yakovleva, Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Department of Foreign Languages, ChuvGU named after I.N. Ulyanov.

The monograph is devoted to the description of the emotive space of discursive manifestations of small forms. The paper defines the status of emotive discourse of small forms, presents an archive of discursive units of small forms, establishes the functional properties and role of interactive discursive practices of small forms in the deployment of a typical illocutionary frame of dialogic communication, reveals the features of the metacommunicative nature of interactive discursive practices.

Addressed to specialists in the theory of language and intercultural communication, communicative linguistics and rhetoric, teachers, graduate students and students of philological faculties.

Approved for publication by the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

ISBN 5-227-00587-2

© S.E. Noskova, 2006

© A.A. Romanov, 2006

INTRODUCTION

AT last years within the framework of the cognitive paradigm, the attention of researchers to a problem that affects the interests of one of the new areas of linguistics - emotology (or linguistics of emotions), the scope of which covers the affective culture of speech behavior in society, the emotional competence of homo loquens, emotional communicative loci, the play of emotional meanings, lexical and pragmatic means of language both in intracultural and intercultural communication (V.I. Shakhovsky, 1995; A. Vezhbitskaya, 1996; 1999; N.S. Kaitmazova, 2006). The newest aspect of this trend, which has been developed in recent years both in domestic and foreign linguistics, is the pragma-semantic aspect of the emotiveness of discursive formations as linguistic units (statement - cue / step / practice - move - discourse), included in the process of emotional development regulatively. -communicative space in the surrounding reality.

The proposed study is in line with the named theoretical direction of modern linguistics and is devoted to a systematic description of the functional class of emotive interactive units (interjectives) in a dynamic model of the complex behavior of a speaking subject within a discursive-functional space. The designated theoretical perspective of the study makes it possible to develop a common denominator for a variety of theories of emotions - from ethological, socio-psychoconstructivist (in the spirit of P. Bourdieu, F. Varela, U. Maturana) to neurological and cultural ones.

The ever-increasing interest in the manifestation of the "human factor" in the communicative process leads scientists today to realize the importance of not only the problems of describing the language structures involved in speech interaction, but also the tasks of a comprehensive study of the emotive space of the speaking subject (homo loquens), using these structures in the form of communicative (or discursive) manifestations of small forms for solving specific problems in the space of dialogical interaction. A linguistic personality in its ability to carry out coordinated speech (discursive) actions or practices within a single interactive space (in the understanding of M. Foucault, A.I. Rakitov, A.A. Romanov, O.N. Morozova), taking into account the communicative attitudes of another speaker personality is now becoming an integral object of study of intensively developing topical areas of the science of language. In addition, the relevance of the study is determined not least by the need to systematize general information about the functional and structural specifics of the class of interactive discursive units of the emotive plan within the framework of dialogical interaction and to revise the existing views on certain aspects of these units from new theoretical positions.

Appeal to the functional class of interactive discursive units of the emotive plan (interjective discourse) of active syntax seems relevant due to the fact that although since the sixties of the last century linguists have repeatedly returned to the problem of manifestation and content aspects of constructions with interjections or statements-interjections (like I.A. . Krylova: “Ushitsa, by the way, it’s perfectly cooked”), however, a unified theory of the emotiveness of the discourse of small forms was not created, and many functional and semantic properties of the language units of this category remained unexplained. The need to develop such a theory is undoubtedly great, since the very phenomenon of emotive discourse of small forms is widespread in various languages ​​and plays a huge role in the discursive (communicative) activities of participants in dialogic interaction, especially in the sphere of everyday and institutional and professional communication with the increasing role of extralinguistic factors. such as, for example, the originality of the situation of communication, the number of its participants, communicative hierarchy in the case of asymmetry in the social status of participants in dialogical interaction, the code of trust of interlocutors, etc., which ultimately ensure the specificity of the functioning of emotive communicative stereotypes in society.

The paper substantiates the need for this approach to solving a number of topical problems of modern linguistics using data from a number of sciences, such as ethnolinguistics, sociology, social psychology, discourse psychology, the theory of speech activity, discourse studies - a comprehensive description of verbal forms of emotive communication as a special kind of speech activity, conceptualization of interactive reality by a person and its representation in the national language picture of the world, the role of the speaker in the implementation of emotive discursive activity, the development of criteria for macro-segmentation of emotive discourse acts due to social, interpersonal relations of communicants and the specifics of a typical situation of dialogical communication, etc.

The proposed perspective in the study of the functional properties of acts of emotive discourse of small forms made it possible for the first time to explore the social and national significance of this variety of speech acts in the process of interpersonal communication, involving not only linguistic, but also interdisciplinary concepts, offering the author's linguistic tools for similar descriptions of emotive discourse on the material of others. languages. The application of these concepts to Russian and German emotive formations of small forms of dialogical interaction made it possible, on the one hand, to describe both general and national features of speech-creative activity, on the other hand, to develop a new concept of the regulatory status (according to A.A. Romanov) of emotive interaction in dynamic models of dialogic interaction developed at the Tver School of Semantics and Pragmatics of Speech Formations.

Despite the existence of a large number of works, the subject of which are various characteristics of emotive units, it cannot be argued that by now this fragment of the language system has been fully studied. The appeal to this topic is explained, first of all, by the lack of a complete and systematic description from the standpoint of the active syntax of the functional class of emotive units, both in general and in other particular branches of linguistics. Analysis of the regulatory function of emotive units from the standpoint of an integral (pragmatic, sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, cognitive) approach is equally relevant both for specialists in the field of theoretical linguistics and for those involved in the practical implementation of rhetorical programs focused on effective communication, taking into account social, psychological and extralinguistic factors that influence the formation of personal attitudes of the speaking subject.

The object of the proposed research is a holistic description of the emotive space of the functional class of interjective (interjective) discursive manifestations of small forms, and the subject is the appointment and use of these syntactic objects in the dynamic model of the interactive behavior of the speaking subject in the regulative activity of participants in dialogical interaction.

The main goal of the work is multifaceted and consists in developing the conceptual and methodological foundations for discursive modeling of emotive interaction acts, as well as in the subsequent description of the functional and semantic properties of interactive (interjective) practices in typical situations of emotive communication in order to realize their influencing potential on participants in the dialogic space.

The general goal defines the specific objectives of the study:

To develop the theoretical foundations for describing the emotive discourse of small forms as a special linguistic object, taking into account the specifics of interpersonal and national-cultural communication, organized according to the principle of integrity, structure, hierarchy, coherence into an independent form of dialogic interaction;

Determine the status of emotive discourse of small forms in a dynamic model and describe a typical set of basic interactive discursive practices by constructing a frame of this corpus of units in the form of chains of realization of the functional-semantic representation (frame) of an act of emotive discourse;

Consider the inventory of verbal means of representation of interactive chains in the frame configuration of the emotive discourse of small forms, which make it possible to analyze the general and particular (level) mechanisms of the verbal representation of emotions in the process of realizing the personal attitudes of participants in dialogic interaction;

Reveal the features of the metacommunicative nature of interactive discursive practices and the specifics of the patterns of lexical representation of emotions in interpersonal and national-cultural communication of different languages;

Consider the strategic principle of using the interactive practices of the discourse of small forms in the process of realizing specific goals and objectives by the participants in speech interaction.

Build a typology of interactive practices of the regulatory plan in the structure of dialogic interaction;

To establish the presence and nature of the relationship between structural factors and the frame organization of the emotive discourse of small forms in the interpersonal and national-cultural communicative space.

For the purposes of this analysis, the communicative unity of an interactive emotive discursive space of a small form, built according to the monadic principle of a certain frame model of a typical interaction act with an orientation towards the realization of the manifestation of the desire-will of the speaking subject, is most suitable as the minimum speech unit of study.

The activity approach to the analysis of speech (dialogical) units, developed in the Tver (Kalinin) semantic-pragmatic school under the guidance of I.P. Susova. The work is based on the dynamic model of the regulatory space of dialogic interaction developed by A.A. Romanov (1984; 1986; 1987; 1988).

The material of the study was dialogic fragments from the works of Russian and German literature, cited for the appropriate argumentation of the put forward provisions and hypotheses. Explanatory and aspect dictionaries also served as an important source study base.

1. EMOTIVIVE DISCOURSE OF SMALL FORMS IN THE COMMUNICATIVE-FUNCTIONAL PARADIGM: MAIN DIRECTIONS AND RESEARCH PROBLEMS

1.1 Emotive discourse in the cognitive paradigm: origins and state of the problem

This study is devoted to the analysis of the communicative-pragmatic and regulative functions of interjectives (interjective discursive practices) in the process of dialogic interaction between communicants.

Over the past decades, there has been a clear interest in this class of words. In modern linguistics, we can distinguish two main approaches to the volume of interjectional units.

A narrow understanding of interjections excludes derivative (non-primitive, secondary) words from their number (Vezhbitskaya, 1999; Dobrushina, 1995; Kartsevsky, 1984; Romanov, 1990; Romanov, Maksimova, 1997; Wilkins, 1992).

A broad understanding of these linguistic units is associated with the inclusion in the group of primitive interjections (primary, non-derivative, prototypical) and non-primitive (Vinogradov, 1986; Germanovich, 1966; Grammar of the Russian language, 1984; Grigorieva, 1998; Devkin, 1965; Kruchinina, 1998; Lomonosov, 1757; Mukhammed, 1973; Russian grammar, 1980; Sereda, 2002; Shakhmatov, 1941; Shvedova 1957; Shvedova 1960; Shcherba, 1974a; Yurchenko, 1981; Ameka, 1992). Secondary interjections are derived from significant words, their meaning is motivated to a certain extent by the meaning of the word or phrase from which they originate (Shmelev, 2002), this group may also include, according to different classifications, verbal interjections, etiquette formulas, various kinds of fusions from interjections of particles and adverbs: yes, well, well, yes, so-so, oh-whether, well, well, those times, like this, like this, no matter how.

The second approach of classifying interjections by origin (method of formation) distinguishes the following groups: 1) interjections proper - non-derivative units like hey, fu, pah, ah, pfui, au, heda; 2) derivatives of the interjection - out, march, horror, fir-trees, groЯartig, echt?; 3) verbal interjections - slap, gurgle, lope; witsch, hopp; 4) etiquette lexemes and combinations - thanks! goodbye! danke; 5) onomatopoeia - bul-bul, meow, tick-tack, bums.

It is worth noting that many scientists in their research attempts to establish the communicative qualities of interjections do not make a distinction between primary interjections and other interjection units (Sharonov, 2005b; compare in this regard the title of the article “Interjections decline or conjugate?” E. G. Borisova (2005 )). For example, V.S. Grigoryeva (1998) considers onomatopoeic formations (onomatopoeias) in a series of interjections used to call or drive away animals tru, chick-chick or in German pus-pus, gurre-gurre. Unlike interjections, onomatopoeic units cannot function in speech as statements, phrases, but “represent only the level of emotional reflection” (Shakhovsky, 1987: 54). Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a dialogue like “Murrrr! - Bang Bang!". It seems to us quite reasonable to separate interjections proper and onomatopoeias, respectively, exclamations, which, due to their communicative orientation, take the form of an utterance, and non-exclamations (Kartsevsky, 1984; also see: Shcherba, 1974a: 82). The presence of meaning distinguishes interjections from onomatopoeia. On this basis, some researchers refer to interjections only those units that serve to express the internal state of a person, his sensations, feelings.

Primary interjections are “closer to nature” (Dobrushina, electronic version), they originate from natural emotional exclamations and cries. It is from interjections, according to A.A. Sweat, and our usual words arose: “... words had to be formed from interjections, because only in them could a person find an articulate sound. Thus, according to their subsequent fate, primitive interjections break up into those that forever remain interjections, and into those that have lost their interactive character from time immemorial” (Potebnya, 1989: 93).

Primary interjections have connections with significant parts of speech; cf. description of specific features of primitive interjections in Russian in the works of I.A. Sharonova (2004) and N.R. Dobrushina (electronic version). The group under consideration includes interjections built according to the following models: 1) vowel + consonant x: ah, ah, eh, uh, them; 2) vowel + consonant th: ah, oh, hey, she-she, uy / uya; 3) vowel + consonant x / r + vowel: aha, wow, uh-huh, ege, ehe; 4) consonant x + vowel: ha, ho, heh, hee; 5) consonant f + vowel: fu, fui, phi, fe; 6) a vowel pronounced with a certain length/shortness: oh-oh-oh! woo! Eee! da-ah! etc.; 7) a combination of consonants / consonants with a vowel: brr, hm / hm, ehm, pah, alas, etc. Another principle of modeling according to phonetic composition is the alignment of the corpus of interjections in rows to the initial sound, for example: ah-ah-ah! ouch! Ah ah ah! Oh! yeah! etc. (Borisova, 2004).

There are interjections that contain the sign of “anomaly of phonetic properties” (Sharonov, 2004), they are so unlike ordinary words of the language that they even contain sounds that are not found in any other words, cf. interjections in the following dialogic fragments:

(1) Busygin. Humans have thick skin and it's not easy to pierce it. It is necessary to lie properly, only then will they believe and sympathize with you. They need to be scared or appeased.

Silvia. Brrr... You're right. First, we'll wake them up. (Moves to keep warm, then sings and slaps.) (A. Vampilov)

(2) Sarafanov (frightened). Shh!.. Hush! (with reproach.) Well, what about you, after all, I asked you. God forbid, they will hear mine ... (The neighbor covers his mouth with his hand, nods quickly.) (A. Vampilov)

Or another example: the German interjection pst, which serves to attract attention, consists of a combination of consonants that is not typical for the German language. Such interjections as allo, atu, ba, march, pst, fi, fu, fuy, fuit have a phonetic appearance that is non-standard for the Russian language. Since the 18th century they were perceived from Western European languages ​​(Vinogradov, 1986: 750; compare, however, the opposite thought of N.R. Dobrushina about the origin of interjections fu and tfu, as the only native Russian words that contain f). N.R. Dobrushina (electronic version) gives examples of primary interjections with a phonetic design that is not standard for the Russian language: pshch (meaning to snort). Such units "you will not find in any dictionary, textbook or reference book, since they are practically absent in written speech, and oral speech has not yet been described enough." At the same time, the author's attempts to graphic fixation of interjections were also noted:

(3) Bork only whistled in response and said, looking with undisguised disdain at the American nobleman:

Fu-yu! You can be quite calm about this. This is not the same story as you think. There is freedom here: everyone is equal, who pays money for himself. (VG Korolenko) Or cf. more:

Sh-sh-sh-sh-sh-sh, - Aphrodite shushed at him and, without getting up, began to rock the cradle with a roar. (V. Voinovich)

One should pay attention to the conventionality of the literary notation of interjections, “the literal tradition of designation and attachment to certain cultural traditions reduce the repertoire of such speech possibilities” (Protasova, 2005: 175; Sharonov, 2005a; 2005b: 203; Ehlich, 1986).

A characteristic feature of primary interjections is also a special intonation pattern and longitude / brevity and high / low tone of sounds. In particular, it is noted that low sounds indicate significance and importance, while high sounds indicate insignificance, frivolity, minimality of the object of expressive reaction (Borisova, 2004; Sharonov, 2004), for example, cf. low sounds o-o! wow! and high uh! and-and!

A distinctive feature of primary interjections, some scientists consider morphological indivisibility and the absence of inflections. In the field of interjections, however, there may be their own word-formation processes that are distinguished by a certain originality: the phenomena of agglutination and reduplication are confirmed by the following examples: wow! Ah ah ah!

Nevertheless, when considering the issue of morphological and syntactic features of primary interjections in modern linguistics, their grammatical “inferiority” is often pointed out, since units of the interjection class do not have a system of grammatical forms and do not change (Vinogradov, 1986: 612; Mathiot, 1983; Wilkins, 1992: 123, 153). The analysis of primary interjections at the syntactic level also comes down to a categorical statement about their syntactic isolation (Shcherba, 1957: 67; 1974a), because interjections cannot enter into syntactic relations with any units of the language (Gvozdev, 1961: 184; Moskalskaya, 1956 ; Reformatsky, 1967; Shcherba, 1957; Helbig and Buscha, 1984; Jung, 1966; Schmidt, 1966). As regards the relationship of interjections to each other, only the paradigmatic relationship of an interjection with other interjections is recognized (Mathiot, 1983: 35).

At the same time, researchers still turn their attention to the syntactic features of interjections-imperatives: 1) agglutination technique - the acquisition of verb endings and the addition of particles: come on, nute-ka, scat, fullness, 2) the predicative use of interjectional onomatopoeia such as shark, boo with the value of an instantaneous or unexpected action, for example:

(4) “Well, after the death of his father, he sometimes visited me, met on the street and one fine evening suddenly - bang! made an offer ... like snow on his head ... ”(A.P. Chekhov)

Like verbs, the units under consideration are endowed with the category of transitivity and require a nominal or more often a pronominal object, for example: Well you! March from me! Get out of my apartment! In addition, interjections can be substantiated, used as members of a sentence (see: Devkin, 1965: 202-204; Mukhammed, 1973: 86-88; Shakhmatov, 1941; Wilkins, 1992: 130-131), for example:

(5) Sherpinsky. I am different now. And don't worry financially, Lenoshka, I'm hoo. (M. Bulgakov) or:

(6) “Tatyana - ah! and he roar." (A.S. Pushkin) - L.V. Shcherba refers the word ah in this context not to interjections, but to verbs (1957: 67; 1974a: 82).

Observations of the active processes of interjectivization of vocabulary (nouns, verbs, adverbs, pronouns) in modern Russian are described in the works of L.V. Valeeva (2004), A.I. Germanovich (1966), N.E. Gotovshchikova (2000) E.N. Sidorenko and I.Ya. Sidorenko (1993), V.V. Shigurova (2004). For example, the transition of nouns into interjections is accompanied by the loss of nominativity, categorical meaning, forms of change, syntactic properties and the acquisition of expressiveness (Sidorenko E.N., Sidorenko I.Ya., 1993):

(7) He recovered, picked up the bag and only took hold of the door bracket with his hand - he heard a heart-rending cry: “Ka-ra-u-u-ul! .. Kill-and-or! .. Ka-ra-u-ul, good people !..” ... In the middle of the yard, squatting, stood Zakhar Denisovich and yelled: “Ka-ra-u-u-ul!”. (V. Shukshin)

Or, for example, it has been established that the functional and functional-semantic transposition of verbs into “imperative peripheral interjections” (Shigurov, 2004: 129-131) occurs in connection with a change in differential features in the structure of interjective word forms: wait! enough! will be!; truncated forms in rough vernacular hwa! waking up! (stop doing something); vzy! from the verb "take" (take); hybrid verb-interjective formations in vernacular or jargon like svali! (leave), wail / go, pull / pull, blow, move, shake, scratch (from here), etc. In this regard, we find the approach of V.V. Shigurov, who regards the functional-semantic mobility of interjectional formations as the main criterion for their belonging to the grammatical structure of the language.

The mobility of interjections in the morphological system of the language and the successful functioning as interjections of various parts of speech and entire phrases: nouns, Lord! trouble!; Vali verbs!; phrases just think! my fathers! damn it! - proves only the fact that interjections "continue to develop" (Meshchaninov, 1978: 355; also: Valeeva, 2004; Devkin, 2004; Zolina, Kashirin, 1989; Sereda, 2003; Trubina, 1993; Shigurov, 2004; Shmelev, 2002 ).

In most cases, the study of interjections is limited to the analysis of their structure and semantics, the specifics of division into lexico-grammatical categories, classes. In the existing classifications of parts of speech, there is no consensus on what class of words interjections belong to - this "obscure and vague category" (Shcherba, 1974a: 82). The existing discrepancies, therefore, are explained primarily by differences in the choice of criteria: syntactic, semantic or morphological (see: Admoni, 1973; Vinogradov, 1986; Gvozdev, 1961; Zinder, 1957; Meshchaninov, 1978; Moskalskaya, 1956; Peshkovsky, 1952; Chess , 1941; Shvedova, 1960; Shcherba, 1957; Jung, 1966; Helbig and Buscha, 1984; Schmidt, 1966).

How are the syntactic features of interjections considered in modern linguistics? Interjections adjacent to a sentence are referred to a group of words and sentences that “do not form either sentences or their parts” (Peshkovsky, 1952: 404; see also: Gvozdev, 1961: 197-198; Susov, 1984: 11). “Truly verbless” are also interjectional sentences “Thank you!”, “Ah!”. However, unlike modal ones, they lie outside the grammatical syntax (Yurchenko, 1981: 122).

Since the end of the 20th century, studies on the issue of interjections have demonstrated the opposite point of view on the syntactic properties of interjections. These units are often defined as "sentence equivalents", "sentence words", "minimal sentences" or "phrase words", "grammatically amorphous phrases", or even as "full elementary speech utterances", "autonomous and independent utterances" (" independent utterances") (Admoni, 1994: 17; Vezhbitskaya, 1999; Kartsevsky, 1984: 131; Romanov, 1990: 116; Aijmer, 2004: 103-125; Ameka, 1992; Fries, 1990; Wilkins, 1992 etc.) . However, the syntactic autonomy of interjections cannot be considered a decisive factor for attributing a language unit to the class of interjections, because 1) the boundaries of the class of interjections are blurred by syntactically independent etiquette formulas, set phrases, phraseological units and 2) interjections can also act as constituent elements of statements or take the final position (see, for example, in the studies of V.D. Devkin (1965), A.A. Romanov (1990), N.Yu. Shvedova (1957; 1960)).

Noteworthy for a constructive analysis of interjections in various syntactic positions is the remark of N.Yu. Shvedova that “interjections and interjectional combinations are not simply “added” to a sentence or to its member, but act as one of the structural elements of syntactic constructions of a certain type” (1960: 262; see also: Devkin, 1965: 203).

Note that the study of the design features of interjections in modern linguistics has remained at the level of analysis of the "grammaticality / non-grammaticality" of these elements. The reason is that primary interjections like eh, oh, well, etc. characterized by extreme conciseness of form, and until the beginning of the 80s of the 20th century, syntax was engaged in a complete sentence, explored out of context. The above approaches to the analysis of interjections are not characterized by consideration of the specifics of the use of interjections by the speaking subject in the process of speech. Therefore, the restriction by the plane of the grammatical system of the language does not make it possible to identify any types of manifestation schemes of interjectional statements, to determine their semantic and regulative essence.

To identify the structural types of replicas with an interjection, it seems important to take into account that an interjectional replica, like any statement, belongs to the dynamic system of speech communication "speaking listener". From these positions, A.A. Romanov (1990) identified some patterns of syntactic combination of interjection with other structural units within a replica step and a block of replica steps combined into one interactive move.

Nevertheless, consideration of the issue of syntactic features of interjectional units cannot be considered complete (Kharkovskaya, 1999: 14). After all, no development of a typology of interjectional syntactic configurations has been carried out either in domestic or in foreign linguistics. In this sense, it would be important for the study of the regulatory specifics of interjections in speech utterances to establish “exemplary syntactic patterns” (massgebende Satzschemata, Erben, 1961: 172) or “fundamental sentences”, which can serve as the basis for studying the semantic-pragmatic and metacommunicative specifics of the units under consideration. in emotive discourse.

For an adequate description of the interjective units of emotive discourse, these formal features are not enough.

Separated into an independent lexico-grammatical class for the first time, according to I.N. Kruchinina (1998: 290), in the Latin grammar of Varro (1st century BC), interjections in the subsequent linguistic tradition were described ambiguously. So, in linguistics there are opposite points of view on the place of interjections in the language system among other classes of words.

The first point of view is connected with the recognition of the ability of interjections to functionally approach different parts speeches (V.V. Vinogradov, M.V. Lomonosov). Proponents of this point of view, studying the history of occurrence, the structure of interjection formations and their functions in speech, give interjection its place in the system of parts of speech or emphasize "isolation" from other lexical units, do not make a sharp distinction between their emotive and non-emotive meanings (V.G. Admoni, F. I. Buslaev, V. V. Vinogradov, A. I. Germanovich, V. D. Devkin, M. V. Lomonosov, F. F. Fortunatov, A. A. Shakhmatov, N. Yu. Shvedova ).

Supporters of the second point of view describe interjections as alien to the syntactic structure of the language. A.N. Gvozdev, A.M. Peshkovsky, A.A. Potebnya, A.A. Reformatsky, L.V. Shcherba, L.A. Bulatov support the opinion that interjections are not able to enter into relationships with other words, therefore they are excluded from the system of parts of speech and, in general, from the general language system into an “undifferentiated bunch of words” (Shcherba, 1974: 147).

Difficulties in determining the part-verbal status of an interjection determined the emerging in linguistics of the 50-70s. XX century, the desire to systematize them according to the grammatical feature (morphological: changeability / immutability, paradigmatics; syntactic: combinational possibilities with other words in a sentence, method of communication, syntactic function of an element in a sentence) and the lack of a system-hierarchical description of their general semantics. Thus, the noted fluctuations in establishing the part-of-speech status of interjections are generated by different approaches to the definition of the concept of “part of speech”. The theory of word classes did not allow to clearly define the place of interjection in the system of language vs. speech and, moreover, display all the specific properties of interjections and the nuances of their "behavior" in speech (Protasova, 1999) because the grammatical axes of the coordinate system of these use of lexical units in the construction of sentences were chosen.

In modern linguistics, the unresolved problem of defining class boundaries and classifying interjections is still relevant (Sereda, 2003; 2004; 2005; Sharonov, 2004) "for further consistent description in a single format" (Sharonov, 2004: 661). The basis here are attempts to study the semantic-pragmatic function of interjections in speech communication by (not always successful) combining the ideas and methods of lexicology, lexicography, pragmalinguistics, ethnolinguistics, and anthropology.

In most cases, the analysis of the content side of interjections is based on a differential approach to the semantics of a word and is based on the principle of dividing interjections into groups by meaning (for example: Blinova, 2002; Kruchinina, 1998; Sereda, 2005; Sharonov, 2004). Let us present the most common principle of distinguishing semantic groups / categories of interjective units in Russian linguistics (see, for example, the works of A.A. Romanov, A. Vezhbitskaya, N.R. Dobrushina, B.L. Iomdin, S.E. Maksimova, I.A. Sharonova).

The interjections of the first group are called emotive, they convey the speaker's feelings: fi expresses contempt, disgust, and the German interjection tja - Interjections that signal that the speaker has received some new information and correlates it with their knowledge and ideas, are called cognitive (A.A Romanov, S.E. Maksimova, A. Vezhbitskaya, N.R. Dobrushina, B.L. Iomdin, I.A. Sharonov): ah, yeah, mmm, um, that's how it is .P. Traditionally, imperative (motivating, volitional) interjections expressing desires and motives are distinguished into a separate group. Such interjections include, for example, ay, shh, hey, scat and zuck, tross in German.

The difficulty in describing the meanings of interjections is associated with the indivisibility of the meaning expressed by them (Gak, 1998: 262; Quirk et al., 1972: 413) and the implicit connection of the interjection with the conceptual-objective (referential-denotative) sphere.

In fact, the analysis of the semantic structure of the interjection is limited to the allocation of a systemic, or generalized, meaning, presented as a set of differential meanings (for example, emotional-evaluative interjections with the meaning of condemnation, surprise, joy, approval, etc.), abstracted from their practical application by speakers subjects in speech communication.

The systemic meaning of the interjection as an element of the lexical system of the language is presented in explanatory and encyclopedic dictionaries as follows: "exclamation", "expression of feelings", "call". For example, let's give dictionary entries about interjection in German and Russian. In German: (8) ach! "(Interj.) als Ausdruck des Schmerzes, der Betroffenheit, des Mitleids o.a." (Deutsches Universalwörterbuch Duden, 1989: 76), "(inter.) as an expression of pain, embarrassment, regret, etc." In Russian: (9) a "Exclamation, which is used to express recognition, ... to express joy, pleasure at the sight of someone, something, ... to express remembrance, conjecture, surprise ..." ( Dictionary of structural words of the Russian language, 1997: 24).

As you can see, the dictionaries give a narrow and undifferentiated interpretation of the interjection as a means of expressing feelings; they do not take into account the nature of the connection between the use of this unit by a person as a member of a certain society and typical situations of its use in accordance with the rules and conventions of people's communicative behavior adopted in this society)

In this regard, we can mention, for example, the approach of E.G. Borisova (2005: 123-126) to the description of the emotive component of the semantics of interjections according to the principle: highlighting a general meaning - a function - a particular meaning. The interpretation of the meaning should “show a connection with the general meaning, which reflects the intended activity of the listener, and with the function performed” (ibid., p. 124): for example, the interjection oh has a common meaning - “a feeling of heaviness”, functions and particular meanings - “1 . Function "reaction to pain" Oh, my back hurts! Meaning: the speaker experiences an unpleasant feeling, pain is heavy for him. 2. Regret function Oh, I'm sorry! Oh, how inappropriate! Oh, poor thing! Meaning: the speaker experiences an unpleasant feeling, what happened causes him a feeling of heaviness due to dissatisfaction with something that harms him and the interlocutor, ”etc. (ibid., p. 125). In our opinion, the analysis of the semantics of an interjection using this method encounters insurmountable obstacles in the sense that, probably, the emotive component should be “read” on the basis of the illocutionary component of the meaning or parallel to it. In view of this provision, one has to admit that in the statement Oh, I'm sorry! the emotive component will be “regret” if the replica performs the contact-regulatory illocutionary function “apology” (in the terms of A.A. Romanov (1988)). The emotive component of such a statement with the illocutionary function of disagreement or objection can be interpreted ambiguously.

In view of the fact that all scientists recognized (and still remain indisputable) the absence of subject-logical meaning in these units (Kartsevsky, 1984; Medvedeva, 1980: 121; Expressiveness, 1998, etc.), it was considered the only possible to attribute to this lexical class words meaning the emotional state of the speaker. Wed definitions of interjections by researchers of different linguistic schools and eras: “Interjection in its meaning constitutes a special department, because it expresses not logical relations and not a variety of speech objects, but the speaker’s feelings” (Buslaev, 1959: 597); they "do not express ideas, but ... express the feelings experienced by the speakers" (Fortunatov, 1956: 423); “this is a class of immutable words that serve for the undifferentiated expression of feelings, sensations, mental states and other (often involuntary) emotional and emotional-volitional reactions to the surrounding reality” (Russian Grammar, 1980); "an immutable word that serves to express emotions and other reactions to verbal or non-verbal stimuli" (N.R. Dobrushina, electronic encyclopedia "Krugosvet"); “an unchangeable part of speech that does not have special grammatical indicators, serving to express feelings and volitional impulses” (Efremova, 2000); “point to an action without naming it, and serve to undivided expression of feelings, sensations, mental states and other (often involuntary) emotional and emotional-volitional reactions to reality” (Sereda, 2002: 15).

The description of the semantics of specific interjections “through the words-definitions of emotions” (Vezhbitskaya, 1999: 636) as a kind of semantic invariant of emotional and evaluative meaning is too limited, because any emotion is specified by the context, the type of social relations between communicants, therefore, the expression of feelings and emotions varies in depending on the extralinguistic conditions for the use of this unit (Romanov, 1990: 115). In addition, since “any mental and communicative act is permeated with emotions” (Shakhovsky et al., 1998: 65; also Voloshinov, 1995: 296; Shakhovsky, 1984; Shakhovsky, 1987; in interjections, the mental state of the speaker has an accompanying character. The absolutization of the sign of the emotional state of the subject in the meaning of interjections does not yet bring significant results.

As you can see, the semantic interpretation (separation of generalized and private meanings) of lexical units in dictionary entries does not provide the user of the language with information about their use in the practice of interpersonal speech communication, because the lexicographic reflection of the meaning of an interjection is based on a system-formal representation of the language.

In the "Russian Semantic Dictionary" (1998) under the general editorship of N.Yu. The Swedish interjection refers to qualifying words. Dictionary descriptions of language units present their lexical meanings, which are correlated with concepts. So, for interjections, as qualifying words, it is "the concept of evaluation, the ability to express a subjective attitude towards someone or something." See as a comparison: “for naming words - this is the concept of an object (about a living being, material reality, phenomenon), about a sign, state or process; in the words indicating - the concept of any given physical or spiritual world (about abstract entities, objects, processes, signs) as something that can be signified not meaningfully, but on the basis of isolation from an infinite number of similar ones; in the words of binders - this is the concept of one or another type of relationship, dependence between someone or something. Obviously, from a strictly philosophical or logical point of view, such a characteristic of interjections cannot be called a concept, although it indicates an essential difference in the content potential between interjections and other categories (classes, categories, etc.) of words.

Dictionaries solve normative and normative-ethical issues of the use of words, but they miss the communicative aspect of the use of "small words" in speech communication (Vezhbitskaya, 1999: 612; Grigor'eva, 1998: 55; Martynyuk, 2004; Malige-Klappenbach, 1980). Indeed, the semantic description of interjections does not take into account the fact that these units exist in the dialogue as direct speech. Indeed, when transmitting someone else's speech, they can be omitted (Voloshinov, 1995: 344; Kartsevsky, 1984: 131), for example, compare:

(10) Ek, he is sleeping! - said Zakhar, - like a bricklayer. Ilya Ilyich! (I. Goncharov) and: (11) Zakhar said that Ilya Ilyich sleeps like a bricklayer.

Therefore, the analysis of the meaning of interjections, even if the purpose of interjections in discourse is only to manifest the emotions and feelings of the communicants, must be carried out taking into account their role in the dialogue (Protasova, 2005: 162). Such an analysis “should be based on the content characteristics of speech works, i.e. dialogic steps that use interjections” (Romanov, 1990: 115). Then, from these positions, it will be possible to present not only a semantic, but also a functional description of interjectional practice in discourse (cf., for example, Dictionary of structural words of the Russian language (1997), where the functional aspect of interjections is only partially considered).

Thus, the postulation of the systemic and differential meanings of interjections “is rather a priori in nature” (Romanov, 1990: 115) and does not allow taking into account the full potential of semantic features that manifest themselves in certain extralinguistic (contextual, situational) conditions (about the intentional approach to semantics of the word, see: Skrebnev, 1985) actualization of the semantic structure of the interjection.

In modern linguistics, there is another trend in the study of these words - from the standpoint of a linguistic personality, realizing itself in discursive communication as a carrier of culture in linguistic and extralinguistic conditions for the realization of its intentions and attitudes, which leads to an increase in interest both in general, stereotypical elements of the image of the world, and and its national-specific moments.

The “cultural specificity” of interjections (as well as particles, connectors, other discursive units) is being actively studied from the point of view of their adequate use in effective / successful intercultural communication, along with the issues of their translation into foreign language(Arutyunova, 1999; Vezhbitskaya, 1999; Gorodnikova, Dobrovolsky, 1998; Gorohova, 1998; Karlova, 2000; Mogutova, Antonova, 2000; Nikolaev, 2003; Rumak, 2003; Shakhovsky, 2004; Chernysheva, 2004; Aijmer, 2004; Doherty , 2003; Franz, 2001; Heggelund, 2001; König and Siemund, 1999; Kunzmann-Müller, 1989; Liefldnder-Koistinen, 1989; Rasoloson, 1994; Reske, 1982; Sadowska, 1988; Schlieben-Lange, 1979; Werner, 1981 ; 1991).

However, it should be noted that currently available research on this issue, unfortunately, does not represent a comprehensive study, where, along with the data of ethnolinguistics and ethnosociology, the methods of frame modeling of speech communication, social psychology, the theory of speech activity, and discourse would be involved. It seems that such an approach would make it possible to study interjections as a special kind of speech activity, human conceptualization of interactive reality and its representation in the national linguistic picture of the world.

At the same time, extensive linguistic knowledge has been accumulated in the field of the theory of speech acts, conversational analysis, pragmalinguistics, which made it possible to consider interjections from the point of view of their use in speech practice (Gorodnikova, Dobrovolsky, 1998; Devkin, 1965; Vezhbitskaya, 1999; Grigorieva, 1998; Romanov, 1990; Ameka, 1992; Ehlich, 1986; Keller, 1981; Rasoloson, 1994; Wilkins, 1992; etc.).

So, A. Vezhbitskaya in her work “Semantics of Interjection” (1999) considers a wide range of issues related to interjections, believing that interjections are not speech acts, since they do not have illocutionary force (in her opinion, there is no “I say” component) . Note, however, that the "I say" component is inherent in all "live" utterances of the speaking subject, as long as we are dealing with units of speech. On the other hand, the presence of this component in the semantic-pragmatic characteristics of the interjection could lead to the phenomenon of pleonasticity (for pleonasms in the language, see: Vezhbitskaya, 1978). Regarding the redundancy of the expression of meanings, let us make one quotation. “Language develops its models in accordance with its “tact” (measure, expediency), focusing on the “comfort” of expression, but by no means in accordance with the trend of economy (through which one sometimes tries to explain implicitness). In the language, in all likelihood, there is neither economy, nor redundancy, nor insufficiency of means of expression. The language has an optimal organization based on the principle of sufficient means of expression. Economy or redundancy can be seen in a language only by focusing on individual forms of expression, taken in isolation from the entire system of language, as well as in isolation from speech” (Panina, 1979: 49).

A. Vezhbitskaya offers her own definition of the concept of interjection, it is “a linguistic sign that expresses the current mental state of the speaker” (1999: 616), while specifying that the meaning of interjections is “much more specific than just any kind of emotion” (1999 : 635). In her opinion, all interjections, excluding onomatopoeia, are divided into three types, each of which has a certain semantic component inherent in it: emotive (with the “I feel” component); volitional (“I want something”) and cognitive (“I think something”, “I know something”). Each of the semantic components forms a semantic invariant of this or that interjection. The study of semantics, namely the decomposition of the meaning to a configuration of elementary meanings, the specificity of which is determined by the linguistic area of ​​the use of interjections and the cultural characteristics of the speakers of a particular language, is carried out by A. Vezhbitskaya with the help of universal primitives.

A. Wiezhbitskaya's division of the entire body of interjections into three types seems unjustified to us, since in the process of communication between people it is quite common to diffuse meanings in the same formal unit used in a particular context. For example, interjections related to emotive or cognitive (a priori carriers, respectively, of the component “I feel”, or “I think / know something”), like any pronounced sign, is pronounced for some purpose, when the speaker “wants” something, be it a change in the situation or a change in the consciousness of the listener (cf., however: Zaliznyak, 1984: 87). And if the semantic component “to speak” when describing the meaning of interjections can be omitted, since it is implied by the very fact of speaking, then the target component “to want” or, in other words, “to speak for something, with a specific purpose”, precisely because of belonging interjections to the process of speaking cannot be ignored (Romanov, 1982).

On the other hand, from the very definition given by A. Wierzbitskaya to interjections, it follows that since interjections indicate “a mental state or a mental act of speaking,” then interjections of a volitional category also carry the load of “emotivity” and “cognitiveness”, i.e. when, when the speaker expresses his will, “something is felt” and “something is thought”. Thus, describing an utterance with an interjection as a predicative unit with a state predicate, A. Wierzbicka does not decide whether interjections have illocutionary power, i.e. purposefulness. At the same time, the problem of correlating interjection with a speech act remains unclear.

F. Ameka (1992) puts the same task in the work “The Meaning of Phatic and Volitional Interjections”. Solving the problem of "interjection = speech act", he considers the meaningful characteristics of two classes of interjections, volitive / conative, which are directed at the listener, and phatic, used to maintain social and communicative contact, in comparison with wording words (formulaic words, one-word routines). Both volitional (like German psst! "I want silence" or brr! "I feel cold") and phatic (like English aha! "I understand" or oops! "I'm embarrassed") interjections, in his opinion, have a semantic component "I feel / think / want (X)" (cf.: Vezhbitskaya, 1999). The semantics of volitional interjections can be interpreted as acting out: “I do this therefore: (voice gesture)”, while in the content structure of phatic interjections there is an illocutionary verb “to speak”: “I say therefore this: (voice gesture) ". It is not clear from this definition whether phatic interjections are directed at the listener. After all, if some linguistic phenomenon is considered as an element of speech communication, then the speaker uses this element, taking into account whether anyone hears it, and also taking into account the social and cultural-specific characteristics of a potential interlocutor.

The question of whether interjections are speech acts is solved by F. Ameka in the spirit of J. Searle as follows, if the lexical unit constituting a non-elliptical statement can be described using the paraphrase of the illocutionary goal "I say this because ...", then it is a speech act.

F. Ameka sees the fundamental difference between interjections and formula words (such as lexical units, English goodbye! sorry! welcome! thankyou! (the author's spelling of these linguistic elements is preserved)) F. Ameka sees in the fact that in the semantic-pragmatic structure of the former there is no component constituting the speech act - illocutionary dictum, while formulas have such a meaning component: “I say: (X). I say this because I want you to...” - therefore “interactional” and are speech acts (1992: 269). In addition, interjections do not have an addressee, but there may be an "intentional" interpreter (intended interpreter), which is represented as "you" in meaning explications. To a greater extent, volitional interjections are included in the linguistic system, because they are aimed at the one from whom one can expect the fulfillment of the speaker's desire. However, it is recognized that interjections have a communicative function similar to the illocutionary power of formula words.

Therefore, F. Ameka refers all interjections to linguistic signs, which in their semantic structure do not contain the target meaning, the illocutionary dictum, presented in the speaker's statement as a "mixture (amalgam) of thoughts, feelings, intentions, goals and propositions" ( 1992: 247), and which, therefore, are not speech acts.

Exploring interjections in the framework of the pragmatic theory of speech acts, F. Ameka does not take into account, for example, the communicative-pragmatic role of the listener, the problem of conditions and rules for the successful achievement of any goals by interaction partners, which may have influenced such conclusions. But, on the other hand, since this theory itself does not consider many problems (the equipotentiality of the system of the speaker and the listener; the structural - stage and phase - nature of the interaction between partners in communication; the functional variation of the types of speech interaction in accordance with the type of illocution; the dynamic and strategic nature of the speech communication (Bezmenova, Gerasimov, 1984; Romanov, 1988)), then it was impossible to fully and objectively analyze the interjectional utterance from the point of view of its dialogue-organizing and dialogue-controlling function in speech interaction. Obviously, all the problems of analyzing interjection statements and interjections as a structural unit of the statement lie in the theoretical base, the basis on which this or that researcher relies.

...

Similar Documents

Intent-analysis of diplomatic discourse in a crisis situation. Conducting an intent analysis of a collection of texts by seven diplomats of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Cooperative, confrontational speech behavior. Presentation tactics. Addressing diplomatic discourse in Russia.

test, added 01/08/2017


The concept of discourse, its types and categories. Varieties of online games with elements of communication and their characteristics. Genre classification of virtual discourse. Ways to build a gaming communicative space. Use of precedent texts.

thesis, added 02/03/2015


Features of electronic discourse. Types of information in dating text. Cognitive and gender aspects of discourse research. Gender-linguistic features of dating discourse. Comparative analysis of English and Russian discourse from the position of attraction.

term paper, added 01/02/2013


The concept of discourse in modern linguistics. Structural parameters of discourse. Institutional discourse and its main features. The concept of newspaper-journalistic discourse and its main features. The main stylistic features of journalistic discourse.

term paper, added 02/06/2015


Definition and characterization of the essence of discourse as a linguistic concept. Acquaintance with the main functions of political discourse. Exploring the meaning of using metaphors in political activity. Consideration of the features of the ideologeme.

term paper, added 10/20/2017


General understanding of the term "discourse" in linguistics. Typology and structure of discourse. Information-code, interactional and inferential model of communication. Ontologization of subject-object relations. Discourse analysis on the example of chat communication.

term paper, added 12/24/2012


The history of the emergence and development of the theory of discourse. The study of problems associated with superphrasal units. Identifying the main differences between text and discourse. Discourse analysis from the point of view of the functional approach, the subject of his research.

control work, added 08/10/2010


The concept of political discourse, its functions and genres. Characteristics of pre-election discourse as speech activity of political subjects. Strategies and tactics of Russian-language and English-language pre-election discourse, similarities and differences in their use.

thesis, added 12/22/2013


Features of the relationship between the concepts of discourse and text. The main means used to indicate rumors in English political communication. The concept of discourse in the schools of discursive analysis. Features of the influence of discourse on manipulation in society.

abstract, added 06/27/2014


Tourist discourse as the basis for the formation of the image of the region. Semiotics of the territory in social and cultural studies: the image of the region as a cultural code of the territory. Linguistic pragmatics of tourist discourse of official guidebooks.

UDK 811.161.1 '42

SPEECH THEORY AND DISCOURSE PRAGMATICS

N. F. Alefirenko

THE THEORY OF SPEECH GENRES AND PRAGMATICS OF DISCOURSE

N. F. Alifirenko

The work was carried out within the framework of the state task of the NRU "BelGU" No. 633662011.

Discussed are the debatable issues of the two-vector relationship a) "speech (text) - discourse" and b) "speech genre - pragmatics". An attempt is made in the developed theory of the speech genre to combine linguistic, linguo-pragmatic and discursive aspects of the generation of a literary text.

The article deals with the controversial points of bilateral correlation of a) “speech (text) - discourse” and b) “speech genre - pragmatics”. The author's attempts to combine linguistic, linguopragmatic and discursive aspects of a literary text generation in the developed theory of the speech genre.

Key words: speech genre, speech act, discourse, pragmatics.

Keywords: speech genre, speech act, discourse, pragmatics.

The scientific intrigue of this topic lies in the inconsistency of two problematic blocks: a) "speech (text) - discourse" and b) "speech genre (RG) - pragmatics". An attempt, if not to cut, then at least slightly untie the first Gordian knot was made in our collective monograph (TiD, 2012).

Discourse in its broadest sense is a subjective speech-thinking reflection of the picture of the world in our minds. The most important means of objectifying such a reflection is the verbal text. No less complicated is the relationship of the second pair of concepts, where the essential properties of neither the speech genre nor pragmatics have been fully revealed. Let's start with the last concept. In the linguistic understanding of pragmatics, three approaches can be distinguished. Two of them - "continental" and "English-

American" - were outlined by van Dyck. The first of them was built on the semiotics of C. Morris, according to which pragmatics is a part of semiotics, which is in charge of the problem of the relationship of signs to their interpreters. And since for the majority of signs the carriers of the language code act as interpreters, pragmatics objectively turns out to be “responsible” for all components of human discursive activity - cognitive, semiotic and ethno-cultural. In addition, such an understanding of linguopragmatics opens up new opportunities for understanding the speech act, and also, as G. G. Khazagerov believes, to bridge the gap between the speech act and discourse. We agree that there are still more questions than answers to them. We will proceed from the well-known: in the 60s - 70s. In the 20th century, pragmatics entered a new round of its development under the influence of the theory of speech acts (J. L. Austin, J.-R. Searle, Z. Wendler, and others). In modern linguopoetics, the categorical and conceptual foundations of the theory of speech acts are more clearly defined, the focuses of conjugation of speech acts and the pragmatics of speech are more or less clearly established, while the theory of RJ is in its infancy in the hope of gaining a general philological status.

In speech interaction, the means of discursive bivalence are activated. The pragmatics of the text

realizing the discourse, reflects the energy of the suggestive influence of the author or character on the recipient (on the one to whom the message is directed). In any act of artistic communication, one of its subjects uses such language means that are able to convey his thoughts, feelings and experiences. It follows from this that the main condition for the successful implementation of a speech act is the verbalization of the author's intentions and their adequate perception by the addressees.

The second, "Anglo-American" approach to understanding pragmatics puts forward the problems of implicature, presupposition, speech acts and discourse as its intellectual avant-garde. In this perspective, linguopragmatics significantly expands its range of problems, including those problems that were previously under the jurisdiction of stylistics, communicative syntax, rhetoric, psycholinguistics, discourse theory and some other sciences. However, such an extension in itself does not solve the problem of the relationship between RJ and the pragmatics of discourse. To solve it, a third approach is being developed: to find points of contact between these phenomena through linguo-pragmatics. A. Vezhbitskaya, V. V. Dementiev, M. Yu. Fedosyuk, F. S. Batsevich and others work very productively in this direction. Their concepts are built mainly on the inclusion of the concepts of situational context and functions of speech utterance. In such a paradigm, discourse is both a speech act, an utterance, and a text. Moreover, such a speech act is usually accompanied by facial expressions, gestures, spatial behavior of interlocutors and other extralinguistic factors.

However, in order to integrate all these components of discursive activity, let us focus on their originality. Important guidelines in such a difficult matter are contained in the concept of M. M. Bakhtin, the founder of the theory of HR. Under the concept of "speech genre", the scientist understood a special type of statements, united by a common thematic, compositional and stylistic dominant. In other words, this concept receives a rather frank textual

giving birth to a discursive-stylistic qualification. It can be said that, from the point of view of linguopragmatics, speech acts are, first of all, separate statements suggestively directed at the addressee, and RJ are means of discursive interaction [cf.: 2]. If speech acts reflect only a situational fragment of artistic communication, then RJ cover the entire architectonics of discursive communication. The relationship between speech acts and speech genres can be considered hierarchical, since each RJ consists of a set of speech acts organized in a certain way (V. V. Dementiev, T. V. Shmeleva, A. Vezhbitskaya). Moreover, these relationships are not simple: the structural elements of one GR are most often several speech acts. And, conversely, different speech acts can occur in one type of RJ.

Due to such vicissitudes, there is no direct correlation between speech acts and discourse, since discourse includes not only statements, but also larger categories - communicative strategies and speech tactics of communicants that model discursive situations. The last categories are directly related to RJ. Therefore, for an adequate understanding of the nature and essence of discourse, there is such a category that could integrate not only the most general intentions of the participants in communication, but also other components of artistic communication. And as follows from the previous judgments, such a category, of course, is RJ.

So, a speech genre is a discursive type that combines thematically, compositionally and stylistically marked speech acts, characterized by a common communicative goal, author's intention, the linguistic personality of the addressee and the architectonics of the situational context of communication.

The communicative-pragmatic strategy for the study of HR is the best way to overcome F. de Saussure's "abstract objectivism" and to embody M. M. Bakhtin's ideas about language-speech as a real reality. Recall the methodologically significant judgment of the scientist: “The actual reality of language-speech is not an abstract system of linguistic forms and not an isolated monologue statement and not a psychophysiological act of its existence, but a social event of speech interaction carried out by statement and statements. Speech interaction is thus the basic reality of language. Presumably, here by speech interaction we mean the functional and semantic connection of the language-speech with the eventual and pragmatic factors of oral and written communication. Bakhtin's ideas have received a fairly fruitful development in the form of a sociolinguistic and linguopragmatic study of language-speech. The first direction studies the functional properties of the language: the use of the language in specific speech situations, the influence of the communicative competence of one or another ethno-linguistic

team. At the same time, we are talking about language as a norm, about semantic fields characteristic of different cultures, about linguistic behavior, etc. In the second direction, the pragmatic potential of language-speech, communicative

situations and ways of linguistic influence. Within the framework of this or that speech situation, the illocutionary and perlocutionary functions of the language and their speech-cogitative support are considered: performatives, presuppositions, propositions, etc. All this, of course, is extremely important for the theory of SL, however, remaining outside the system integration, it only indirectly correlates with them. In order to understand the internal incentives for the interaction of discourse and RJ, it is important to find hidden discursive threads that connect the historical-cultural, pragmatic and proper linguistic aspects of RJ. This kind of integrative approach is based on the fact that the discursive fabric is woven from the language. However, discourse is "not just language at the superphrasal level". Its non-linear organization is built on a set of such concepts as discursive formations, interdiscourse, intradiscourse, pre-construct. The latter are associated with paraphrases and presuppositions that bring discourse into the sphere of culture.

Could Bice create like Dante,

Or Laura glorify the heat of love?

I taught women to speak...

But, God, how to silence them!

(A. Akhmatova "Epigram")

As the previous analysis shows, the role of discourse is very significant not only in the status definition of WJ, but also in its cultural marking. Within its framework, the main unit of RJ is formed, which we call a discourseme - a certain quantum of ambivalent knowledge that corresponds to one focus of discursive-cultural consciousness and is the bearer of the discursive architectonics of RJ. Three discourses can be distinguished in the above "Epigram": (1) "Bice and Laura could not", (2) "I could", (3) "How to silence women". A dis-courseme is not always identical to a sentence-statement. Each discourse, as a rule, contains one two-layer element of new information, which combines propositional and presuppositional knowledge.

Linguistic and cultural synthesis in a unified theory of RJ of linguistic and pragmatic directions allows, in our opinion, to combine the dialogic and linguistic aspects of RJ into a single value-semantic space of discourse. This approach is based on the hypothesis according to which the mutual influence of discourse and culture finds material expression in PR. In other words, RJ is the category in which both discursive and linguocultural factors of speech production are objectified. Since RJ and culture are in an indirect relationship, the role of mediator here is played by the discourse. Therefore, understanding the essence of the relationship between WJ and culture is carried out mainly through the analysis of dis-

course. At the same time, it must be assumed that no matter how broad the understanding of discourse is, it can in no way replace linguoculture. Of course, the discourse always bears the seal of historical, cultural and linguo-cultural determinism, but by its nature and essence, it cannot be reduced to the factors of its conditioning. The fact is that the very concept of culture, like the concept of a linguistic personality, is filled in discourse with a different content. Culture here serves as the presuppositive environment against which discursive activity is carried out. The subject of discursive activity is initially associated with the language, which is why in linguistics he was called a linguistic personality. Thus, the subject of discursive activity is both the subject of language and the subject of culture, between which there is a symptomatic relationship. Their essence lies in indetermination: linguistic consciousness is a specific embodiment of discourse, more precisely, discursive ideologies; and discourse, in turn, serves as a specific material embodiment of culture.

At the same time, it should be remembered that the consciousness of a linguistic personality is largely immersed in the subconscious. And since linguistic consciousness is a specific embodiment of discourse, speech-genre mechanisms of subconscious control over the processes of generating a text (a product of discursive activity) turn out to be no less significant in discourse.

From the prison gates, Under the Easter bells,

From the Zaohten swamps, Uninvited,

By the untrodden path, Unmarried, -

Meadow unmowed, Come to me for dinner.

Through the night cordon

A. Akhmatova "Spell"

The intention to express the spell already on the subconscious suggests the presence of three main attributes of this RJ: the imperative, submission, the magic of the word to overcome all kinds of obstacles (from the prison gates, from the Zaohten swamps, through the untrodden path, the unmowed meadow, through the night cordon).

However, although discursive meaning formation presupposes the existence of a linguistic personality involved in culture and the subconscious, discourse cannot and should not replace them. In our understanding, the internal connection between discourse and RJ is carried out through the text, which, in fact, is the object of discourse analysis. Recall that discourse analysis is, rather, not so much an analysis as a method used to adapt the distributive approach to the study of superphrasal units in a particular text. At the same time, the term analysis, with all its ambiguity, does not seem redundant, since, firstly, it really implies the decomposition of discourse into parts and, secondly, it serves as a pistemological means of studying a work (poetic, for example) in a linguistic, textual and proper discursive aspect.

The existing experience of the linguistic application of such an analysis by L. Althusser is aimed at highlighting

definition and functional-semantic description of the language units that constitute the given text. Textual analysis is subject to the explication of hidden, subtextual, semantic layers of the content of the text, microtext or context. In this part of the analysis, under the lens of the researcher, first of all, such textual categories as cohesion, theme, topics, and various kinds of intertextual connections of the text under study are in the center of attention. Since the text is a product of human discursive (speech-thinking) activity in its historical and cultural conditionality, the discursive analysis itself is called upon to reveal “under the innocence of speaking and listening, the hidden depth of the discourse of the unconscious” . However, despite the discursive terminology, the Althusserian approach is still more applicable to the text than to discourse: it allows you to identify and interpret, first of all, the “hidden forces” of the text. With all his textocentrism, he nevertheless gave the necessary impetus to M. Foucault (1966) to develop a discourse analysis focused on describing discourse “as a mechanism for utterance and as an institutional mechanism” .

Both concepts - linguistic and pragmatic - are important for understanding the connection of discourse with HR and culture. The first turns us into the mental sphere of the unconscious, and the second - to the hidden, culturally conditioned meanings of the text. And yet, their methodological guidelines are unacceptable, since they do not take into account the internal connection of the text with the environment that generates it and, above all, with a typical speech situation. In this regard, the remark that “any discourse exists only for the sake of someone and in a certain situation” is valuable. It is the connection of the text with speech situations that makes it possible to consider discourse as one of the most important conditions for the linguoculturological identification of one or another RJ. To implement such a concept, we need such a discourse analysis that would allow us to keep in sight the linguistic, textual and cultural-situational components of discourse at the same time. Its creation will contribute to the formation of a new, as it seems to us, quite promising direction in the theory of RL - linguoculturological.

The relationship between the RJ and the pragmatics of discourse is determined by the fact that discourse, according to one of its interpretations, is a statement, a text understood as a discursive event, or speech acts accompanied by facial expressions, gestures, spatial behavior of interlocutors and other extralinguistic factors. This means that, like a text, RJ is primarily a product of human discursive activity.

Lyrical-prosaic RJ is characterized by the dominant subordination of prose text generation to the lyrical architectonics of the entire narrative of poetic prose. This is explained by the dual nature of poetic prose in general, its belonging to the so-called lyric-epic genre of verbal creativity. In literary criticism, his most striking representative was "poems in prose." In addition to them, bigenetic signs

are inherent in “lyrical passages in great prose” (I. S. Turgenev, V. G. Korolenko, V. M. Garshin, I. F. Annensky, S. N. Sergeev-Tsensky, A. Bely and

In the texts of such architectonics, not only different types of literary creativity - lyrics and epic - interact, but also different narrative structures - poetic and prosaic. Moreover, their correlation is heterogeneous: in form - prosaic speech, and in semantic-stylistic architectonics - poetic. Such conjugation in speech production received ambiguous assessments both from researchers and from authors working in one of the literary genres. So, according to Z. Gippius, fiction writers, bringing prose closer to poetry, give something funny, devoid of both charms - the charm of prose and, different from it, the charm of poetry. True, the poetess admits that any search for new forms is righteous. Rather, she opposed the semi-mechanical convergence of prose and poetry. Of course, such a semi-mechanical rapprochement is also unacceptable in linguopoetics. Despite the interest in poetic prose, the lyrical and prose discourse as a literary language has not received an unambiguous interpretation, as evidenced by the definitions given in the works of M. L. Gasparov, N. M. Shansky, A. Kvyatkovsky, V. Zhirmunsky, Yu. B. Orlitsky, S. A. Lipina, V. D. Panteleeva and others.

Penetration into the narrative originality of lyrical prose, which determines its speech-genre specificity, begins, first of all, with understanding the mechanisms for achieving the compositional-speech unity of the text, realized through primary RJ (monologue forms, addressed speech, dialogue, rhetorical structures). This serves as a starting point for understanding that there really is a lyrical-prose discourse behind the text under study. Thus, the attribution of V. I. Belov's story "Spring Night" to the lyrical and prose discourse is based precisely on the identification of the compositional and speech unity of this text. It is achieved primarily by a lyrical description of the sensations and experiences of a person, his mental and sensual penetration into the secrets of nature. Moreover, the so-called "pictures of nature" are given indirectly in the story: through the deeply personal perception of the author. The form of narration is prosaic: the external world is presented in its denotative-situational representation, which is typical for the epic narrative. The lyrical component is not a simple decorative and stylistic ornamentation of the text. It is organically integrated into the architectonics of the text: the denotative-situational content is subjected to artistic, figurative and symbolic interiorization.

Artistic-figurative internalization is the linguo-cognitive translation of processes of nomination that are external in form into the processes of speech-thinking that take place in the linguistic consciousness. At the same time, the extralinguistic objects of the nomination undergo linguocognitive transformation: they are generalized, verbalized, turning into artistic concepts, and, as such, become capable of further artistic and figurative modification.

Moreover, dominant concepts realize almost the entire text-forming and plot-forming potential of lyrical prose discourse. At the same time, the basic artistic concepts of lyrical and prose discourse are so transformed that the described denotative situation goes beyond the possibilities of external activity, moving into the area of ​​symbolic internalization of the external world. And most importantly: the essence of artistic and symbolic interiorization is not that the external denotative situation of lyrical prose discourse moves into the area of ​​linguistic consciousness, becomes part of the inner world of the author and reader. Although this kind of metamorphosis of the artistic word in the lyrical and poetic discourse is of phenomenal significance. Artistic-figurative interiorization in poetic prose is the process in which this internal plan is formed and expressed. This, in my opinion, hides the age-old secret of the linguo-creative thinking of the author and the reader. The objectification of the denotative situation, interiorization and transformation, in my opinion, should be considered the main conceptual structures of any literary text, including lyrical prose. With one significant caveat: in a lyric-prosaic text, their significance is in the reverse order: transformation - internalization - denotative situation.

Under the influence of psychology, it is commonly believed that our thinking takes place in a network of neural connections of the cerebral cortex. Hence the belief that the author first mentally models the object of the artistic description, and then gives it the appropriate verbal form.

An analysis of lyrical and prosaic discourse shows that most often everything happens in the opposite direction: from the chaos of thoughts and feelings, from vague and spontaneously born images, there arises beauty ordered by artistic thinking, harmony of thought, feeling and word. Even L. Wittgenstein paid attention to the fact that our thoughts take shape only when we speak or write. Prior to this, we do not have pre-systematized and ordered thoughts. They are encoded into words only in the process of their verbalization. The philosopher wrote: “When I speak or write, [...] there is a system of impulses coming from my brain and connected with my spoken or written thoughts. But why should we assume that this system is spreading further towards the center? Why not assume that this order arises, so to speak, out of chaos?" However, such judgments of the creativity of linguistic consciousness do not contradict? - If the connection between thought and words is not carried out according to a pre-planned (ordered) scenario, but is formed with the intention to express one's own thoughts and feelings for others, then this kind of mental activity belongs to speech consciousness, the nature of which is in its initial dialogism. M. M. Bakhtin explained it this way: “I am aware of myself and become myself only by revealing myself to another, through another and with the help of another ... The very being of a person (both external and internal) is a deep

the best communication. To be means to communicate... To be means to be for another and through him for oneself. A person does not have an internal sovereign territory, he is all and always on the border ". Dialogical (not dialogue!) Is the central categorical property of lyric-prose discourse, the depth and correctness of the embodiment of which determines the" high "poetic prose from the semi-mechanical convergence of prose and poetry, against which spoke

Z. Gippius.

If the author of a lyrical-prose text fails to carry out a "dialogical" ordering of thoughts-statements, if he turns to others with something that does not meet their expectations, such artistic communication loses all meaning, since the main cognitive-poetic dominant of the text remains unrealized - dialogicity, without which does not have a lyric-prose text.

All this creates a special communicative strategy of the lyric-prose genre, which consists in the organic integration of three lines that go back to the story, confession and verbal-creative meditation. The story line gives the lyric-prosaic genre a narrated-folk, historical or legendary character (for example: the legend of the invisible city of Kitezh). Confession - in addition to the religious meaning “a rite of repentance for one's sins before a priest”, in lyrical and prose discourse it acquires a figurative meaning “A frank confession of something, a story about one's innermost thoughts, views. A sincere and complete confession of something, a repentant, frank statement of something. (For example: author's confession; confession of a warm heart. - F. M. Dostoevsky).

Meditation (from lat. sheyNaNo - reflection) is an altered state of consciousness. At the same time, consciousness is freed from thoughts, images and feelings that are associated with a burdensome external world, when the human psyche is brought into a state of self-deepening and concentration, which plays an important role in gaining sublime spheres of knowledge. This line of the communicative strategy of the lyric-prose genre leads to the expansion of consciousness to a kind of euphoria.

Such a compositional-speech trinity is subject to the realization of the multidimensional intentional spectrum of the lyrical and prose genre. In this trinity, one should look for those verbal-thinking attitudes, different in nature, with which the author and the reader enter into a “dialogue”. Since these attitudes are not subject to formal analysis, they must be identified in an indirect way - with the help of a cognitive-hermeneutical research methodology, designed to (a) identify genre features of a rhyme text, b) ways of their linguistic expression, and c) the principles of interconnection.

In our time, the cognitive-poetic theory of RJ is being developed on the basis of the ratio: a) the literary and genre nature of the work, b) its linguistic matter, c) compositional-speech, d) semantic-stylistic architectonics.

At the same time, cognitive poetics integrates traditional approaches to the study of the genre, taking into account, of course, the new ideas of cognitive stylistics. The focus is on such ideas of theorists of the formal school about the genre as a "grouping of devices", a historically established set of poetic elements that are not derived from each other, but are associated with each other as a result of a long coexistence (M. L. Gasparov). The integrative development of the concept of a speech genre is also oriented by modern European linguopo-ethics. Yu. Kristeva, for example, writes that "any evolution of literary genres is an unconscious objectification of linguistic structures belonging to different levels of language" . Indeed, the system of linguistic features of RJ is determined by the literary and genre originality of the work. The specificity of each RJ is determined by the holistic configuration of the content and formal aspects of the text. The development of the RJ theory is still complicated by the lack of a single categorical criterion. The appeal to several criteria, although not devoid of exploratory expediency, does not give the theories being created an integral completeness. The solution of this problem is the task of cognitive linguopoetics of the future.

Literature

1. Alefirenko, N. F. Cognitive-pragmatic subparadigm of the science of language / N. F. Alefirenko // Cognitive-pragmatic vectors of modern linguistics. - M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2011.

2. Bakhtin, M. M. Sobr. cit.: in 5 volumes - V. 5 / M. M. Bakhtin. - M., 1996.

3. Batsevich, F. S. Linguistic genology: problems and prospects / F. S. Batsevich. - Lviv: Pais, 2005.

4. Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical works: in 2 hours / L. Wittgenstein. - M., 1994. - Part 1.

5. Gippius, Z. Literary diary 1899 - 1907. / Z. Gippius. - M., 1907. - 463 p.

6. Dyck, T. A. Van. Language. Cognition. Communication / T. A. Van Dyck. - M., 1989.

7. Kozhina, M. N. Speech language aspect of the theory of language / M. N. Kozhina // 81uShyka. VII. - Oroie, 1998.

8. Kristeva, Yu. Selected Works: The Destruction of Poetics / Yu. Kristeva. - M., 2004.

9. Ozerova, E. G. Cultural dominants of poetic prose / E. G. Ozerova // Bulletin of the Kharkiv National University. V. N. Karamzin. - Kharkov, 2009. - No. 55.

10. Austin, J. L. Word as action / J. L. Austin // New in foreign linguistics. - M., 1986. - Issue. xt

11. Pulcinelli, O. E. On the question of the method and object of discourse analysis / O. E. Pulcinelli // Quadrature of meaning: [per. from fr. and port.]. - M.: Progress, 1999.

12. Robin, R. Discourse analysis at the intersection of linguistics and the humanities: an eternal misunderstanding / R. Robin // Quadrature of meaning: [per. from fr. and port.]. - M.: Progress, 1999.

13. Serio, P. How texts are read in France / P. Serio // Quadrature of meaning: [per. from fr. and port.]. - M.: Progress, 1999.

14. Text and discourse: textbook / N. F. TiD-Alefirenko [and others]. - M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2012.

15. Tomashevsky, B. V. Theory of Literature. Poetics / B. V. Tomashevsky. - M.: Aspect-Press, 1996. - 333 p.

16. Althusser, L. “Contradiction and Overdetermination: Notes for an Investigation” in For Marx / B. Brewster, L. Althusser. - London; New York: Verso, 2005.

17. Rajneesh, B. S. Meditation: The Art of Ecstasy / B. S. Rajneesh. - New York, 1976.

Alefirenko Nikolai Fedorovich - Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Philology, Professor of the National Research University of Belgorod State University, 8-4722-33-65-08, n-alefirenko @rambler.ru.

Alefirenko Nikolay Fedorovich - Professor, Honored Scientist of Russian Federation, Professor at the Russian language and teaching methodology Department of Belgorod National Research University.

Pragmatics of Diplomatic Discourse in the Conditions of Military-Political Confrontation

Intent-analysis of diplomatic discourse in a crisis situation is intended to determine the predominant nature of intentionality in the speech of representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry on the basis of identifying and counting all the intentions indicated by diplomats, as well as to find out how conflict discourse transforms “sterile” diplomatic communication.

Explaining, clearly and extremely clearly conveying the position of the Russian Foreign Ministry on the issue of this or that crisis process and ways out of it is the main goal of diplomats, whose weapon has long been the word. Intentions, clothed in a linguistic form, are expressed in such a way that they are understandable to the addressee of the statement. Behind a single statement, interview or commentary, there may be more than one hour of briefings, accompanied by a careful selection of linguistic means.

Understanding is an indicator of the success of the speech efforts expended by the addresser and the main criterion for the success of communication in general. In this regard, the subjectivity incorporated into intent-analysis is not a methodological shortcoming, since the subjective assessment of the speaker's intentions is adequate to the object of study65 Ushakova T. N., Pavlova N. D., Latynov V. V., Tseptsov V. A. Slovo in action: Intent - analysis of political discourse. - St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2000. - S. 21. .

To conduct an intent analysis, the collections of texts of seven diplomats of the Russian Foreign Ministry were loaded into the text encoding program Atlas.ti and NVivo as a coding base. The coding unit was the unit of intent-analysis - intention, - expressed by a sentence/statement. The coding system is formed on the basis of the dictionary of intentions by T. N. Ushakova, improved by M. N. Timina. / 2013. 16 -- Linguistics. - P. 83-88. Thus, each sentence was assigned one or more intentions. Intentions, according to the coding system, are combined into three groups - cooperative, confrontational and neutral - in accordance with the three types of speech strategies in a conflict situation proposed by I. I. Gulakova.

Table 1

Cooperative strategy	Confrontational strategy	Neutral Strategy
	Justification				Silence		Irony (+)
	Delight		Gloat		Negation		Sympathy
	Approval / Praise		open charge		Predestination		Hidden accusation
					doom		Anxiety (uncertainty)
	Optimistic forecast		Negative assessment (criticism)		Pessimistic forecast		Consequence warning
			Contempt				Suspicion
	Surprise (+)		Astonishment (-)		Disappointment
			Doubt		Discontent
	self-presentation		exposure		Hidden criticism
	Show of force (no threat)		Intimidation, threats		Indifference
	Attracting attention (reasoning)
	Calming down the audience
	Humility
	Withdrawal of charges

According to the results of an expert intent analysis based on coding in NVivo, in the Russian diplomatic narrative about the Five-Day War, an insignificant (within 1%) prevalence of the cooperative strategy was revealed, which can be neglected: 334 cases of implementing interlocutor-oriented communicative means versus 308 cases of using speech means confrontational nature. It should be noted that within the framework of this comparison, cases of a single use of tactics related to a particular strategy were not taken into account. Thus, cooperative and confrontational verbal behavior is equally characteristic of the linguistic personality of a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a situation of international conflict in South Ossetia. As for neutral rhetoric, which would be more appropriate for Russia as a “third party” that has assumed peacekeeping and preventive functions in the region, the cases of implementing a zero speech strategy are extremely rare.

If we talk about the strategic pragmaticon of each of the diplomats separately, then A. A. Nesterenko and S. V. Lavrov adhere to the cooperative strategy, V. I. Voronkov, S. V. Lavrov, G. B. Karasin adhere to the confrontational strategy, V. I. Churkin, neutral - A. V. Grushko and S. A. Ryabkov. It should be noted that representatives of Russia in international organizations, in particular the OSCE (V. I. Voronkov) and the UN (V. I. Churkin), resort to the rhetoric of confrontation more often.

The most popular tactics in the implementation of communication strategies, as follows from Table 2, are self-presentation and recommendation / motivation for action (cooperative strategy) and demonstration of force and open accusation (confrontational strategy). The tactics of self-presentation is important for conventional acts, since it implies the idea of ​​a strong leader (s) Gronskaya N.E. Linguistic mechanisms of manipulation of mass political consciousness // Vestn. Nizhny Novgorod University im. N. I. Lobachevsky. - 2003. - No. 1. - P. 220-231. and not so much to the immediate addressee. The show of force is a traditional feature of Russian foreign policy discourse, in a sense inherited from Guliiaume Colin's Soviet diplomatic discourse. Russian Foreign Policy Discourse during the Kosovo Crisis: Internal Struggles and the Political Imaginaire // Research in Question. N ° 12. - December 2004. - P. 24 - 25 .. In the speech of Russian diplomats, there are still attempts to antagonize the United States and Europe, portraying the latter as a victim and hostage of the former. The polarization of "friend or foe" appears not only when mentioning the participants and stakeholders of the South Ossetian conflict, as evidenced by the frequent use of open accusation tactics as part of the implementation of a confrontational strategy.

table 2

Name Tactics	Cooperative strategy	Mitigative strategy	Confrontational strategy	Neutral strategy
Self-presentation		101 cases
show of strength	81 cases (total)
open charge	75 cases
Hidden criticism	66 cases
Approval/praise	48 cases
Optimistic forecast
Hidden accusation
Negation	40 cases
Discredit	39 cases
open criticism	38 cases
Silence	35 cases
OK	35 cases
Discontent	31 cases

The addressing of diplomatic discourse in Russia has a dual character. In addition to the direct addressee - the interviewer, a member of an international organization - the statements of Russian diplomats are designed for Russians, since the Ministry of Foreign Affairs undertakes to protect the interests of Russian citizens, which is reflected in the state's foreign policy concept adopted on July 15, 2008. It should not be forgotten that in times of economic, social and other upheavals, foreign policy issues are especially requested by the Russian public. The financial and economic crisis of 2008 began in August with a fall in oil prices and a conflict with Georgia.. The second indirect addressee of the discourse of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the international community, since the Foreign Ministry has committed itself to ensuring an objective perception of Russia on the world stage. The concept of foreign policy of the Russian Federation. Access mode: http://kremlin.ru/acts/news/785..

Direct addressees or addressees of the first order within the framework of the studied discourse include:

1. Chairman of the UN Security Council A. Stubb, CSTO member states;

2. Heads of state present at joint press conferences: French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Austrian Foreign Minister W. Plassnik, Polish Foreign Minister R. Sikorsky, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, South Ossetian Foreign Minister M. K. Dzhioev and Minister Foreign Affairs of Abkhazia S. M. Shamba These positions are relevant in 2008;

3. Journalists from Russian and foreign publications attending press conferences on the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, or seeking comment from a representative of the Foreign Ministry. Among them, the host of the radio station "Eco of Moscow" Alexei Venediktov;

4. The audience of the radio station "Echo of Moscow" and "NG-Dipkurier";

5. Citizens of Russia within the borders of the country and beyond its borders.

As a result of an empirical study of addressing in the statements of Russian diplomats, there were no common tendencies for their discourse in terms of choosing certain strategies or tactics. The absence of a “single line” is probably due to the high lability of diplomatic discourse as such, changes in the discursive background (the hostilities lasted only five days, the rest of the time was taken up by the negotiation process). At the same time, a number of patterns have emerged that affect the pragmaticon of the linguistic personality of some representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs separately. Thus, V. I. Churkin tends to resort to the communicative tactics of irony more often when speaking at the UN Security Council than in written appeals addressed to the chairman of the Security Council or conversations with journalists.

“You know, Mr. Chairman, if an alien appeared in our hall today for the first time, then I am sure that after he listened to our discussion, his heart would overflow with pride for the members of the Security Council. What principled people! How consistently they defend the lofty principles of international law!” From the transcript of comments by V. I. Churkin during the meeting of the Security Council on the situation in Georgia at the end of the speeches of the members of the Council, New York, August 28, 2008.

G. B. Karasin, answering journalists' questions, tends to use the tactics of denying and emphasizing the subjectivity of opinion.

“Question: Is this a crisis in Russian-Ukrainian relations?

G. B. Karasin: I would put it differently: some Ukrainian politicians are hard at work trying to bring a crisis into our relations with Ukraine.” Interview with Ogonyok magazine, August 25, 2008.

“Question: Is it possible to talk about a new round of the Cold War, which will primarily be waged in the information field?

G. B. Karasin: I think that the term "cold war" is not applicable to this situation, or to any other in contemporary international relations. This is vocabulary from the dictionaries of the past era. We must quickly forget it. Russia's relations with Western partners are developing." Interview with the weekly "Russia", August 14, 2008.

Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia S. A. Ryabkov also refers to his own opinion.

“Question: Our diplomats sometimes talk about alternative response on the principle of the great Russian poet and diplomat Fyodor Tyutchev, who spoke of the need for "decisive indifference."

SA Ryabkov: My experience tells us that we cannot react indifferently. The drive towards the emancipation of our foreign policy can be described in other terms.” Interview with the Vremya Novostei newspaper, September 9, 2008.

The analysis of communicative strategies in the structure of the linguistic personality of a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation using open coding indicated the equal presence of cooperative and confrontational strategies. Most often, a cooperative strategy is implemented through self-presentation and recommendations, while a confrontational one is implemented through a demonstration of strength and open accusation. The rhetoric of confrontation is more often used by Russian representatives in international organizations, in particular the OSCE (V. I. Voronkov) and the UN (V. I. Churkin). The pragmatics of the statements of Russian diplomats is built in accordance with the dual nature of discourse addressing: first-order addressees include politicians and heads of international organizations, journalists and the audience of their publications; to addressees of the second order - citizens of Russia and partners of the state in international affairs. The status of the addressees of the first order does not affect the rhetoric of representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry as a whole. A tendency to use irony at meetings of international organizations has been noted (V. I. Churkin); tactics of communicative softening, in particular, emphasizing the subjectivity of opinion, appear in conversations with Russian journalists (S. A. Ryabkov, G. B. Karasin).

According to the results of an expert intent analysis based on NVivo coding, we can say the following: out of the entire arsenal of communication tactics, representatives of the Russian diplomatic department did not use the tactics of humility and positive surprise (cooperative strategy).

The number of popular cooperative and confrontational tactics is approximately equal, while the number of mitigating and neutral ones is insignificant, which makes the latter irrelevant for this study.

The interaction of cooperative and confrontational tactics in conflict discourse is bizarre. We can talk about a skillful alternation of positively and negatively charged communication tactics, as evidenced by the data of cluster analysis. From the table in Appendix 1 it follows that most often in the discourse of diplomats are incorporated:

Attention-grabbing/reasoning tactics (cooperative strategy) and negative assessment tactics (confrontational strategy). The average value of the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.56;

Attention-grabbing/reasoning tactics (cooperative strategy) and open criticism tactics (confrontational strategy). The average value of the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.49;

· Tactics of doubt (confrontational strategy) and attracting attention/reasoning (cooperative strategy). The average value of the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.48;

· Tactics of contempt (confrontational strategy) and approval (cooperative strategy). The average value of the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.46;

Cluster analysis data are presented as a dendrogram.

Rice. one

As a result of cluster analysis based on closed coding in the EnVivo program, 2 powerful clusters can be distinguished:

1.) "Aggressive" tactics of discredit (39 occurrences), exposure and open accusation (75 occurrences). As a rule, communicative moves aimed at the implementation of the above tactics are implemented without involving additional tactics of related or essentially antonymous strategies, which allows us to conclude that the communicative attacks of discourse agents are not veiled. In other words, discrediting, accusations and exposure are carried out uncompromisingly and "on the forehead".

“Yes, the world has changed since August 8, the masks have been thrown off, the moment of truth has come (exposure). It is good that in the political heat some of our opponents expressed what used to be in their subcortex (discredit). There has been a lot of talk from the US side. For example, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on her way to Brussels last month: “We will deprive Russia of its strategic goals, we will deny Russia's strategic goals” (open accusation). This is an indicator of a real attitude towards us as a partner” (open criticism).

2). Inclusive tactics. Communication moves aimed at the implementation of such tactics are implemented with the involvement of additional tactics of related or antonymous strategies. The recommendation tactic, referred to as a cooperative strategy, often coexists with the confrontational tactic of negative evaluation, etc.

“We do not interrupt the dialogue with the United States on this topic (self-presentation), the exchange of views is going on, but, unfortunately, it is very tight (hidden criticism). Many of the proposals originally made at the level of the US Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, in fact, are not only disavowed, but ... dissected so that their core is emasculated (hidden accusation) ... We will not get stability without moving along the entire front of strategic security and interaction with the United States ( pessimistic outlook). In the field of missile defense, one should start with a general assessment of threats, look at where such a threat could really come from, and then work together on the architecture of the missile defense system (recommendation).” Excerpts from an interview with the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, S. A. Ryabkov, to the Vremya Novostei newspaper, published on September 9, 2008.

The alternate appeal to tactics from opposite "camps" turned out to be justified from the point of view of the perlocutionary effect: the Medvedev-Sakrozi plan developed jointly with the French presidency of the European Union was approved, Georgia gradually withdrew its troops from South Ossetia, Russia did the same, transferring the mandate to the soldiers of the peacekeeping missions of the OSCE. The independence of South Ossetia, in addition to Russia, was recognized by Venezuela, Nicaragua and Nauru.

Conducted in accordance with the three-level structure of the linguistic personality, the analysis of the verbal-grammatical, cognitive-thesaurus and pragmatic originality of rhetoricians from diplomacy made it possible to construct a generalized model of the linguistic personality of a Russian diplomat in crisis diplomacy.

Table 3

Diplomat	Keywords	Key topics	Estimated vocabulary, %	The predominant type of communication strategies
V. I. Voronkov	OSCE, South Ossetia/Georgia/question, conflict/ V. I. Voronkov	Politics, world, Europe		Confrontational
A. V. Grushko	question, Georgia, we, answer, NATO, South, Russia/Ossetia, Saakashvili	Politics, politics in the world, world, Europe,		Neutral
G. B. Karasin	Question, we, South, Ossetia, Georgia	Politics, power structures, army, politics in the world, world, Europe, Transcaucasia, Georgia		Confrontational
S. V. Lavrov	we, South, question, Ossetia, I	Politics, politics in the world, world, Europe, Transcaucasia, Georgia		Cooperative/confrontational
A. A. Nesterenko	Georgia, Russia, Tbilisi, Russian, Georgian	Politics, world, Europe, Transcaucasia, Georgia		Cooperative
S. A. Ryabkov	We, the USA, question, S. A. Ryabkov, security	Politics, politics in the world, world		Neutral
V. I. Churkin	we, I, South, question, V. I. Churkin, Ossetia/Security, UN	Politics, politics in the world, Europe, world		Confrontational

Thus, the linguistic personality of a Russian diplomat in the conditions of the Five-Day War is organized around the key concepts of “we”, “South Ossetia”, “Russia”, “question” at the cognitive-thesaurus level, the dominant lines of discourse at the verbal-grammatical level are becoming “Politics in the world ” and “Participants in the conflict” (Europe), the percentage of evaluative vocabulary is small and averages 6.9%. The emotive words used by each of the seven diplomats are: security, armament, achievement, conflict, peacemaker, breach.

In pragmatic terms, the language personality of a diplomat operates with two types of strategies: cooperative and confrontational. The cooperative strategy is implemented mainly through the tactics of self-presentation and recommendation/incitement to action. The confrontational one is carried out through the tactics of demonstration of force and open accusation. In speech, the cooperative strategy is implemented with the help of a group of "inclusive tactics" - those that can coexist with confrontational tactics. This means that verbal cooperation in its purest form is not characteristic of the conflict discourse of the Russian Foreign Ministry. At the same time, confrontation is realized in speech through the use of "aggressive tactics" of discrediting, exposing and openly blaming.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

discourse diplomatic crisis

1. Issers O. S. Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech. Ed. 5th. / O. S. Issers. - M.: Publishing house LKI, 2008. - 288 S.

2. Jorgensen M., Philips L. Discourse analysis. Theory and method / Per. from English - 2nd ed., corrected. / M. Jorgensen, L. Philips. -Kh.: Publishing House "Humanitarian Center", 2008. - 352 S.

3. Karasik V.I. On types of discourse / V.I. Karasik // Linguistic Personality: Institutional and Personal Discourse: Sat. scientific tr. - Volgograd: Change, 2000 (a). - S. 5-20.

4. Karaulov Yu. N. Russian language and linguistic personality, Ed. 7th. / Yu. N. Karaulov. - M.: Publishing house LKI, 2011. - 264 S.

5. Kozheteva A. S. Linguistic and pragmatic characteristics of diplomatic discourse (based on verbal notes). Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sciences. / A. S. Kozheteva. - Moscow, 2012. - S. 22.

6. Kolbaia V., Khaindrava I., Sarjveladze N., Chomakhidze E., Gegeshidze A. Guarantees for the non-resumption of hostilities: concerns in the context of Georgian-Abkhazian relations / V. Kolbaia, I. Khaindrava, N. Sarjveladze, E. Chomakhidze , A. Gegeshidze. - Tbilisi. Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies, 2009. - P. 95.

7. Koltutskaya I. A. The structure of linguistic personality in the modern anthropocentric paradigm / I. A. Koltutskaya // Bulletin of Dnepropetrovsk University named after Alfred Nobel. Series "Philological Sciences". No. 2 (6). 2013. - S. 294 - 298.

8. Kubryakova E. S. On the concepts of discourse and discursive analysis in modern linguistics. Discourse, speech, speech activity: functional and structural aspects / E. S. Kubryakova // Collection of reviews. Series "Theory and History of Linguistics" RAS. INION. - M., 2000. - S. 5 -13.

9. Kubryakova E. S. Language and knowledge. On the way to gaining knowledge about language: parts of speech from a cognitive point of view. The role of language in the knowledge of the world / E.S. Kubryakova. - M.: Languages ​​of Slavic culture, 2004 .-- (Language. Semiotics. Culture). -- bibliogr. at the end of sections; decree. names: s. 549-559.

10. Kushneruk S. P. Document linguistics. Textbook / S.P. Kushneruk. -- 4th ed., stereotype. - M.: FLINTA: Nauka, 2011. - 256 S.

11. Laskova M. V., Reznikova E. S. Personal pronouns in political discourse. // Bulletin of the Adyghe State University. Series 2: Philology and art history. No. 4. 2011. - S. 1-5.

12. Levonenko O. A. Linguistic personality in electronic hypertext (based on the expressive syntax of the leading electronic genres): Author. diss. for the competition scientist step. candida philol. Sciences. / O. A. Levonenko. - Taganrog. Taganrog State Pedagogical Institute, 2004 - S. 28.

13. Lordkipanidze M., Otkhmezuri G. Status of Abkhazia within Georgia: to the history of the issue. / M. Lordkipanidze M., G. Otkhmezuri // Caucasus and globalization. Journal of Socio-Political and Economic Research. Volume 4. Issue 1-2. 2010 CA&CC Press. Sweden. - S. 205-217.

14. Mikhaleva O. L. Political discourse as a sphere for the implementation of manipulative influence: monograph / O. L. Mikhaleva. - Irkutsk: Irkut. un-t, 2005. - S. 320.

15. Olshansky I. G. Language and linguistic personality in the conditions of the modern social context / I. G. Olshansky, E. E. Anikina, V. G. Borbotko // Uchenye zapiski Rossiiskoi gosudarstvennogo universiteta. No. 1. S. 91-109.

16. Panova M. N. Linguistic personality of a civil servant: discursive practice, typology, formation mechanisms: discursive practice, typology, formation mechanisms: Dis. ... Dr. Philol. Sciences: 10.02.01 / M. N. Panova. - Moscow, 2004. - 393 S. RSL OD, 71:06-10/8.

17. Romanova T. V. The structure of the intentional components of the political discourse of the Nizhny Novgorod region (content and methodology of analysis) // Social variants of the language. - V: Proceedings of the international scientific conference April 19-20, 2007. Nizhny Novgorod: Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University. ON THE. Dobrolyubova, 2007. S. 11-15.

18. Salimova L. M. Theory of linguistic personality: current state and research prospects / L. M. Salimova // Bulletin of the Bashkir University. No. 3(I) / Volume 17 / 2012. - S. 1514 - 1517.

19. Seyranyan M. Yu. Conflict discourse: sociolinguistic and pragmalinguistic aspects: Monograph / M. Yu. Seyranyan. - M.: Prometheus Publishing House, 2012. - 96 p.

20. Tarba K. I. Corporations and the State in the Zones of Armed Conflicts: Interests and Regulatory Mechanisms. Final qualifying work in the direction 030200.68. State University Higher School of Economics / K. I. Tarba. - Moscow, 2013. - S. 107.

21. Takhtarova S. S. Refusal mitigation tactics in German discursive practices / S. S. Takhtarova. Philology and culture. PHILOLOGY AND CULTURE. 2013. No. 3 (33). - S. 133 - 138.

22. Terenty L. M. Interpersonal aspect of diplomatic communication / L. M. Terenty // Bulletin of the Military University. 2010. No. 3 (23) - P. 133-139.

23. Terenty L. M. Specificity of diplomatic discourse as a form of communication / L. M. Terenty // Questions of cognitive linguistics. ? 2010.? N 1.? pp. 47-56.

24. Timina M. V. The experience of using the extended method of intent analysis in the process of training information profile specialists / M. V. Timina // Proceedings of the St. Petersburg State University of Culture and Arts, volume 197 / 2013. 16 - Linguistics. - S. 83-88.

25. Torkunov A. V. Diplomatic service. Textbook / A. V. Torkunov. - M.: "Russian Political Encyclopedia" (ROSSPEN), 2002. - S. 688.

26. Ushakova T. N., Pavlova N. D., Latynov V. V., Tseptsov V. A. Word in action: Intent - analysis of political discourse / T. N. Ushakova, N. D. Pavlova, V. V. , Latynov, V. A. Tseptsov // - St. Petersburg: Aleteyya, 2000. -314, p.

27. Tsyganok A. D. War 08.08.08. Forcing Georgia to peace. Series Military secrets of the XX century / A. D. Tsyganok. - Moscow: Veche, 2011. - S. 285; l. ill., k.s.

28. Chernyavskaya V. E. Discourse of power and the power of discourse: problems of speech influence: textbook / V. E. Chernyavskaya. - M.: Flinta: Nauka, 2006. - S. 136.

"UDK 811.161.1"42 VIRTUAL MANIPULATIVE DISCOURSE: APPROACHES TO RESEARCH Pozhidaeva Irina Valentinovna Senior Lecturer International University of Science and Technology..."

UDC 811.161.1 "42

VIRTUAL MANIPULATIVE DISCOURSE:

RESEARCH APPROACHES

Pozhidaeva Irina Valentinovna

senior teacher

International Scientific and Technical University named after Academician Y. Bugay

Scientific research of the last decade is aimed at studying the influencing and

control functions of the language; manipulation based on linguistic means is increasingly attracting scientists. This article explores the most well-known approaches to the concepts of discourse and manipulation, considers approaches to the category of manipulative discourse, and offers the author's vision of this concept.

Key words: verbal manipulation, manipulative discourse, intentionality, implicitness, language picture of the world.

Statement of the problem and the relevance of the study. Despite the great attention that modern science pays to the study of the categories of manipulation and discourse, there are still enough gaps in this direction of linguistic research. The purpose of our article is to identify the signs of manipulative discourse. Analysis of existing approaches that are significant for defining the concepts of manipulation, discourse, manipulative discourse; identification of the category of manipulative discourse - research objectives.

Analysis of recent achievements and publications. According to many researchers, the concept of manipulation does not have a clear interpretation, today there is no "single and generally accepted definition of manipulation for all sciences or only for linguistics" [Belyaeva 2008, 46], "the vagueness of the term complicates the definition of the essence of the phenomenon" [Koltysheva 2008] .

With the most generalized and reasoned approach, verbal manipulation is considered as a targeted impact on the recipient in order to change his behavior in the interests of the manipulator. As the main characteristics of manipulation, the researchers distinguish the following: "unconsciousness of the object of manipulation carried out on him; the impact not only on the sphere of the conscious (mind), but also on the sphere of the unconscious (instincts, emotions), which is not amenable to arbitrary control; control of the attitude of the object of manipulation to objects and phenomena of the surrounding world in the direction necessary for the manipulator, the achievement by the manipulator of his secret, selfish goals at the expense of the object of manipulation, deliberate distortion of the facts of the surrounding reality (disinformation, selection of information, etc.), the creation of illusions and myths, etc. [Popova 2002, 276]; "negative" intentionality of the addresser; hidden nature of the impact"; "destructive impact on the individual and society as a whole"; destructiveness; unacceptability from an ethical point of view [Belyaeva 2008, 47].

For our study, out of the whole set of existing definitions of discourse, the following are significant: "interactive activity of participants in communication, exchange of information, influencing each other

–  –  –

communication [Dyck 1981]; the impact of the utterance on its recipient, taking into account the situation of the utterance [Serio, 94]; communication event. In this perspective, the discourse appears as a complex cognitive-communicative whole [Minkin 2008, 17] of a process-resulting order [Sheigal 2004, 11], in which "the three main constitutive factors of communication are realized, uniting, interacting and dissolving in each other - the environment ( communicative space), mode (mode) and style of communication" [Prikhodko 2008]. These factors are determined by the conditions, principles, attitudes and goals of the sociocultural situation in which speech communication is carried out. The same constants set and predetermine the types and types of discourses (for example, economic, political, corporate, etc.).

The two most generalized types of discourses - institutional and personal, introduced by V.I. Karasikom correspond to the parameters of this system.

According to the principle of tonality of communication V.I. Karasik distinguishes the following types of discourses: informative, phatic, status, playful, solemn, ideological, fascinative, hypothetical, aggressive, esoteric, manipulative and mentoring [Karasik 2007, 350]. A.N.

Prikhodko gives the following classification of discourses [Prikhodko 2009]:

According to the principle of professional strata (pedagogical, diplomatic, sports, political, economic, legal, medical, etc.);

According to the principle of corporate and subcultural strata (banking, religious, esoteric, sacred, laudative / heroic / revolutionary, partisan, terrorist, criminal);

Discourses of everyday communication (family, children, youth, love);

Discourses of virtual communication (fabulous, computer, forum, chat discourse);

The sociocultural context is dynamically changing, so this classification and list of discourses can be expanded and supplemented.

Presentation of the main material. According to I.V. Belyaeva, manipulative discourse occupies "an intermediate position between two extreme points - between reliable (true, complete) information and lies. Lies and manipulation are opposed different types truths: a lie is opposed to "semantic truth", manipulation is opposed to "pragmatic truth" (in the terminology of Ch. Fillmore) [Belyaeva 2009].

T.M. Golubeva believes that the main criterion that determines the manipulative nature of discourse is "the existence of an intention on the part of the speaker to manifest certain propositions with which the addressee must agree and which would be rejected under normal conditions of information processing. Propositions actualized by manipulative discourse in any respect are incorrect (false, unbelievable, doubtful, do not correspond to common sense) and therefore are updated through hidden strategies that have Studia Linguistica.

The presence of an intentional component in texts of an influencing nature allows us to consider them as an element of "manipulative discourse, designed to convince the addressee of a number of propositions P1 ... Pn of a certain type T, using the appropriate strategies S" . First of all, this refers to propositions about the actual state of things and moral propositions, or propositions about the desired state of things, which are tested not for truth, but for compliance with the social and cultural values ​​of the target audience. Moral propositions are most easily exploited in manipulative discourse, "because reality can be tested, while moral values ​​are incomparably less stable. At the same time, the acceptability of moral propositions actualized by discourse is due to moral culture C, which is a series of assumptions about the desired state of things prevailing in this linguistic culture" [Ibid., 124].

To define the concept of manipulative discourse, we will use the backbone features proposed by O.L. Mikhaleva [Mikhaleva 2009, 33]:

purpose of communication; participants in the conversation; way of communication (selected strategies and tactics). By manipulative discourse, we mean a communicative event, the participants of which are representatives of various social groups (depending on the type of institutional or personal discourses), the pragmatic goal is to create in the mind of the addressee new knowledge beneficial to the addressee, changed value attitudes and a changed linguistic picture of the world that do not coincide with those that the addressee could form on our own. The strategy of manipulative influence is carried out using a variety of multi-level linguistic techniques and techniques, such as a special modality, metaphorization, rhetorical questions, the implementation of the category of friend or foe, etc.

Any discourse can become manipulative if the goal of its creator is the implementation of manipulative influence. In political discourse, "linguistic analysis of even a small excerpt from a politician's speech reveals the presence of a large number of special linguistic means by which the speaker manipulates the minds of the listeners, secretly introducing goals, opinions, attitudes necessary in his struggle for power" [Mikhaleva 2003 , 228].

Speaking about the manipulative discourse of advertising, V.V. Zirka notes the opportunity to “model” people’s minds in accordance with goals and needs, to change centuries-old established habits, social norms and communication traditions” [Zirka 2010, 18]. ) advertising can be recognized almost entirely as a manipulative sphere of language application" [Litunov 2008].

In everyday discourse, there is also the pragmatics of manipulation, which is due to Pozhidaeva I.V.

but by the desire of the communicants to covertly influence each other at the everyday level: (“Go, go, daughter, to the disco! Have fun! And don’t think at all that your mother is dying of a headache”) [Savkin 2005]. Manipulative pragmatics of virtual discourse is aimed at changing the picture of the world of communication participants through a special modality, purposeful transformation of information, reformatting of concepts, etc.

The defining features of virtual manipulative discourse are the following features:

Global coverage of the target audience;

implicitness;

Hierarchical relations "friend - foe"

Aimed at the regulation of value relations in society [Selivanova 2008];

It is characterized by the presence of pragmatic tactics and subjective means of the addresser for targeted effective impact on the addressee;

Dynamic change in strategies, communication parameters, information transmission channels (transition from LiveJournal to Twitter, mobile Internet, etc.) of manipulative discourse;

It is characterized by a pronounced perlocutionary effect based on the addresser's knowledge of the principles of collective behavior (for example, the events in Moscow to incite an ethnic conflict).

Conclusions. So, any discourse can become manipulative if the purpose of its creation is the implementation of manipulative influence. The categorical features of discourse are relevant for manipulative discourse, while any kind of discourse can acquire a manipulative character. An additional feature of manipulative discourse is the special intentionality of the addresser, expressed implicitly by appropriate linguistic means, through purposeful transformation of information, reformatting of concepts, special syntax, etc. Manipulative discourse is characterized by the implementation of the modality and attitudes of the communicant through the prism of various discourses.

Scientific studies of the remaining ten years of directing on the development of operative and cherubal functions of language; manipulation, based on linguistic principles, more and more attaches the respect of the scholars.

In this article, the most important steps are taken to understand the discourse and manipulation, the approaches to the category of manipulative discourse are examined, the author’s understanding of this understanding is suggested.

Key words: verbal manipulation, manipulative discourse, tone, implicitness, picture of the world.

The last scientific studies in the field of language are aimed at effecting and controlling functions. Manipulation based on the linguistic means becomes more and more attractive for the researchers. This article observes the most well-known approaches to discourse; manipulation and manipulation discourse definitions are looked upon; the author also proposes a personal vision of the issue.

Key words: verbal manipulation, manipulative discourse, intentionality, implicitness, linguistic model of the world.

Studio Linguistics. Issue 5/2011

Literature:

1. Belyaeva, I.V. The Phenomenon of Speech Manipulation: Linguistic and Legal Aspects. Monograph.

– Rostov/ND.: SKAGS, 2008. – 243 p.

2. Benveniste E. Dictionary of Indo-European social terms. – M.: Progress-Univers, 1995.

– 456 p. Access mode: http://platonanet.org.ua/load/knigi_po_filosofii.

3. Golubeva T.M. Linguistic manipulation in pre-election discourse (based on American English). Abstract dis... cand. philol. Sciences: 10.02.04 / Nizhny Novgorod. state lingu. unt. – Lower. Novgorod, 2009. - 22 p. Access mode: http://www.prorector.org/rslkatn10.02.04-limit90.html.

Book. house "LIBROKOM", 2010. - 256 p.

5. Koltysheva E.Yu. Manipulative influence in modern advertising text (on the material of English-language glossy magazines for women). Dis. …cand. philol. Sciences: 10.02.19 / Yaroslav.

state ped. un-t im. K.D. Ushinsky. - Yaroslavl, 2008. - 281 p. Access mode: http://www.lib.uaru.net/diss/cont/286879.html.

6. Karasik V.I. language keys. - Volgograd: Paradigm, 2007. - 520 p.

7. Litunov S.N. Speech impact and language manipulation in advertising. Access mode:

http://www.ippnou.ru/article.php?idarticle=003157.

8. Minkin L.R. Linguistic sign in cognitive-discursive interpretation // Nauk. spring. Chernivtsi University: Collection of scientific works. - Vip. 386. Romano-words "Janian discourse. - Chernivtsi: Ruta, 2008. - 140 p.

9. Mikhaleva O.L. Manipulative discourse: specifics of manipulative influence. – M.:

Book house "Librocom", 2009. - 256 p.

10. Mikhaleva O.L. Linguistic ways of manipulating consciousness in political discourse // Actual problems of Russian studies: materials of the international. scientific conf. / resp. ed. T.A. Demeshkin.

- Tomsk: Publishing House of Tomsk University, 2003. - Issue. 2. - Part 2. - S. 225–232

11. Popova E.S. The structure of manipulative influence in the advertising text // Izv. Ural state. university - Ekaterinburg, 2002. - No. 24. - S. 276–288.

12. Prikhodko A.N. Cognitive-communicative typology of discourses. Access mode:

http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/Soc_Gum/Vknlu/fil/2009_1/3.pdf.

13. Savkin A.I. Manipulation must be known by sight. Access mode: www.gazetamim.ru/mirror/psytech.

14. Serio P. On the language of power: a critical analysis // Philosophy of language: within and beyond borders.

- Kharkov: Oko, 1995. - T. 1. - S. 83–100.

15. Selivanova E.A. The principle of discourse-centrism and strategic programs of Ukrainian TV advertising// Language. Text. Discourse: Nauch. almanac Stavr. otd. RALK. Ed. prof. G.N. Manaenko.

Issue 6. - Krasnodar, 2008. - 287 p.

16. Sheigal E.I. Semiotics of political discourse. – M.: Gnosis. – 326 p.

17. Dijk T.A. van. Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. The Hague, 1981; Blakemore D. Understanding Utterances. An Introduction to Pragmatics. Cambridge, 1993. - 342 rubles.

18. De Saussure L. & Peter Schulz (Eds). Manipulation and Cognitive Pragmatics: Preliminary Hypotheses. // Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind. Amsterdam–

Similar works:

"1 1. The goals of mastering the discipline The purpose of mastering the discipline: T1 preparation of graduates for project activities in the field of creating machines and equipment for the mining and processing industry on the platform of solid minerals in accordance with terms of reference and using design automation tools.2. Place of discipline...»

“UDK330 E.I. Kozhevnikova, Shadrinsk Evolution of views on the transaction costs of the company In the scientific community, the operational framework for the use of transaction costs has not been sufficiently developed, and among practitioners there has not yet been a clear understanding of the nature of transaction costs and methods ...”

«Industrial [Air] Boiler Plants Product Overview [Water] [Earth] [Buderus] Need industrial equipment? Contact us! Buderus is one of the largest brands of heating equipment in the world. We have experience in this industry since 1731. FROM..."

"Engineering and geodetic surveys Lecture 1 Plan 1. Stages of geodetic work during the construction of structures 2. Types of technical surveys 3. Surveys for linear structures 4. Surveys of areal structures 5. Engineering and topographic classification of the area 6. Large-scale surveys ..." ENTERPRISES In progress economic activity of practice ... "V. I. ZDRAVOMYSLOV 3. E. ANISIMOVA SS LIBIKH FUNCTIONAL FEMALE SEXOPATHOLOGY PERM 1994 57.12 3-46 MAIN EDITION OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL LITERATURE .Function...»

2017 www.site - "Free electronic library - various materials"

The materials of this site are posted for review, all rights belong to their authors.
If you do not agree that your material is posted on this site, please write to us, we will remove it within 1-2 business days.